Political Roundtable - Part VI

[JWizmentality]

underinvestment in maintenance of and improvements to infrastructure isn't very business friendly
dang that Obama

But wait...hasn't it been the Obama Administration that has consistently implored the Repubs (the Party of "No!") to invest in the nation's infrastructure.

Pfft...that's socialism.

[Wizardspride]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ferguson-cle ... was-raped/

Ferguson Clerk Fired for Racist Emails: Feels Like I Was ‘Raped’


Former Ferguson City Court Clerk Mary Ann Twitty said Tuesday she was caught unawares when the city fired her for racist emails following a Department of Justice investigation into the city’s law enforcement practices, and believes she was made the scapegoat.

“It took me a while to get over the feeling of being raped and being thrown under the bus,” she told KMOV in her first interview since losing her job. “I feel like I was the sacrificial lamb.”

She added that if everyone who sent racist emails were fired they’d “have to shut the doors.” “It went on all the time.”

[Induveca]

underinvestment in maintenance of and improvements to infrastructure isn't very business friendly
dang that Obama

But wait...hasn't it been the Obama Administration that has consistently implored the Repubs (the Party of "No!") to invest in the nation's infrastructure.

Zero culture of even an *attempt* at cooperation now. Both sides just saying like children "but he started it!"

The fact that many of the intelligent contributors here are mimicking that talking point in their "do nothing" activism is pretty depressing.

[popper]

^^^ so business failures went up after the banking system collapsed? Never would have guessed that.

With respect tontoz, I deduce from your post that perhaps you've never started a business, or created a job, or made a payroll. Let me know if I'm wrong?

[tontoz]

^^^ so business failures went up after the banking system collapsed? Never would have guessed that.

With respect tontoz, I deduce from your post that perhaps you've never started a business, or created a job, or made a payroll. Let me know if I'm wrong?

Ad hominem, the fallback option for someone who can't make a coherent argument.

If you want to criticize Obama for being anti business I would hope you could find better evidence than that. If you think Obama's election hurt startups more than the collapse of the financial sector then i have a great deal i can offer you on some Lehman Brothers bonds.

[dobrojim]

underinvestment in maintenance of and improvements to infrastructure isn't very business friendly
dang that Obama

But wait...hasn't it been the Obama Administration that has consistently implored the Repubs (the Party of "No!") to invest in the nation's infrastructure.

Zero culture of even an *attempt* at cooperation now. Both sides just saying like children "but he started it!"

The fact that many of the intelligent contributors here are mimicking that talking point in their "do nothing" activism is pretty depressing.

Your argument would have a lot more validity in my view if not for the fact the one side,
between the current admin and the opp party, did actually start it. GOP leaders met at
the time of 1st inauguration and committed to total opposition on all fronts. If BHO was
for it, they were automatically and reflexively against it. They didn't care that he
was legitimately elected. They immediately sought to de-legitimize him in every way
possible. After all, it couldn't possibly be that they nominated a candidate who's
policies and personality the voter's rejected could it?

You can argue if you want the dems opposed Dubya but I would suggest that it wasn't
to the same degree and that ignores the fact the Dubya really lost the election and only
won through the action of an activist Supreme Court voting strictly on party lines.

@ DCZ, sorry for the omission of green font in my earlier post.

[dckingsfan]

I think the discussions on the infrastructure bill broke down when the conversation came down to how to pay for it. The Ds in this case said we should just spend the money. And the Rs wanted cuts in other areas.

Of course the Rs then balanced the budget with workarounds to spend more on defense.

I think it comes down to this - there are fiscal conservatives that want to cut equally from defense and social programs to increase spending on things like infrastructure. There are social liberals who want to do the same but either take the money from defense or just increase the national debt and their are defense hawks who want to take money out of social programs to fund infrastructure spending.

And then you have another wing of the social liberals who want to take money from defense, increase the national debt and increase taxes to increase social programs. I call this the "I can put a bigger chicken in your pot" campaign. It should be also called the "I can spend more of your grandchildren's money that you can" campaign.

[Induveca]

But wait...hasn't it been the Obama Administration that has consistently implored the Repubs (the Party of "No!") to invest in the nation's infrastructure.

Zero culture of even an *attempt* at cooperation now. Both sides just saying like children "but he started it!"

The fact that many of the intelligent contributors here are mimicking that talking point in their "do nothing" activism is pretty depressing.

Your argument would have a lot more validity in my view if not for the fact the one side,
between the current admin and the opp party, did actually start it. GOP leaders met at
the time of 1st inauguration and committed to total opposition on all fronts. If BHO was
for it, they were automatically and reflexively against it. They didn't care that he
was legitimately elected. They immediately sought to de-legitimize him in every way
possible. After all, it couldn't possibly be that they nominated a candidate who's
policies and personality the voter's rejected could it?

You can argue if you want the dems opposed Dubya but I would suggest that it wasn't
to the same degree and that ignores the fact the Dubya really lost the election and only
won through the action of an activist Supreme Court voting strictly on party lines.

@ DCZ, sorry for the omission of green font in my earlier post.

So how do you defeat your "opponent"? Whine about past ills?

[pineappleheadindc]

At the risk of spurring Zonker to vent his anger at me because -- I admit this -- he is an actual REAL economist and I certainly am not, here goes:

1. What's maddening about budget debates is that they are wholly and completely political. Thats because they've been turned into a proxy war for various sides about the size and role of government. That debate using budget as a proxy is cowardly and has resulted in prolonging the wars between the sides.

1a. Example. If you think you don't like "X", don't hide it in some mumbo-jumbo about budget spending. Man up and introduce a bill to cut "x" for all the world to see and own up to it. I, Senator Cruz, hereby introduce S132, a Resolution to wholly eliminate Medicare for everyone (or everyone except these folks). Period. Show some freaking courage.

1b. The balanced budget guys have completely lost it. I imagine that the original concept was to dumb down the point about spending (as a means to cut government programs) to Jim Bob and Bubba in Northern Alabama and get their votes So we have the analog about how the Federal budget is like your family's budget. Hey, YOU have to balance your checkbook every month. So what's up with the Feds? Except, factually, the Federal government does not have to balance its budget...nor, probably, is it necessarily a good idea to balance the budget -- depending on how you got there. (This para is where Zonker will probably completely gut me. Sorry dude.)

1c. IN budget debates, the sides use complete extremes to denigrate the other side. You hate poor people, Republicans. You want to tax and spend us into space, Democrats Neither is true. And if you think either statement is true, stop reading this post right now because you are beyond saving.

2. Infrastructure is among the most frustrating fiscal debates there is. I abhor, despise, detest the guys who question a large portion of infrastructure spending because the fact of the matter is this -- the money is already spent. You just don't know it or have no ability to see to recognize it. We are not going to let the American Legion bridge fall into the Potomac. Ultimately, we'll end up spending tp pay for infrastructure upkeep because we have to.....ironically, probably spending more per project because politicians stall and debate spending in the context of the role of government (above) about maintenance until problems because critical and more expensive to fix. Nice job, guys.

3. Fix the freaking infrastructure Don't use spending on infrastructure to try and extort something unrelated as part of your proxy war about some other program, etc. Stand up, introduce a bill to cut it -- the entire program, not just the spending on it -- and own up to it like a man.

[DCZards]

@ DCZ, sorry for the omission of green font in my earlier post.

No apology necessary, dobro. I recognized that was tongue-in-cheek comment on your part. I was just riffing off it. Maybe I missed the mark.

[dobrojim]

put me in with the folks who want to cut defense first and foremost for the same reasons Willy Sutton robbed banks
and for the additional reason that if we didn't have a massive defense posture, we would be far less likely to blunder
into other people's business where we generally/ultimately fail as far as furthering our own interests. Blowback is
more often the norm than the exception. Defense should be about defense, ie preventing an invasion/takeover.
Eisenhower was prophetic and correct.

re social programs - I think I recently read that something like 70% want to fix social security's very long term
problem by raising the threshold for where you stop paying into it. Assuming my recollection of this poll was
accurate, I see the failure to 'fix' SS largely in this direction as yet another symbol of how dysfunctional our
democracy has become in terms of broadly popular things not getting done.

[dobrojim]

@ DCZ, sorry for the omission of green font in my earlier post.

No apology necessary, dobro. I recognized that was tongue-in-cheek comment on your part. I was just riffing off it. Maybe I missed the mark.

No. I just wanted to make clear it was pure sarcasm. I should know by now we are largely on the same page.

Re spending - isn't it largely a question of ROI? When we spend on things that help improve us
as a place to live, that make our people smarter/more productive, it's ultimately worth it.
When spending is driven by status quo big money special interests who: 1. love to socialize the costs and
privatize the benefits, and 2. have the money to buy public policy for pennies on the dollar,
we lose and people deservedly become cynical of govt.

[dobrojim]

Zero culture of even an *attempt* at cooperation now. Both sides just saying like children "but he started it!"

The fact that many of the intelligent contributors here are mimicking that talking point in their "do nothing" activism is pretty depressing.

Your argument would have a lot more validity in my view if not for the fact the one side,
between the current admin and the opp party, did actually start it. GOP leaders met at
the time of 1st inauguration and committed to total opposition on all fronts. If BHO was
for it, they were automatically and reflexively against it. They didn't care that he
was legitimately elected. They immediately sought to de-legitimize him in every way
possible. After all, it couldn't possibly be that they nominated a candidate who's
policies and personality the voter's rejected could it?

You can argue if you want the dems opposed Dubya but I would suggest that it wasn't
to the same degree and that ignores the fact the Dubya really lost the election and only
won through the action of an activist Supreme Court voting strictly on party lines.

@ DCZ, sorry for the omission of green font in my earlier post.

So how do you defeat your "opponent"? Whine about past ills?

I would say to do what BHO has done wrt to his call for spending on infrastructure.
You point out how intelligent it is to spend money to improve/fix things that will
make everyone's life a little better. Maybe even create (sorry Zonk) a few jobs in
the process, both immediate and longterm.

[TGW]

Hey Nate, wonder what your explanation is of this latest cop shooting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

[dobrojim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-%20...%20-earnings/

[dckingsfan]

1b. The balanced budget guys have completely lost it. I imagine that the original concept was to dumb down the point about spending (as a means to cut government programs) to Jim Bob and Bubba in Northern Alabama and get their votes So we have the analog about how the Federal budget is like your family's budget. Hey, YOU have to balance your checkbook every month. So what's up with the Feds? Except, factually, the Federal government does not have to balance its budget...nor, probably, is it necessarily a good idea to balance the budget -- depending on how you got there. (This para is where Zonker will probably completely gut me. Sorry dude.)

I think the initial context was how to balance the spending of the receipts you wanted to take in and to maximize the good that government could do with those receipts. Originally it wasn't the political tool that it has become.

And balanced budget really misses the point. It should be a debate about where you are going to allocate the revenues you are going to take in The only point that you can derive from the notion of a balanced budget is how much you are eventually willing to pay in interest payments (at this point it would be more than enough to take care of infrastructure spending and then some). And here is where you can point to both the Rs and Ds playing both sides against the middle.

But we do have a problem - and since you are decidedly on the liberal side of this equation, I will ask you, should we bother to solve it - or is it fine as is?



And would you agree with Elizabeth Warren that we need to increase the spending on entitlement programs including social security? What percentage of the budget is reasonable? Is it okay to take from other programs like infrastructure to pay for them?

[popper]

^^^ so business failures went up after the banking system collapsed? Never would have guessed that.

With respect tontoz, I deduce from your post that perhaps you've never started a business, or created a job, or made a payroll. Let me know if I'm wrong?

Ad hominem, the fallback option for someone who can't make a coherent argument.

If you want to criticize Obama for being anti business I would hope you could find better evidence than that. If you think Obama's election hurt startups more than the collapse of the financial sector then i have a great deal i can offer you on some Lehman Brothers bonds.

United States fell out of the top ten ranks in the ease of starting a business, according to World Bank data. In fact, the World Bank found that it’s easier to start a new business in Portugal, Romania, Panama, Hungary and Belarus than in the U.S. (Source: U.S. World Bank) - Edit - links below don't work for some reason but you can google them if interested.

Small Business Regulations Surge Under Obama
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/ ... der-obama/

How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic- ... egulations

What Small Business Owners are saying about Obama’s Regulatory Record
http://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/doc ... tID=333007

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repor ... le/2558050

[tontoz]

With respect tontoz, I deduce from your post that perhaps you've never started a business, or created a job, or made a payroll. Let me know if I'm wrong?

Ad hominem, the fallback option for someone who can't make a coherent argument.

If you want to criticize Obama for being anti business I would hope you could find better evidence than that. If you think Obama's election hurt startups more than the collapse of the financial sector then i have a great deal i can offer you on some Lehman Brothers bonds.

United States fell out of the top ten ranks in the ease of starting a business, according to World Bank data. In fact, the World Bank found that it’s easier to start a new business in Portugal, Romania, Panama, Hungary and Belarus than in the U.S. (Source: U.S. World Bank) - Edit - links below don't work for some reason but you can google them if interested.

Small Business Regulations Surge Under Obama
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/ ... der-obama/

How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic- ... egulations

What Small Business Owners are saying about Obama’s Regulatory Record
http://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/doc ... tID=333007

Report: 21,000 regulations so far under Obama, 2,375 set for 2015
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repor ... le/2558050

What i am interested in is how you repeatedly ignore the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression.

Let me guess, you have an Ann Coulter poster on your bedroom wall, right?

[dckingsfan]

Being in small business. Popper is somewhat correct. It has become far more difficult to start a business due to the regulations. What Popper doesn't mention is that many of regulations started with the Clinton and Bush administrations.

[tontoz]

Being in small business. Popper is somewhat correct. It has become far more difficult to start a business due to the regulations. What Popper doesn't mention is that many of regulations started with the Clinton and Bush administrations.

I didn't vote for Obama and have no vested interest in defending him, but ignoring what happened to the financial sector is laughably partisan.

A startup typically needs a loan to get started and banks arent going to fund startups as readily when they are being bailed out by the govt and/or getting investigated.

There are plenty of legit reasons to criticize the president. That article just isn't one of them.