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

Topic ClosedPolitical discussion thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3536373839 303>
Author
Message
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 19:31
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Was Obama Raised Muslim?

Consider the evidence:

As Barack Obama's candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity. If he lied maybe. Religion doesn't tell us anything else about a person but that he/she believes in things he/she can't prove... I agree but why should he conceal his background? I don't care what religion he subcribes to but by not being forthcoming about it only makes me suspicious of him. IF he's doing it, well... he's a politician. And tries to win the white house to make some good. What would republicans say if Obama said "I was a muslim?"..... If nowadays, with just a senseless rumor, they use it against him, imagine if he actually said he was one at a point in his life.

Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam."  Ok. His word against that of his detractors. Let's see...

In February, he claimed, "I have never been a Muslim.... other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion." he had contact... i was raised in a Catholic country and I'm an Atheist.... Damn! Or am I lying about which fairy tale story I believe in? Well did you ever attend church or practice a form a Christianity and then convert to Atheism? If you did would you deny ever doing so if running for President? Maybe, if that country was a ferocious anti-catholic country....or if catholics have killed about 3000 people in an attack...

"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim. I quote you: "Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation... except, of course, when it's your political rival. I have to agree both sides of a political campaign will try and smear each other. Unfortunately, that is the nature of politics.

• Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.  NO. Religion doesn't pass from father to child. IT'S NOT A GENE. A free person can CHOOSE. I can't belive that people have the nerve of saying things like "that's a catholic boy" or "she's a good christian girl" or "my 5 year old is a great muslim"... Why are we labeling children that don't yet have the reasoning capacity to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES? So it's perfectly believable that Obama, a muslim son, was not a muslim. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Clap 

• Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims." Damn! I should be a catholic! My whole family (except for my nuclear family, father,mother, sister, who CHOSE their individual paths) was catholic! Label me! Poor evidence. It comes down to Obama's denial of ever practicing Islam which recent investigations have revealed that in fact he did. I'm not here to label you but would you deny ever practicing Catholicism if in fact you had done so because your family initially exposed you to that religion? the same thing. He could have practiced a religion because of his background, but maybe he wasn't religious himself. To use my case, I have been to Mass about 10 times in my life... when i was a kid they took me to like 3 masses... do you think I believed in the fairy tale THEN any more than I believe  now? And if I did, remember, I WAS A CHILD. Children believe in mighty blankets or the monster in the closet.

• Obama's Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." If it was a "catholic school", I'm pretty sure it was standard to label children, therefore they had to label little Obama as his parents. Remember: FROM FIRST TO THIRD GRADE A CHILD'S MIND IS NOT READY TO CHOOSE BY HIMSELF.... Or maybe he was a prodigious child who enrolled himself... and maybe even paid himself... Agreed, a child is not capable of making that type of decision regarding a belief system at that age but that's also no reason to deny ever practicing different beliefs.

• The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended."Did you read that? Registered BY HIS FAMILY. HE WAS A CHILD.  Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." DID HE ENROLLED HIMSELF? OR MAYBE HIS PARENTS ENROLLED HIM? Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim. There's still not ONE single piece of evidence that shows that Obama HIMSELF ever was a muslim. Only registrations made by HIS MUSLIM PARENTS. Why would his parents enroll him as a muslim if they weren't practicing that religion as a family?For sure they were practising, none denies that. But that doesn't mean Obama was a muslim. He was a child whose parents tried to raise muslim. They failed.

• Barack Obama's public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent." Of course. We're talking about a boy, a child. he makes faces as any other child or even teenager. And of course he knew the Q'uoran.. After all, he was probably forced to learn it by his MUSLIM PARENTS.  That is most likely the case.

• Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims). How old was Obama here? Was he at least 18 years old so that we can fully trust it was his own free will that made him to there? Or, even if he did, that it was his concious decision after the kind of analysis only an adult mind can do?

Well you better tell the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times they have their facts all wrong too. No... they have their facts right... the problem is, the facts don't prove anything.
 
I really don't care what religion Obama is. I do not for a minute think that he would undermine the country over a religious belief. The background check done by the Clinton campaign did bring his muslim ubringing to light.
 
So why do you even mention this? To show his "lack of integrity" for having said he never was muslim
when maybe he "was" as a child? First. if he changed his religion, isn't he free to do it? Second, A CHILD CAN'T BE "ANYTHING". NOR CATHOLIC, CHRISTIAN, ATHEIST, SATANIST, MUSLIM, NOTHING. A child is.. a child. A child can't make that kind of heavy judgment yet. It's only society that allows the violence against children rights of labeling them with what their parents believe. So if your parents believe in the Mighty Apple and Lord Carrot, would you have been an "applecarroteist" when you were, say, 10 years old? If you're a christian, a catholic, a, atheist, whatever, is because you made that choice when you COULD. (not that believeing in apples or carrots is any less possible than the other beliefs....)
 
So here we have no evidence. Not at all. Please discuss politics, economics, policies... maybe you even have a point in those.... what people believe in their minds should remain there, and nowhere else....
 
The evidence does show that Obama was brought up muslim, he attended mosque, studied the Koran, was enrolled in school as a muslim and his own family members claim their entire family was muslim.Yes, the evidence shos, as you say, that "Obama was brought up a muslim". Please, take a look at the verb. It's not Obama doing the action, it's somebody else. His family. He studied the Q'ran as part of his familiy duties (as much a family duty as probably wash the dishes or do the homework), was enrolled in a muslim school by muslim parents. Their family claims all of them were muslims. But Obama is not his family. Maybe he never believed in the fairy tale. Let me use my case again. Even as a child, I never, NEVER considered myself a catholic, in part because as a child I couldn't even understand the concept of religion well, but also because I never really got the ridiculous ideas in that faith. I went through three sacraments, baptism, first communion, confirmation. Those three ceremonies (well, in the first one I was 0 years old so that really doesn't qualify) I had to perform. And I never, for a minute, believed any of the useless #$%$ that I had to do or that the ritual was supposed to be about.
 
But I had a very catholic grandmother who was old-fashioned and very, very good and nice person. Even when i was old enough, I never told her "I'm an atheist. All you believe in is for me as believable as the Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires". What was the point? Did she NEED TO KNOW? DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE THINK IN THEIR MINDS? WHY DOES THE PRESS WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT RELIGION???  
 
Obama has been a Christian for at least 20 years but the question remains, why deny his muslim upbringing even if it were forced upon him as a child?As I said, we haven't proven he was a muslim himself. if he denies that his family was muslim, well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, in right-wing crazy-evangelist red America, saying you're a muslim could be the end of it. Hell, saying your best friend's uncle's brother's secretary's plumber's sister's dog' owner's girlfriend is a muslim could mean defeat for that matter.
  
I don't know about the rest of you but my vote isn't going to what religion Obama or McCain subscribe to but to where they stand on issues and which one I trust more in what they say. You brought this religion thing here. I agree with talking about real issues. Fantastic stories belong someplace else, not in politics.
 
i'm happy to replied in a corteous manner. Sorry for my constant CAPS. i just need some emphasis sometimes. Smile
 
 
Back to Top
Relayer09 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2008 at 20:17
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
The evidence does show that Obama was brought up muslim, he attended mosque, studied the Koran, was enrolled in school as a muslim and his own family members claim their entire family was muslim.Yes, the evidence shos, as you say, that "Obama was brought up a muslim". Please, take a look at the verb. It's not Obama doing the action, it's somebody else. His family. He studied the Q'ran as part of his familiy duties (as much a family duty as probably wash the dishes or do the homework), was enrolled in a muslim school by muslim parents. Their family claims all of them were muslims. But Obama is not his family. Maybe he never believed in the fairy tale. Let me use my case again. Even as a child, I never, NEVER considered myself a catholic, in part because as a child I couldn't even understand the concept of religion well, but also because I never really got the ridiculous ideas in that faith. I went through three sacraments, baptism, first communion, confirmation. Those three ceremonies (well, in the first one I was 0 years old so that really doesn't qualify) I had to perform. And I never, for a minute, believed any of the useless #$%$ that I had to do or that the ritual was supposed to be about.
 
But I had a very catholic grandmother who was old-fashioned and very, very good and nice person. Even when i was old enough, I never told her "I'm an atheist. All you believe in is for me as believable as the Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires". What was the point? Did she NEED TO KNOW? DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE THINK IN THEIR MINDS? WHY DOES THE PRESS WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT RELIGION???  What people believe can be a huge motivating factor in how they vote on issues. Issues like abortion and gay marriage for example are entrenched in religious belief so someone's belief system is relevant.
 
Obama has been a Christian for at least 20 years but the question remains, why deny his muslim upbringing even if it were forced upon him as a child?As I said, we haven't proven he was a muslim himself. if he denies that his family was muslim, well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, in right-wing crazy-evangelist red America, saying you're a muslim could be the end of it. Hell, saying your best friend's uncle's brother's secretary's plumber's sister's dog' owner's girlfriend is a muslim could mean defeat for that matter. Aha! you said it! I was wondering how long it would take someone to actually say what the real issue is. Being viewed as being raised muslim while running for president in this age of radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda could result in political disaster. Do I think Senator Obama would be sympathetic to such groups? Absolutely not. I would however like him to be more forthcoming about this aspect of his life. Being a muslim does not automatically make someone a terrorist.
 
  
I don't know about the rest of you but my vote isn't going to what religion Obama or McCain subscribe to but to where they stand on issues and which one I trust more in what they say. You brought this religion thing here. I agree with talking about real issues. Fantastic stories belong someplace else, not in politics. Actually, I didn't bring the religion thing up. I did however respond to another poster.
 
i'm happy to replied in a corteous manner. Sorry for my constant CAPS. i just need some emphasis sometimes. Smile
 
 I appreciate being able to have a mature discussion with you. People having differing points of view and showing tolerance towards each other is very healthy. It also shows maturity and respect for both parties involved.
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
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: June 22 2008 at 22:57
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:



OK that was from 2004, things did get a little better in the past few years:


Job-destroying Democrats in action
That's much closer to the truth, but why this sarcasm about Job-destroying Democrats? Clinton created 20M jobs thru a bubble economy. No bubble can stand. It burst in 2000 when the stock market collapsed. Bush inherited the deflating bubble and that's the reason for the job losses during his first term. THe same happened with his father. Reagan created a bubble, and Bush Sr. had to deal with the recession. Was Reagan a job-creating Republican and Bush a job-destroying 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: June 22 2008 at 23:35
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

OK

a.)  this country's entitlement programs are going to bankrupt us.
b.)  neither candidate nor party has any interest in solving this problem

therefore, at least this election is not very relevant.
Using this criteria for the past 20 years no election was very relevant.
 
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


but by all means, think gay marriage or other non-issues are so critical as to influence your decision.
  ???


I was a bit tipsy when I wrote this, but things are not relevant for me because I fear fiscal conservatism is officially dead.  Some tough choices are going to have to be made, but no one wants to make them now because the government waits until a problem is a crisis in order to act.  Witness current energy problems where I don't see any real short term solution.
Fiscal conservatism is dead since the times oof FDR. For the past 70+ years debt is cancelled thru inflation  and the dollar is disintegrating. It really accelerated since the Vietnam war and had an extra boost under Reagan and Clinton. "The tough choices" would result in misery of such proportions that no politician will ever even think of making them. They try to avoid a complete disaster by inflating even more. Probably it's the only way out.
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: June 23 2008 at 09:31
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Probably it's the only way out.


It's not.  Absolutely unsustainable.  Sometime during my lifetime the sh*t will hit the fan, I predict.
Back to Top
Relayer09 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2008 at 09:46
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:



OK that was from 2004, things did get a little better in the past few years:


Job-destroying Democrats in action
That's much closer to the truth, but why this sarcasm about Job-destroying Democrats? Clinton created 20M jobs thru a bubble economy. No bubble can stand. It burst in 2000 when the stock market collapsed. Bush inherited the deflating bubble and that's the reason for the job losses during his first term. THe same happened with his father. Reagan created a bubble, and Bush Sr. had to deal with the recession. Was Reagan a job-creating Republican and Bush a job-destroying one?
 
Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still.
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2008 at 10:01
Fiscal conservatism isn't quite dead. The problem, mostly, are politicians claiming that banner. The ones who cut taxes, and when there a budget shortfall, turn around and say they have no choice but to cut programs. This wouldn't be so bad, except that the cuts mostly fall on those in society least able to take them. Extravagant social programs have proven to be ineffective in solving many of our ills. But to lump all of them together is wrong.
As a christian, the idea that the best thing you can do if you love your fellow man is to let him sink or swim on his own, well ... show me where Jesus said that. I'm not talking about income redistribution. I mean things like basic health care. Sounds like that evil "socialized medicine" ? Well, do you think that paying HMOs cost less than a single user pay system ? Would you be happy to pay half of your current health benefits cost in taxes instead for much of the same results ? Is it really socialism to want to offer all children equal access to quality education ? Wouldn't you want ALL your adult citizens to be able to fully contribute to enriching your country ? As for welfare programs, abuse surely occurs. Is there anyone out there who thinks that when you hand out over 60 billion dollars annually to profitable corporations, that you're really creating lasting jobs and investments ? If it is supposed to support research, couldn't the government do the work as it does in many fields ? And then collect the monetary rewards from the ensuing patents . If someone could show you that income support program, o.k. , social assistance, welfare if you want , is actually cheaper than the cost of housing an inmate for a year, would that interest you ? If, over the long term, if it could even lower the crime rate, would that be a worthy goal ?
Somehow, the 10 percent of failures never cedes headline space with the 90 percent if successes. We read of schools where spectacular results are obtained where hope had long ago disappeared. We see caring dedicated teachers giving much needed attention and guidance to youth once thought lost. Then we expect the whole public education system to deliver the same despite the fact that too many schools are too big, too underfunded, too overcharged with too few teachers just trying to push through students to the next grade or pass a "standard" test to take time to actually educate the child. If our kids are so important, if they are the building blocks of our future, why do we look at it as a cost  & not an investment ? Why wait until that young boy is a teenage hoodlum or young adult criminal ? Do you really prefer to spend $100,000 a year in keeping them in a prison, or half that to properly educate him, and keep them in school until graduation ?

No one likes taxes. But there is surely an acceptable level where a citizen knows that the trade-off between cost & benefit is worth it.

And for those of you who love to harp on the idea that the government wastes tax money, what examples do you bring up ? Do you mention things like Homeland Security where each little corner should expect to get an equal share of the budget per-capita wise ? Is the security risk really the same in Iowa or Ohio as it is at the port of New York, or La Guardia ? IF this is such a priority, don't you want your tax dollars spent where they are most needed, and not where the votes are to be bought ? Do you bring up the fact that no matter how strong the American military is, that there is never a politician or military head to say that their budgetary allowances are more than enough ? Do you ever mention the fact that cutting minimum wage levels, stripping away labour standards, that these eventually lower most middle class incomes in a race to the bottom ? Do you ask your leaders why trade deals cannot include employment standards that match those in your country ? Wouldn't this level the playing field ? Wouldn't this work better at staunching the flow of jobs overseas than your local,state or federal representative crying out about unfair competition, only to do nothing ?

Sometimes, the ruling class love nothing better than their voters busying themselves with what amounts to petty distractions. This is useful in keeping their electorate busy with opinions that , in the long run, do more harm than good to the majority that make up the middle class. The rich and powerful can look after themselves. Those who have earned their wealth deserve to enjoy its' benefits. They should also feel grateful in being able to give their fair share to the community. Not through exhorbitant taxes, but their rates should be higher. Those at the bottom of the income scale surely need to accept responsibility for their advancement. But they surely need something more than cheering on, finger pointing, or blaming if they are to get to a point where they can also contribute their share to the common good. And for the rest in the middle, think about this - if tomorrow, due to a stroke of bad luck, you become one of those mired in poverty, will you accept that it is your fault ? Would you still feel the same if you stayed poor despite all your efforts ? That is a reality for most. Poverty is rarely due to laziness. Check it out. You should be able to find hard working people who will never get ahead because they just are not given the chance. And if per chance, you strike it rich ? Is it really that big a deal if on an income of one million dollars, that you pay 150 000 in taxes after all deductions ? Would you rather pay 10 000 on an elaborate security system, year after year, than have that spent on hiring more police on the streets, and more teachers to teach ?  Do you know that you do have options to choose from that aren't being given you ?

It's really not that hard. You're worried about rampant, ever escalating spending on so-called entitlements ? Have you ever thought to tell your politicians that you want measurable results, based on clear goals ? Is it possible that said politicians be told that failure should mean that the head of the department or service in question is out of a job ? Even if it means dismissing a major financial or political supporter (FEMA , anyone) ?
The problem is usually not one of the program, but the lack of accountability. And the ones that the voter can ultimately hold responsible are the politicians. And yes, that means that 137 year old congressman or senator who's been there for a thousand years. They should have enough power to effect real changes, and to demand real results. And if they don't or can't, show 'em the door. Once a dozen or so see the writing on the wall, the rest won't rest so easy on their asses, I mean incumbencies. You can measure tax cuts pretty easily. You can't measure their effects that easy ...
(to be continued)


Edited by debrewguy - June 23 2008 at 10:14
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
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: June 23 2008 at 19:11
You know what I love?  The notion that cutting taxes raises revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Cut taxes to zero.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in?

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:



OK that was from 2004, things did get a little better in the past few years:


Job-destroying Democrats in action
That's much closer to the truth, but why this sarcasm about Job-destroying Democrats? Clinton created 20M jobs thru a bubble economy. No bubble can stand. It burst in 2000 when the stock market collapsed. Bush inherited the deflating bubble and that's the reason for the job losses during his first term. THe same happened with his father. Reagan created a bubble, and Bush Sr. had to deal with the recession. Was Reagan a job-creating Republican and Bush a job-destroying one?
 
Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still.

[QUOTE=Relayer09][QUOTE=IVNORD][QUOTE=Slartibartfast]

Well, if you can believe that chart is accurate you'll notice a few things:
1. The bubble appears to have conveniently burst two months post inauguration.
2. 9/11 occurred about six months after the graph line started heading south.
3. NAFTA was passed shortly in Clinton's term but didn't seem to be a drag on job growth at all, so it may have waited until a couple of months after Bush took office, too.

Other interesting things in the longer term chart:
1. Harding had the best rate of all and he was a Republican.  Might just be a fluke as statistics were just starting to be collected.  Hoover set the negative record, of course we are talking the depression.
2. If you updated the first chart based on the second, I think Bush winds up with a small plus.
3. I was surprised to see Carter's record better than Clinton's.
4. Still on average, Democrats have better rates than Republicans.



Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2008 at 07:51
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: June 23 2008 at 23:15
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Probably it's the only way out.


It's not.  Absolutely unsustainable.  Sometime during my lifetime the sh*t will hit the fan, I predict.
You think it's unsustainable? Similar events took place in the 70's. The Fed seemed to be a bit more responsible at the time, they fought inflation tooth and nail. Inflation won, we devalued the dollar, adjusted to the new prices, and went on. The situation is quite different today. They are afraid of a recession as it may easily turn into something more ominous. So to soothe the pain they try to keep the economy afloat by pumping liquidity into the system to the point of super-saturation when people pay $140 for a barrel of oil and think it's cheap. If we avoid severe recession, the economy may turn around in its natural cycle. Then we devalue the dollar and get used to $5-dollar gasoline. In the process the middle class will be devastated by the falling purchasing power of their savings (especially the babyboomers) but who cares? This is a positive scenario. The negative one is simple - we have Weimar-republic-type hyper-inflation and super-depression. But the jury is still out.
 
As for your prediction, you have to define the sh*t and the fan. Otherwise it's too wide of a definition.
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: June 23 2008 at 23:31
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

 
Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still.
The merits and drawbacks of NAFTA are debatable. Blaming the loss of manufacturing jobs on NAFTA alone is naive. Migration of obsolete labor intensive industries to cheaper labor markets is as old a process as capitalism itself. And in modern times older technologies have been going to third world countries for about 100 years. Look at steel and textile industries, engineering and data processing. Obama's anti-NAFTA stand is protectionist in nature. He singled out the most visible trade agreement as the only culprit which may be very popular in Ohio. It's politically smart, but economically silly.
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: June 23 2008 at 23:51
You touch on too many subjects in one post. Take just two quotes
 
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

  Would you be happy to pay half of your current health benefits cost in taxes instead for much of the same results ?
It implies that a huge government bureaucracy should be created to handle this.
 
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

 
The problem is usually not one of the program, but the lack of accountability.
This is how it would work.
 
We all would be happy to live in an ideal world.
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: June 24 2008 at 00:26
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

You know what I love?  The notion that cutting taxes raises revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Cut taxes to zero.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in?

This is a sophism. You know that no one will cut taxes to zero. If you reduce taxes significantly, it adds liquidity to the economy thus making it more vibrant and resulting in more revenues on a larger taxation base. The tax reduction must be widespread to make an impact. These $600 handouts are bobkes if that's what mean. And if you doubt that excess liquidity can produce record tax revenues, look at Clinton .


Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


Well, if you can believe that chart is accurate you'll notice a few things:
1. The bubble appears to have conveniently burst two months post inauguration.
The bubble burst in April-May 2000.
 
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


2. 9/11 occurred about six months after the graph line started heading south.
 

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

 Series Catalog:

Series ID : CEU0000000001

Not Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector : Total nonfarm
Industry : Total nonfarm
NAICS Code : N/A
Data Type : ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Data:

Year

Ann

1990

109487

1991

108375

1992

108726

1993

110844

1994

114291

1995

117298

1996

119708

1997

122776

1998

125930

1999

128993

2000

131785

2001

131826

2002

130341

2003

129999

2004

131435

2005

133703

2006

136086

2007

137623

2008

 

In 1994 we had the best job growth under Clinton. Notably he didn't do much in 1994. The growth rate began slowing down after 1999. Now lets take a closer look what jobs were created.

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Catalog:

Series ID : CEU3000000001

Not Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector : Manufacturing
Industry : Manufacturing
NAICS Code : N/A
Data Type : ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Data:

 

Year

Ann

1990

17695

1991

17068

1992

16799

1993

16774

1994

17020

1995

17241

1996

17237

1997

17419

1998

17560

1999

17322

2000

17263

2001

16441

2002

15259

2003

14510

2004

14315

2005

14226

2006

14155

2007

13884

2008

 

 
Anemic growth of manufacturing jobs until 1998 and losses thereafter. Of course, the booming industries were all on Wall Street. We were getting new stock brokers, accountants to create those record tax revenues. A first rate bubble economy.
 
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


3. NAFTA was passed shortly in Clinton's term but didn't seem to be a drag on job growth at all, so it may have waited until a couple of months after Bush took office, too.
  See the two tables above.

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: June 24 2008 at 00:38
Now look, if you're going to have to present your information in rambling seemingly uncorrelationally irrelevant sets of numbers in red, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore you. LOL

Put the things in freakin' chart or graph form for crying out loud. Tongue

By the way IVNORD, I seriously hope you're having as much fun as I am. Big%20smile

My first interest in politics came with watching the McLaughlin Group on public TV, which oddly enough I tuned in to because I confused it with the much better John McLaughlin.  (Long time ago, very very young)


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2008 at 00:45
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 24 2008 at 00:45
My vote for president:

Hello Kitty

f**k I'm cynical. Go to hell, anyone I've ever seen on television.
Back to Top
Relayer09 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 24 2008 at 01:17
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

 
Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still.
The merits and drawbacks of NAFTA are debatable. Blaming the loss of manufacturing jobs on NAFTA alone is naive. Migration of obsolete labor intensive industries to cheaper labor markets is as old a process as capitalism itself. And in modern times older technologies have been going to third world countries for about 100 years. Look at steel and textile industries, engineering and data processing. Obama's anti-NAFTA stand is protectionist in nature. He singled out the most visible trade agreement as the only culprit which may be very popular in Ohio. It's politically smart, but economically silly.
NAFTA promised to create jobs and raise the average wage for U.S. workers. It had exactly the opposite effect. NAFTA displaced over 1,000,000 jobs out of the manufacturing industry and forced those displaced workers into lower paying jobs.
 
There were several studies conducted between 2004-2006 that show the adverse effects of NAFTA not just  for U.S. workers but for workers in Mexico and Canada as well. I found a very interesting article done by the Economic Policy Institute ( a non-partisan think tank) that you may find interesting.
 
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
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: June 24 2008 at 07:50















Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2008 at 08:06
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: June 24 2008 at 09:26
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Now look, if you're going to have to present your information in rambling seemingly uncorrelationally irrelevant sets of numbers in red, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore you. LOL
f**k you.
 

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Put the things in freakin' chart or graph form for crying out loud. Tongue
 

    

Now in graph form

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

By the way IVNORD, I seriously hope you're having as much fun as I am. Big%20smile
From this thread  yes, not from politics
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


My first interest in politics came with watching the McLaughlin Group on public TV, which oddly enough I tuned in to because I confused it with the much better John McLaughlin.  (Long time ago, very very young)
I watched them back in the late 80's, they were on NBC then I think. But it never occured to me John McLaughlin had anything in common with them LOL
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: June 24 2008 at 09:30
Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Relayer09 Relayer09 wrote:

 
Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still.
The merits and drawbacks of NAFTA are debatable. Blaming the loss of manufacturing jobs on NAFTA alone is naive. Migration of obsolete labor intensive industries to cheaper labor markets is as old a process as capitalism itself. And in modern times older technologies have been going to third world countries for about 100 years. Look at steel and textile industries, engineering and data processing. Obama's anti-NAFTA stand is protectionist in nature. He singled out the most visible trade agreement as the only culprit which may be very popular in Ohio. It's politically smart, but economically silly.
NAFTA promised to create jobs and raise the average wage for U.S. workers. It had exactly the opposite effect. NAFTA displaced over 1,000,000 jobs out of the manufacturing industry and forced those displaced workers into lower paying jobs.
 
There were several studies conducted between 2004-2006 that show the adverse effects of NAFTA not just  for U.S. workers but for workers in Mexico and Canada as well. I found a very interesting article done by the Economic Policy Institute ( a non-partisan think tank) that you may find interesting.
 
Do you really believe NAFTA displaced those jobs?
 
Smith-Corona moved their operations to Mexico back in '84. NAFTA was ratified in '94.
 
I will read the article later, don't have time now
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: June 24 2008 at 09:33
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Probably it's the only way out.


It's not.  Absolutely unsustainable.  Sometime during my lifetime the sh*t will hit the fan, I predict.
You think it's unsustainable? Similar events took place in the 70's. The Fed seemed to be a bit more responsible at the time, they fought inflation tooth and nail. Inflation won, we devalued the dollar, adjusted to the new prices, and went on. The situation is quite different today. They are afraid of a recession as it may easily turn into something more ominous. So to soothe the pain they try to keep the economy afloat by pumping liquidity into the system to the point of super-saturation when people pay $140 for a barrel of oil and think it's cheap. If we avoid severe recession, the economy may turn around in its natural cycle. Then we devalue the dollar and get used to $5-dollar gasoline. In the process the middle class will be devastated by the falling purchasing power of their savings (especially the babyboomers) but who cares? This is a positive scenario. The negative one is simple - we have Weimar-republic-type hyper-inflation and super-depression. But the jury is still out.
 
As for your prediction, you have to define the sh*t and the fan. Otherwise it's too wide of a definition.


I don't how my initial post about the runaway growth of entitlement programs turned into a discussion on inflation and our current energy problems, but in any case you seem to be optimistic that all will turn out well.  Trust me that I wish dearly that I could share your optimism.
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: June 24 2008 at 09:36
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

You know what I love?  The notion that cutting taxes raises revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Cut taxes to zero.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in?


You know what I love?  The notion that raising taxes increases revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Raise taxes to 100%.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in?

Agreeing that the revenue goes to zero at the endpoints is sort of self-evident, is it not?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3536373839 303>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.383 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.