Charles Barkley calls conservatives "fake Christians&qu

[garrick]

It's easy to make blanket statements about a certain group whether it be religion, race or gender. Gandhi can make the statement but it's useless if he doesn't know Christ first. It's hard to compare Christians to a Christ that you don't know.

I beg to differ, anyone can read the bible and know what code of conduct Christians should be following. You do not necessarily have to agree with Jesus principles in order to know what Christians should be acting like.
The basic principle of a Christian should be "love God and your fellow man", unfortunately many so called Christians love only themselves.

As to the notion that the Republicans and Democrats are saying that the economy is bad only to make the opposite party look bad, it may have been true before but in the Bush era that is not true.

How many billions of dollars has the US lost in Iraq? That's billions of dollars that probably can't be paid back.
Don't forget that Bush placed members or former members of multibillion dollar corporations into the White House staff.
Look at Dick Chaney for one, he has ties to Haliburton who coincidentally is raking in huge profits in Iraq.
The big corporations are the ones benefitting from the Bush administration while the poor people are continuing to get poorer by the day.

[shrink]

As to the notion that the Republicans and Democrats are saying that the economy is bad only to make the opposite party look bad, it may have been true before but in the Bush era that is not true.

How many billions of dollars has the US lost in Iraq? That's billions of dollars that probably can't be paid back.
Don't forget that Bush placed members or former members of multibillion dollar corporations into the White House staff.
Look at Dick Chaney for one, he has ties to Haliburton who coincidentally is raking in huge profits in Iraq.
The big corporations are the ones benefitting from the Bush administration while the poor people are continuing to get poorer by the day.

I'll skip the Iraq War issue. Some people say that its necessary for national security, some say it isn't. Some say it creates jobs. Some say that we were already paying the military and have a lot of sunk costs whether we are using them or not. Some say that we are seeing real gains, with far less violence in the last six months since the surge. Some say we had no idea what Sadam Hussein would have done the last few years if he had had the resources of Iraq behind him. Some say its a fraction of entitlement spending. Regardless, I think for the economy, this is a legitimate point.

But look closely at your last three. Do you think any of those had a major effect on the economy? You're quick to throw them in, without thinking, because that's the line you've been fed. It makes you angry, so you agree with it without thinking.

When you talk about THE ECONOMY, make sure you're taking about THE ECONOMY. Haliburton is probably not even one millionth of it. Talk about entitlement spending. Talk about the national debt. Then look and see how those things are affecting the real world. What is EVERYONE'S CPI? What's the current rate of inflation? (GREAT, btw). How's Unemployment? (GOOD) How are out tax roles?

When you roll out "Haliburton" in a discussion of the economy, or some vague "the rich are getting richer!" you've demonstrated you've swallowed the hook, and all they have to do is reel you in.

[bjebaz]

The war has a major impact on the economy. We have had to go into major deficit spending to fund it (among other things), which has caused the inflation. The "current rate of inflation" you use is not a measure I'd use. I think inflation should be defined as the rate of increase of the money supply, because that is the source of the inflation. Well M3 hasn't been released in a long time, which I think is to hide from people the real inflation, which is near 10%. There are many other ways to show that inflation is higher than is being said. Look at the the exchange rates changing from basically 1.1 to 1 Dollars to Euro to 1.5 Dollars to Euro in a few years, while there is still inflation associated with the Euro. Same with the pound. Or the how the price of gold has risen.

The unemployment figures are skewed as well. It doesn't include people who have been out of work for 6 months or more.

There are people certainly benefiting from all the money in Washington. That's a fact. Take a look at this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ&feature=related

You're the one who has swallowed the hook, shrink.

The rich are getting richer right now because of inflation. Do you think the money that is printed goes to the poor people? No...it pays companies like Haliburton for war appropriations. Do people on a fixed income (the elderly) benefit from rising prices? No.

The tax cuts were a problem in that Bush increased spending as well. Same thing Reagan did. Had Bush also cut spending (and not started a needless war) then so much money would not have to be printed and the country would have had a sustained boom. Instead the inflation has caught up with us (well it's trying, the fed cuts will be a temporary bandaid for it, but it will come in time).

The long term solution is cut foreign spending a whole lot, take that money to phase out entitlements, gradually return a lot of functions of the federal goverment to the states, and eventually the federal goverment will be in it's proper place and there won't be an income tax necessary. Then cut regulations on companies.

Put yourself in a CEO's shoes who is deciding where to invest his money. America is reducing it's tax burden on companies, as well as regulation, and it's looking it is going to continue to do that. Europe is increasingly becoming socialist, with governments demanding employment last decades. Where would you invest?

The answer to the problem is a stable currency, immigration control, and an influx of jobs. If a whole bunch of jobs come into this country and there's a limited number of people, how do you think the companies will try to recruit? Raise wages. It's simple.

Regarding scientific progress, look at what happened between 1870-1900, when the federal government had very little role. That's when so many inventions took place, which was due to the market being so wide open. Not due to government involvement.

[CroesusDeluxo]

ahh yer swallowing the ol 'the interests of global corporations may not be synoptic w the interests of you as an individual or even humanity as a collective' hook??

hippie!

[Sun Scorched]

There is no candidate, republican or democratic, that has any semblence of a sound fiscal policy. I vote based almost entirely based on whether or not I know someone will drive our economy into the ground.

I have preached this to anyone who would listen so sit tight...

What we need now more than anything is for this bi-partisan curtain in the house and senate to be dropped for a while. We need a president to sit down with a joint-session and a whiteboard and go around the room asking what one thing each senator wants to see done for his constituents that year.

"Alright Mr. Kennedy, what is one thing you want to see done this year?"

"I want this, this and that."

"No, no Mr. Kennnedy, one thing"

Get the idea? Sounds elementary, I know. But think of it. Then, throughout the course of the year, you draft legislation that includes only one thing... no pork. Perhaps one piece includes items from both sides of the isle so that compromise still takes place.

In fantasy land, I would split the federal income down the middle and say, "Okay dems, you want to fund carnival rides for poor people? That comes out of your half. Reps, you want a tax cut? Take that out of your half."

In reality, if this happened and in order to be fair, the dems should only get to spend the taxes that the poor people and middle-class pay. The reps would get the upper-class that everyone loves to hate. Imagine that. True representation of their constituants... hmm.. or at least their professed constituants.

I honestly believe that we need to get back to the basics with regard to our government and what it is supposed to have accomplished.

Truth is, most Americans (aside from a fair number of you guys on here, which is a pleasent surprise) are flaming idiots and only vote straight line. They don't look at the issues, indeed if they did they would know that every candidate nowadays only skirt issues and make broad comments out of which you can pull nothing conclusive... tis a shame.

[CriticalMass]

"There is no candidate, republican or democratic, that has any semblence of a sound fiscal policy."

Kucinich and Paul

Unfortunately, neither was given any opportunity to discuss it in a real debate fasion. The mighty media dubbed them 'less than also ran' candidates and the parties marched in step....sqeezing them out of the picture.

This country is ripe for a third party.

[Sun Scorched]

This country is ripe for a third party.

I whole-heartedly agree. 100%. I think that people would be surprised at how younger voters would respond if a third party propelled a legitimate candidate into the fray.

[impulsenine]

Truth is, most Americans (aside from a fair number of you guys on here, which is a pleasent surprise) are flaming idiots and only vote straight line. They don't look at the issues, indeed if they did they would know that every candidate nowadays only skirt issues and make broad comments out of which you can pull nothing conclusive... tis a shame.

Two things would solve this: education, and enthusiasm. The first we can't solve quickly; it's a matter of making civics something more than dates and names. The second, though, is one reason I'm supporting Obama - he's turning people away from American Idol and towards American issues. His campaign is explicitly set up as a grassroots political education movement.

Even if he's a so-so President (I think at worst he'd be 'good'), there is a direct relationship between Americans who are informed and politically active and the quality of American government and life. I don't see how McCain or Clinton could inspire that, and it does need to happen.

Ultimately, nothing significant will happen without a lot of smart Americans demanding it.

[Sun Scorched]

Even if he's a so-so President (I think at worst he'd be 'good'), there is a direct relationship between Americans who are informed and politically active and the quality of American government and life. I don't see how McCain or Clinton could inspire that, and it does need to happen.

See. Now why can't intelligent, bi-partisan discourse like this take place more often? I attend school here at SMU in Dallas, the future site of the Bush Presidential Library... in case that matters.

I'm conservative... but even most conservatives nowadays make me want to shoot myself. I guess, though, that both parties are plauged with people who don't know the real issues and the facts behind those issues... what we'd refer to as a bleeding-heart (liberal or conservative).. circle one.

On a seperate note, it's been awful to be in the middle of an "educated" debate about the construction of W's library on our campus. I have tried to explain that any presidential library is an honor.

"If Clinton had wanted to place his library here," I'd say, "though I did not agree with many of his decisions, I could honestly admit that it would still be a good thing for this university. A presidential library can only ever be a good thing."

People simply look at me like I ate a litter of kittens.

[garrick]

Shrink,
If you add up ALL the companies that are benefitting from the Iraq war it comes up to a substancial amount. There's also the security companies like blackwater which rake in millions of dollars a year in Iraq.
The true cost of the Iraq war is probably more than the what the Bush administration is telling us.

[BurningHeart]

And the true cost of giving into our enemies will be even higher.

[Mr. Natural]

In regards to Healthcare, both Hillary and Obama want to eventually have universal healthcare. They both believe that there needs to be a stepping stone to get there. Hillary has proposed her plan with a mandate, knowing that congress is going to change something(which will be the mandate). Obama, who is green as far as getting things done, has proposed a plan that after it passes through congress will be paramount to nothing.

The main issue on Universal Health Care is if they support a not-for-profit system or not. John Edwards was the only Democratic candidate other than Kucinich to support a single payer program I believe.

[impulsenine]

I attend school here at SMU in Dallas, the future site of the Bush Presidential Library... in case that matters.

....

I have tried to explain that any presidential library is an honor.

I'm sure it will also fill comedy routines in the area for the next few years, as well. There's so many jokes that come to mind, my head hurts. Also, I know the eating-kittens look. I got it when a (good-looking) female vegan was ranting about how unnatural it is to drink cow's milk. I asked her, Have you ever tried to get milk from a human? [pause] Are you volunteering?"

Kittens. It was a good moment.

And the true cost of giving into our enemies will be even higher.

The situation is massively complex. Reducing it to "winning" and "losing" is silly. You know this. Stop it.

The real questions are (1) the humanitarian side of it: whether or not, if we leave, Maliki's government will stop slacking off and get it together or if it will dissolve into civil war; and (2) whether we would be safer with our troops in or out of the nation-building in Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for instance).

There's about ten billion arguments for and against the many varieties of action (ranging from complete withdrawal to 100-year occupation, with Clinton to the left, Obama closest to the middle, and McCain to the right), but don't insult us by saying it's VICTORY or DEFEAT. I think McCain understands that, too. After the massive ineptitude of the occupation by Bush, total victory is impossible. Only the supreme competence of people like Petraeus keep total defeat from being impossible, as well.

[impulsenine]

An old post, but...

Obama, who is green as far as getting things done, has proposed a plan that after it passes through congress will be paramount to nothing.

If his plan passed as proposed, how would universal health care availability be paramount to nothing?

Point 1: Michigan and Florida should both have delegates, that is far too many people to have their voices silenced. ... Point 2: The superdelegates from those state should give all their support to Hillary since she is the candidate that the people in those states wanted.

While I agree with point 1, point 2 doesn't work because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. You couldn't even write Obama in. And she still only got 55% of the votes! In addition, nobody campaigned in Florida and so neither candidate got to make their case to the vast majority out there that hadn't followed the election. This obviously favored Clinton early on, because of the name-brand recognition, and because he hadn't had any exposure to counteract that. So clearly, the way to give those people a voice is vote again. There's even a process through which those states' organizations can get a re-vote through the DNC.

I should also say that I would only really bother in April. If either candidate goes on a vote-gathering rampage between now and then, perhaps it wouldn't matter. This year, Hawai'i had a real impact on the primary for the first time in its history, because they usually vote late. But this is a close year, so maybe we'll need the votes (but maybe we won't).

[impulsenine]

Incidentally, here's a link to Charles' comments.

[walkingart]

If his plan passed as proposed, how would universal health care availability be paramount to nothing?

I am assuming that it will get slashed and trashed on its way to approval. Isn't that how Congress works?

[shrink]

Shrink,
If you add up ALL the companies that are benefitting from the Iraq war it comes up to a substancial amount. There's also the security companies like blackwater which rake in millions of dollars a year in Iraq.
The true cost of the Iraq war is probably more than the what the Bush administration is telling us.

1. The US economy is about $13.8 TRILLION dollars.

2. Its OK to be upset about any misuse of money, but keep an eye on the math. As I said before, if you want to talk about THE ECONOMY talk about things that affect the whole economy. "Blackwater" does not have an effect on the US economy.

3. I find it odd that people complain that american companies benefit from the war, when previous presidents may have led us into wars to advance our economies. I understand that many people are raised to FEEL that companies are bad, but companies create jobs, companies create consumers, and companies create products.

Finally, why is it that these posters keep saying that reality is their way, its just that all the information and numbers don't agree with me because its always the numbers that are wrong? I've heard from posters that say the inflation rate isn't right, the unemployment rate is skewed, the increase in tax revenues after the tax cuts was simply because of IRS restructuring, and now the war costs aren't what the war costs are.

Guess what people. This isn't the Soviet Union. We have a free press, that's only too happy to expose the government when they are lieing. If the numbers don't synch with your political views, maybe you shouldn't simply choose to decide "well, it must be the numbers that are wrong, because I sure can't be!"

As I said in the first post, don't let politics spin you, either left or right. Treat news you get from political sources as a pack of lies, even if you WANT to believe it. Check it out. Find the true numbers. Ask yourself if the info they are giving you is really at the root of problems (i.e .. blackwater is not responsible for the economy). Be passionate about what you believe, but make sure your passion is based on reality.

[impulsenine]

If his plan passed as proposed, how would universal health care availability be paramount to nothing?

I am assuming that it will get slashed and trashed on its way to approval. Isn't that how Congress works?

So... we should not propose anything? "No, we can't"? Obama's made a point of noting that he wants to get it done and get it done right, and doesn't care about "personal authorship." He has strong opinions about it, and on mandates specifically; but he wants it done quickly, and on CSPAN, so the American public can see exactly what is being proposed and how it would be done. That kind of situation is how health care reform will happen: not a magic wand or Presidential mandate - but Presidential and popular pressure to get it done in a public arena.

I support Obama because he recognizes that the President is powerless without Congress and without the intense scrutiny and voices of all Americans.

2. Its OK to be upset about any misuse of money, but keep an eye on the math. As I said before, if you want to talk about THE ECONOMY talk about things that affect the whole economy. "Blackwater" does not have an effect on the US economy.

Since Halliburton and Blackwater had no-bid contracts, and did a terrible job of using them, I'd call that a misuse of money. Actually, the planning of the occupation was so terrible I'd call the entire operation a misuse of money, and I don't even think the horrid execution is even debatable.

Also, I'm just glad that we can end this "conservative" administration that grew the federal government by 35% partly with that kind of misuse of money.

3. I find it odd that people complain that American companies benefit from the war, when previous presidents may have led us into wars to advance our economies.

Are you seriously justifying war and death and international hatred of the U.S. because other people did it? Or because it helped a few rich Americans (since, you know, Blackwater and Halliburton don't effect the economy as a whole)?

Moreover, war isn't necessarily the best bet for growth anymore - it was great in WWII, but not so much for Vietnam or either Iraq war (as the '90's boom was largely because of the Internet bubble, Greenspan, and some pretty nutty business loans). Moreover, getting U.S. auto manufacturers to make better cars, helping the 'green' industry innovations (that can be exported), doing something about predatory lenders (credit and mortgage), balancing the national budget to avoid a gazillion dollars in interest, and, of course, not borrowing a trillion dollars from China ... well, as an armchair economist, I'd say doing those things would've helped just as much.

Finally, why is it that these posters keep saying that reality is their way, its just that all the information and numbers don't agree with me because its always the numbers that are wrong? I've heard from posters that say the inflation rate isn't right, the unemployment rate is skewed, the increase in tax revenues after the tax cuts was simply because of IRS restructuring, and now the war costs aren't what the war costs are.

Some numbers are pretty striaightforward, such as inflation, GDP, and GNP. Other numbers are not, such as unemployment (which doesn't reflect those who have jobs that are so low-income that even at full-time they don't support basic life needs of food, shelter, and clothing), and in particular the cost of the Iraq war (which depends on if you include residual costs, which are very difficult to account for). As far as tax revenues going up when taxes going down go, I was wrong about increase in revenues being because of the IRS, because the premise is completely false to begin with.

Be passionate about what you believe, but make sure your passion is based on reality.

Aye aye cap'n.

[8'sReverse]

Hey, sorry, if I'm barging in uninvited...

but people have to realize, just because you say you're a Christian and/or you go to church doesn't mean you're a Christian. It's sad when some call themselves Christians but don't show it with their actions. You can't be perfect, but it's clear that some that claim to be something aren't really what they say they are. But, politics are politics, you have to say you're something in order to get support, right?

[walkingart]

Impulsnine wrote

So... we should not propose anything? "No, we can't"? Obama's made a point of noting that he wants to get it done and get it done right, and doesn't care about "personal authorship." He has strong opinions about it, and on mandates specifically; but he wants it done quickly, and on CSPAN, so the American public can see exactly what is being proposed and how it would be done. That kind of situation is how health care reform will happen: not a magic wand or Presidential mandate - but Presidential and popular pressure to get it done in a public arena.

I support Obama because he recognizes that the President is powerless without Congress and without the intense scrutiny and voices of all Americans.

Good luck with that coming to fruition. Nothing is going on CSPAN, and Obama, while he may have great ideas, is not prepared to get them accomplished.

I voted for Hillary because I think she realizes the rules of the game she is going to have to play to get things accomplished, while Obama wants to change the game entirely. Personally, I would rather see things get accomplished, rather than here them talked about.