Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Obama Presidency
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedObama Presidency
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:59
Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:19
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.



So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? LOL  I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy. Wink

 
OT: Is it really that you don't understand what it says or just playing your favorite game again?
 
The plan is BOTH too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs. So have it changed to either be cheaper, or create enough jobs, or be cheaper AND create enough jobs. Any better? Now will you accuse me of insulting you with playing dirty?
 
Back to the subject: All this partisan crap is business as usual.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

I won't reprint the whole thing:

Quote

On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in a year’s time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas.

While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution.

In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantánamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration’s “war on terror.”....

The more that things change, the more they stay the same?

It certainly was a PR move and not the best one
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?
 
It's a plausible scenario, but there is another path to riches. If we can't sell our debt, we can simply print dollars for our internal consumption. Ultimately it would delute the existing money pool to such a degree that the dollar holdings of our creditors would be reduced to a virtual zero. It would harm us too but if the common wisdom says we have to stimulate spending thru deficits, new money should be created. i don't think the chinese would opt for destabilizing the entire world by refusing to finance our lifestyle.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 17:44
Well if it doesn't create enough jobs, how can making it cheaper improve the amount of jobs it will create?   Now if you get into the details, of course you could argue that it isn't structured properly. 

I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:34
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 18:37
We need to get back to our roots of being a nation that produces instead of a nation that consumes. Borrowing money to give tax breaks is not going to help the USA if we are buying foreign made products. 
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:11
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL
Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:16
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace


I think the answer is never.  Wink
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 23:25
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?
 
It's a plausible scenario, but there is another path to riches. If we can't sell our debt, we can simply print dollars for our internal consumption. Ultimately it would delute the existing money pool to such a degree that the dollar holdings of our creditors would be reduced to a virtual zero. It would harm us too but if the common wisdom says we have to stimulate spending thru deficits, new money should be created. i don't think the chinese would opt for destabilizing the entire world by refusing to finance our lifestyle.
Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 06:58
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL
Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace


That's cool.  When it comes to political discussions, it might help to know that I'm a big fan of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, also Keith Olbermann, who I was doing a little imitation of.  He does these special commentaries that are usually oozing with contempt and he does address those the redresses with "sir". 

I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

See there, NaturalScience, I actually can be serious, or was I, sir? Tongue




Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:35
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:35
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P
Got you, thanks
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:43
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here tooTongueTongueTongue
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2009 at 08:19
Quote
Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Ethics Pledge.  Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1.  Lobbyist Gift Ban.  I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

"2.  Revolving Door Ban    All Appointees Entering Government.  I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3.  Revolving Door Ban    Lobbyists Entering Government.  If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a)  participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment; 
 
 
 
All this Ethics Commitments crap is  fine and dandy but why only for 2 years? I guess they've made enough money to last for 2 years, thereafter all bets are off. Wonder if they lobbied Obama to make it 2 years instead of, say, 3 or 2.5. Note that the ban on gifts should last for "the duration of my service as an appointee." Who needs these paltry handouts? The real money will be made when we pass the damn 2-year term.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2009 at 12:34
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here tooTongueTongueTongue

Well then, sir, I do actually share your disgust. Big smile Dead
Wait a second, 15 years only takes us back to, '94, mine goes back much further...


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:34
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 28 2009 at 17:16
Why hasn't Obama fixed everything yet!
He's had like a week now!

I say we impeach him
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 28 2009 at 17:33
Crmlu090117
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 04 2009 at 13:17
Another superficial PR
 
 
AP - President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure."
 

 
I surely agree that no one should be rewarded for failure. Furthermore, I believe they should be thrown out because of their failure. That would effectively put a $0 cap on their pay. Now if you leave those executives where they are and pay them 20 to 40 times less (on average) how do you expect them to perform? And if you try to find a replacement, a real sharp guy to run a Citibank-type operation, he must be a real enthusiast to take a pay which may be potentially less than that of some of his employees.
 
Nice try. 
Back to Top
Vibrationbaby View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 04 2009 at 14:23
Great big freaking mistake letting those terrorists go in one year. Not many military people happy about that one. And six of the insects want asylum in Canada. As far as I`m concerned as a former Canadian military man they are not welcome in my country.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 04 2009 at 14:43
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR
 
 
AP - President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure."
 

 
I surely agree that no one should be rewarded for failure. Furthermore, I believe they should be thrown out because of their failure. That would effectively put a $0 cap on their pay. Now if you leave those executives where they are and pay them 20 to 40 times less (on average) how do you expect them to perform? And if you try to find a replacement, a real sharp guy to run a Citibank-type operation, he must be a real enthusiast to take a pay which may be potentially less than that of some of his employees.
 
Nice try. 


Here's the thing, all the lavish pay and bonuses are being justified saying that they need to attract and retain the best.  Where the hell else are these guys going to go?  Executives overseas get paid much less.  Time to consider offering them those jobs.  And why aren't these guys getting tossed out for their failures?  I expect them to perform as well as everyone else lower down on the economic ladder who are seeing their wages and benefits slashed.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 04 2009 at 14:45
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Vibrationbaby View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 04 2009 at 15:59
Harsher penalties for white collar crime. Conrad Black six years? I would have locked him up for life thrown away the key and fed him bread and water. Except on Christmas I`d be a nice compassionate guy and put butter on the bread and flavour crytals in the water. Seriously though, I agree with you there Mr. Slartibartfast.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.104 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.