Socialism.. does anyone have a clue.

BTW, the stimulus packages were first planned and presented by Bush. Obama has added to them. All western governments, and just about any semi industrialized country is also following suit.
Most of the time, it is really nothing more than to appear to be doing something. And most of it is nothing more than pork barreling. A little for you , a little here, a little there (if a billion is a little).
For it to be "investing" in the future would mean to leave the bailed out to their fates, instead of greasing the invisible hand of the market. It would mean studying countries like Denmark who have almost eliminated any reliance on foreign fuels, and even oil, for that matter. Or countries like Germany who charge companies for  the costs of recycling all goods sold in their country. Thereby shifting the true cost to the producer, not the taxpayer. The consumer now pays for what he buys, without his neighbour subsidizing less environmentally friendly choices.
Or looking into T Boone Pickens proposal for a massive wind energy project stretching through the American Mid West down to the gulf of Mexico. Or finally setting up a Universal Health Care program that will eliminate that cost from American companies trying to compete with other countries that  don't offer that to their workers. Not to mention the economic benefit gained by improving the health of your entire available workforce.
How about a massive one-time injection of funds in to the basic education system - elementary & high schools. Teachers, tutors, special education services. A bigger social service to actually help those who want to get off welfare or a never ending chain of dead end low paying jobs. Not to just kick them outto cut them off, but to prepare them to better contribute to the country they live in.
How about injecting massive funds into crime fighting. No, not the drug war. That, frankly, is something that the U.S. should really take time to hear about the solutions that will work better than incarcerating more & more people withtout denting the rate of crime.
No, I mean more police, more detectives, more ressources given to fight internet fraud & crime. More ressources to battle organized crime. More ressources to educate the young about drugs, including the deadliest ones - alcohol & tobacco. More ressources to intervene before a kid gives up, and figures he or she has nothing to lose, or nowhere to go.
This ,rather than mandatory minimums, longer sentences, basically anything and everything that doesn't actually force hard fiscal decisions on those "leaders" too scared to have to make choices about how they spend their constituents tax money.

Spend money on research. Pure research. Any discoveries to be patented or licensed, with any revenue coming back to the governement.

There's tons of beneficial spending. But most of what the citizenry demands is to serve their own special interests. "Save my job" ! GM can't fail, that'll put hundreds of thousands out of work". Yet, how many people  have lost or will lose their jobs in small & medium businesses ? Any bailouts for them ?

debrewguy wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: debrewguy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. And when the majority of voters either don't vote or aren't intelligent enough to make an informed decision, then what? Then - Bush. But Obama's win has been , in part, based on his ability to get "new" voters out. The marginalized. The poor. The minorities. And it didn't hurt to have that regular political occurrence - "let's try the other side" .

Too bad the "marginalized, poor, and minorities" aren't generally well-educated in this country. And he got them out to vote because they heard him say stuff like "affordable health care for all" and took it to mean "the government is going to give me free stuff". Trusting people who are ill-informed will only lead to mob rule, something the Founding Fathers seem to have understood.

The elections in 2000 and 2004 were a pick between "the lesser of two evils" (although I think 2008 was too). I think the lesser evil won in 2000 and 2004, but not in last year's election.

*Awaits thrown stones*


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - March 29 2009 at 21:09

rushfan4 wrote: And the two previous elections were decided because "God wants me to be president".  Not too educated a choice on that side either.

True. But then again, how many U.S. presidents haven't used that line? And we tend not to elect people who aren't clearly and obviously Christian. Although Obama is one of the few exceptions I think.


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - March 29 2009 at 21:13

Unfortunately going back 4000 years, almost all leaders have used that line.

George W. Bush is a concept I cannot reconcile with "lesser of two evils." I couldn't even feel good begrudgingly calling him the lesser of two evils compared to Stalin.

^ Not to rock the bushwhacking boat but no other President had any situation to deal with like 9/11. It was the general consensus of the electorate to trade freedom for government imposed policing. (notice I didn't say safety) and Bush/Cheney/Rove were only too happy to comply.  

Garion81 wrote: ^ Not to rock the bushwhacking boat but no other President had any situation to deal with like 9/11. It was the general consensus of the electorate to trade freedom for government imposed policing. (notice I didn't say safety) and Bush/Cheney/Rove were only too happy to comply.

amen to that..  Only too happy to comply hhaha...   it was the political opening a lifetime to advance political goals with no opposition.. I mean... those that oppose... easily labeled as unpatrotic or worse... sympathizers.

Garion81 wrote: ^ To be fair Micky they treated it as if we were at war although instead of the benevolent country of FDR in WW2 when we aided the world in the overthrow of violent dictator they chose the Nazi Germany tactics of invading other countries with flimsy excuses.  I am not altogether sold on the fact that Bush was behind many of these policies and I do believe he was just the front.  Karl Rove continues to defy the government by not appearing to a congressional hearing in which he was subpoenaed.  Cheney, Rove and Rumsfield could be the most sinister of all of what happened the US and in Iraq.  I still think GB niavely feels he was working in the best interest of the country.

you know...  I agree completely with you Brian...   Iraq is a great example of that.

when we invaded Kuwait and drove Iraq out... the question was asked.. why didn't we go all the way to Baghdad and eliminate the problem at it's source. 

easy...  Bush classic had great advisers who knew their history and knew what would happen if he was removed ..

fast forward a decade...  where Bush classic had advisers of intellect and integrity... what Bush surrounded himself with were political ideologues.. who then pushed him to a colossal waste of blood, money and time in CLEAR ignorance of the history and traditions of that region.

Is Bush Light the 2nd coming of Satan in my eyes.. no he isn't... but what he was was the worse example of a man being over his head we have seen in a President in my memory at least...and suspect history will judge him harsher than I do.

hahhahah... I found it on  the myspace page of some hippy I eval'd for Xover  this morning.. had no idea it would draw me back into Bush-bashing hahhaha.  

Edited by micky - March 30 2009 at 11:54