Übergeek 바둑이: Well clearly the current powers aren't going to do that. So what's your solution?

I am really sure that the Tea Party is really, really going to change the United States. They will really, really do away with lobbyism, cronyism, favoritism, nepotism and all the "isms" that plague Washington. Under the Tea Party there will really, really be big changes in Washington and special interests will really, really stop influencing decision makers and the lies and manipulation will really, really stop.

The head of NBC works for Obama FOR REAL.

Nice try though.

The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations. Using tax records, Mayer found that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions. That figure doesn’t include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign contributions by its political action committee, putting it first among energy company peers like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Since tax law permits anonymous personal donations to nonprofit political groups, these figures may understate the case. The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll.

Rupert Murdoch has used FOX News to defeat the Democratic Party and promote the Republican party's power. Murdoch's FOX News operator is Roger Ailes. Together, they created the Tea Party, financed and produce it's political activities, and promoted it as a political party on FOX News. They raise millions of dollars to finance the Tea Party's election contests lies to wound the Democratic Party.

FOX News cable outlet operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party and is clearly biased.

Murdoch's number one concern is that Fox is very successful.

Roger Ailes has been masking right-wing propaganda as “Fair and Balanced” news since before Fox News was thought of. Ailes began as a media consultant for Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon and has been manipulating the media for right-wing causes ever since.

It is reported that any party supported by a Murdoch owned media company, is only so if the Godfather of tabloid gets something back. So.. what have the parties his companies support promised him.... think about that!

Huge minority... sounds like they are not a minority then.

Biggest mouths... isn't that the Tea Party mob?

Bernice: True. Obama apparently has changed his tune via his excessive borrowing. But then he is facing reelection and he must pander to the independents. Those are the folks that got him elected. The far left is a huge minority but they have the biggest mouths.

Artful Dodger: when people go crazy they always get caught out.....

Bernice: Look at how Obama, in just a short time, went crazy in debt!

Artful Dodger: HAHAHAHAHAHA............

Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree that we ought to curb military spending.

I think that of all measures to cut spending this would be the most unpopular. Nobody even wants to consider it, and this is where a lot of the spending inefficiency exists. Much of the research and development of weapons is done by private companies receiving huge investment from the DOD. This research is expensive, and private contractors love the money. The problem is that the American public feels that without that research and the military the United States would be vulnerable. Billions are being spent taking preemptive measures. This might be popular, but the need for those measures can often be questioned. The USA is also spending billions defending other countries that have the money and capability to defend themselves. However, for historical reasons those countries (I am talking Germany and Japan) are not allowed to defend t themselves by creating their own strong military. Western countries still harbour a lot of distrust towards Russia (even though Russia has never truly attacked the west, and was instrumental in defeating the Axis during WWII). Well, if there is a branch of the government that might prove to be the financial undoing of the American government, it will be the DOD. It syphons billions of dollars that could be used for programs that truly improve the lives of Americans.

> The ONLY real hope for change is a third party. Both the old wing of Dems and Repubs are corrupt.

This is very difficult too. American politics became more polarized during the Bush administration. It started during the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration and the Iraq war crytallized deep divisions between left and right. Many Americans are disillusioned with the state of affairs. It has become so bad that Washington is almost paralized. If a third political party arises, it has to start afresh with new ideas.

The Tea Party has good intentions in terms of corruption and cronyism. However, I am not entirely sure that their economic policies would be very different from those of the Regan administration. The tea Party would probably push a lot of privatization as well as reductions to programs that help the economically disadvantaged. They will probably push tax cuts and other similar measures. These measures will be popular, but not necessarily what the situation needs. The real sticky point will be tax cuts because any reduction in government revenue fails to reduce the debt. If the Tea Party will push Reganomics as a solution, then they are adding more wood to the fire because the problem started spiralling out of control when the Regan administration introduced its economic policies.

I think left wing parties have the right idea, but no plan of action to carry it. For example, in September of 2008 the green party put out a snippet in a speech:

"Promote an economy that's based on sustainability rather than on lending and borrowing beyond one's means. Raising the debt ceiling will lead to greater potential liability and further economic meltdown."

They talked of this 3 years ago, but never followed through with a clear plan to make the economy sustainable or to eliminate debt.

Somewhere in all of this there has to be a balanced approach. Reductions where necessary, without making poor people suffer. Tax cuts only if the country can truly afford them. Seeking sustainable solutions and increasing self-reliance. I think it will take a party that can balance both left and right wing views so that Washington can end this stalemate and polarization. It won't be easy.

I live in Canada, but I think this concerns everyone in the world because if the American economy defaults it will hurt not just Americans, but millions of people around the world. The USA holds 68% of the world's financial capital, so the shockwaves will be felt everywhere.

Übergeek 바둑이: I totally agree with what you said about the debt ceiling. It's really no celiling at all when you stop to consider that all they have to do is agree to raise it which they seem to do without regard to the future consequences.

We truly need a balanced budget amendment. I don't agree that we ought to curb military spending. We need a strong military. We need to stop throwing money away and eliminating pork spending will be one way to curb that.

The president needs to use his veto pen on a regular basis when it comes to spending. Bridges to nowhere, studies of the sex life of a frog, money to build airports that no one uses - it needs to stop. The ONLY real hope for change is a third party. Both the old wing of Dems and Repubs are corrupt.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama is worse than Bush and plans to make even MORE debt. It has to end.

The truth is that the government has lost sight of the intended purpose of the debt ceiling. From what I read some time ago, before the Civil War the American government was free of debt. When the Civil War broke out the government started incurring debt and then in 1913 (or was it 1915) the debt was spiraling out of control. The debt ceiling was introduced to stop the government from spending more than it should. For the next 6 to 7 decades the debt remained in check because every time the ceiling had to be raised the government had to fight hard to have bills and appropriations approved.

The change came in the 1980s. The Regan administration followed economic policies which used public money for the benefit of private enterprises and for a massive buildup of military spending. Ronal Regan gave tax cuts to the rich, and raised the debt ceiling on 18 different occasions to compensate for the shortfall in government revenue. Presidents that followed him realized that raising the debt ceiling was a way to keep funding programs and giving tax cuts. The programs and tax cuts were used for political purposes in order to score votes at election time.

The problem is that it became too easy to raise the debt ceiling while removing accountability for spending. Both parties engaged in this because it was a way to score big votes as well as ensuring that special interests and campaign donors got what they wanted. The wars have not helped matters because instead of reducing the military budget at the end of the Cold War, that budget has increased tremendously.

The problem now is that the government is refusing to do what the IMF does when it lends money to countries that have bad economies. The IMF imposes austerity measures to combat massive spending. That means cutting popular programs, getting rid of tax breaks, and reducing the size of the government work force.

If the American government were to introduce austerity measures, the first thing to go would be tax breaks. Second, there would be a tax increase across the board. Third, a lot of government employees would lose their jobs. Fourth, companies that export jobs out of the country would be put in a difficult taxation position in order to force them to bring jobs back.

These measures would be unpopular. Those corporation that have grown spoiled by tax breaks would lose and their campaign contributions would dry up. Manufacturers taking jobs overseas would be forced to manufacture more expensively inside the USA. The government would have to cut many expensive programs, and the first ones to go would be the most expensive programs in the military and national security areas.

Neither one of the two parties wants to acknowledge the tough solutions. Instead they are using the debt problem to blame each other and try to gain points with voters for next year's election. None of the politicians has the courage to admit that austerity measures will bring back a surplus that would allow the government to pay its debts. The military would also have to be streamlined to work more efficiently so as to ensure security at a much lower cost.

It is very difficult because if one adds household debt (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc.) and public fiscal debt then the economy is under serious threat. The only solution is to bring back manufacturing to the USA and that will take a politician with the courage to stand up to corporations and say "if you want a tax break, you have to bring jobs back to our country". So far I have not seen a single politican take a courageous stand like that.

Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."[19]
[edit] "Feed The Beast"

There exists a related idea known as "Feed the Beast", which means increasing taxes for the purported purpose of balancing the budget only to make the government spend those inflows. Economists Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder have written in the Wall Street Journal editorial page that every new dollar of new taxes leads to more than one dollar of new spending according to their research. Their conclusions have been disputed by economist and writer Bruce Bartlett in The Fiscal Times, who stated that tax increases in the early 90s helped contribute to more austere budgets in the late 90s.[20][21]

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not just Obama it's ALL OF THEM. But Obama is clearly the worst in terms of the US debt. He's nearly tripled the daily debt since Bush. And he wants MORE debt for the US. Any individual who manages his finances that way would find themselves going bankrupt in no time. It's irresponsible and both parties share the blame. The Dems don't have the solution and neither do most Repubs. The only smart solution is to cut the spending, put a cap it, and balance the budget. Obama doesn't want a balanced budget.

For the record, my views of Bush have changed the more I learn of how he has led this country down the debt path, among other things. So I don't think he is innocent when it comes to the matters of the US debt. He tripled the daily debt that Clinton had. So Bush was WORSE than Clinton when it came to the United States' debt. Obama is worse than Bush and plans to make even MORE debt. It has to end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

It seems by this data the biggest increaser's in US debt are the Republican Presidents. With Raygun (as if we didn't know) increasing debt percentage wise by upto 50% in the '82 to '85 period.

Both Bush's again upto 32% in one term, while Clinton managed to reduce debt by 2001.

Artful Dodger:

> No wonder America is on its way down the toilet.

Is it Obama? Or maybe it is decades of waste in wars to build an empire? Or decades of tax breaks for the rich while the middle class carries the burden of an ever increasing deficit? Or maybe decades of giving tax breaks to companies that manufacture products cheaply overseas and then sell them expensively to Americans? Or maybe decades of giving money and military aid to "allies", most of which are oppressive governments and dictatorships? In all of this, both parties have been complicit. Both parties supported exporting jobs overseas. Both parties supported tax breaks for the rich. Both parties gave money to the dictators and "allies". Both parties agreed on the bailout to bankers and turning a blind eye to greedy, corrupt CEOs and Wall Street magnates.

Blaming Obama is easy, specially when over a trillion was given to banks in a bailout that was the brainchild of the Bush administration. Both parties agreed to that, and now both parties are hypocrites and refuse to admit that the current crisis was caused by spending and waste that both parties have been a part of for decades. It is so easy for Republicans to blame Obama. I wonder how much money Republicans have wasted too.

I have got to clear this up. Mika heard two days ago on Capitol Hill Democrats all saying the same thing. And that is, this president has been invisible, he is not a leader. They said this all behind closed doors. Democratic leaders, Democratic rank-and-file. In fact, 40, 50 of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill. I will just stop right there. The complaints were all the same. The president has vanished. He has left us here alone again like he did with health care. Where is he? Now, they didn't call him a loser, but they sure as hell didn't call him a leader."

Peggy Noonan (born Margaret Ellen Noonan on September 7, 1950, in Brooklyn, New York) is an American author of seven books on politics, religion, and culture and a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal. She was a primary speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and in her political writings is considered a Republican.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Noonan wrote about Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy in the Wall Street Journal. In one opinion piece, Noonan expressed her view that Palin did not demonstrate "the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office," concluding that Palin's candidacy marked a "vulgarization in American Politics" that is "no good... for conservatism... [or] the country."[9] Such commentary resulted in a backlash from conservatives.[10]

No wonder she supported Obama despite being Republican.

Peggy Noonan of the WSJ was once fully behind in support of Obama. But now she has completely changed.

"...nobody loves Obama....Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama... He has supporters and bundlers and voters, he may win. But his support is grim support."

"Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd of those who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does...He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine.""

"..(Obama) is losing a battle in which he had superior forces-the Presidency, the U.S. Senate. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist...He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser."

No wonder America is on its way down the toilet.

The secret grand jury testimony given by former US President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal is set to be released after more than 36 years, following an order by a federal judge.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted a request by historian Stanley Kutler to release the transcript, citing of its historical significance. But it will not be unsealed until the government has had a chance to appeal.

The political scandal prompted Nixon to resign in 1974.

Nixon, who died 17 years ago, was the only US president to resign. He left office amid the fallout after a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington.

Nixon testified for two days in California in June 1975, 10 months after his resignation. Judge Lamberth ruled that the historical interest in the 297-page transcript far outweighed the need to keep the records secret.

Raygun decided to 'win' the cold war by increasing DOD spending.... Yet as a matter of history and the logistics involved in any war between the west and USSR.. technically the war was lost years before. The only way to stop any Soviet advance through Europe was nuclear weapons and that was M.A.D.

NATO just did not have the manpower to stop the Soviets.

In the process Raygun spent the US economy.

The tax cuts he gave his masters put the US economy in a state of spiralling debt that through loyalty and fear of said masters.. No President till Obama has dared face.

... And yet the Republicans who still serve (thanks to decades of bribery) such masters will not cross them.

......... Should America be called the USA or DSA... as it's not united.. just a matter of who's pulling the strings.

Of course, all Americans know that the most expensive and most wasteful part of the government is the Department of Defense. It has been argued that if the US were to get rid of the DOD it could pay off the debt.

Of course, the real problem is that the rich don't pay enough taxes in relation to their income. If instead of tax breaks the rich got a tax hike the problem would be solved, but I doubt that Republicans would allow that. It is more convenient to let the rich get richer while the government defaults. According to the defenders of tax breaks, the rich already pay enough. Maybe we should pity the rich for being overtaxed!

In reality, the true solution is to give tax breaks to companies and individuals that create jobs in the USA, and eliminate tax breaks for companies that take jobs overseas where labout is cheap. I doubt that Walmart and many other retailers would like that. Car makers make too many parts in China now. So do computer companies. Those companies manufacture more microchips in China and Taiwan than they do in the USA. So many companies are opening their call centres in India. If tax breaks were tied to creating jobs in America, not a single fortune 500 company would get any tax breaks at all.

As of Thursday afternoon, the federal government has less money to spend than Apple.

The Financial Post dug into the U.S. Treasury’s daily reports and found that the federal government has a remaining operating balance of $73.768 billion before it hits the debt ceiling next Tuesday.

In stark contrast, Steve Jobs’ company has cash reserves of $75.876 billion, according to its recent and record-breaking second quarter earnings report.


The reason for this? Apple doesn't spend more than it takes in. Obama could learn from this. He's brought more debt to this country than ANY president and he plans on adding trillions more.

Stop it

SL-Mark:

SL-Mark:Wtat the? Could u explain that again in BSL please?

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for
a stroll in town one Day. As they walk,
they come across a sign:
"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her,
"Well, how'd ya do?" "
First Place !," said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign:
"Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour, he returns and they ask him,
"How did you make out?"
First Place ," answers Superman.
"Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar ! in the world?"
Pinocchio enters. After half an hour he
returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the heck is Obama?" asked Pinocchio

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

Bernice: he's currently playing to the middle and really ticking off the far left. The House just passed a bill so it will be interesting to see how the Dems handle it. Obama cannot afford to veto the only bill that passes through the House and Senate. If he does, it's all on him!!!

Artful Dodger: I had to laugh at Obama this morning on TV...we dont have a problem now but we will by Tuesday....what an idiot...TUESDAY, what the hell is the diff between now and then....what a difference a day makes they say, but Im thinking the USA is going to need a lot more than a couple days. If they keep raising the bar on the national debt ???.......see that splat on the wall?...it has already started "hitting the fan"

Artful Dodger:

> Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes .. etc.

I find that this is a symptom of a problem in the political system in the USA (and probably other countries too). An elected official (whether in Congress, the Senate, the Cabinet, or the President) is campaigning for office two years ahead of the election, in some cases even longer. That means that if somebody is elected to a 4-year term, they are spending 50% of their time campaigning. These people (and they belong to both parties) are being paid with tax dollars, and they are campaigning for two years while tax payers pay their salaries. Since political campaigning is fierce, it comes as no surpise that they neglect the job they were elected to do while they go out to campaign.

Mr Reid said the Boehner plan was "a big wet kiss for the right wing", and Mr Obama has said he will not sign a short-term deal.

Also, in a new twist that analysts say illustrates the discord among the Republican party, Republican Senator John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee, took to the Senate floor to criticise House Republicans who continue to push for a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution as the price of raising the debt ceiling.

A balanced budget amendment - which would require the US government to hold down spending to a certain percentage of gross domestic product and run in the black - was already rejected by the Senate and by Mr Obama.

Mr McCain called the demands "foolish" and "bizarro" and said they were "deceiving many of our constituents" and blamed them on newly elected House members' inexperience.

(V): That could be taken as a flame. You know it's bad manners to flame even is it's a subtle one. Especially when someone isn't in the room. (I was offline when you posted that) tsk tsk

The fact is, you can't discuss it because we both know that you are wrong and are incapable of proving your point other than to keep restating it (which isn't proof you know). You made the claim, back it up (I won't hold my breath because I know you'll only try to weasel out of it as you can't prove you are right since you're not only wrong, but completely wrong.

Artful Dodger: I don't think it'd be worthwhile going into what is good and bad etiquette with you.

(V): And now ladies and gentlemen, since He (jules) cannot prove his point, he now utilizes chapter four: change the subject!!!

Artful Dodger: *sigh*

Btw.. do you now want to make the statement that all terrorists are Muslim?

(V): Just prove your point by showing a link where that rule is stated (since it's been known for over 100 years).

instead of conceding that, Jules and Tuesday decided to pick on his use of the word "she."


Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes

November 02, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama makes a campaign stop at Iowa State University on Saturday.

Sen. Barack Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.

The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September.

The other Democrats in the Senate running for president have missed a high percentage of votes as well.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has missed 68 percent of the votes during the same period, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut 65 percent and Clinton of New York 63 percent.

Artful Dodger: No.. I'm saying you just want to argue the point and I'm happy knowing I am right.

(V): So what your saying is you can't actually prove what you are claiming. And also you have interviewed everyone in the UK and they all agree with you.

Justaminute: This forum is an informal conversation "room." Jules was clearly referring to Tuesday in his rejoinder to Rod. Rod replied using the pronoun she that clearly referred back to Tuesday. In the context you are describing, you are correct. In the situation here, Jules and Tuesday are wrong. And they will fail at proving that because there is no such rule against such use of pronouns in a discussion forum.

Artful Dodger: That you have a problem with English language use is your problem. Learn yourself.. I know I am right as anybody here in the UK will tell you whether Liberal/Conservative or Jedi Knight!!

(V): Nonsense. The antecedent was clear in the context of the discussion. Therefore the use of the word "she" was not only proper but its use is more common than is the restating of the antecedent. That's why we have rules for pronoun antecedent. When the antecedent is clear, the pronoun is almost always used.

But enlighten us, show us where this is the case and also defend your own use of the word "she" where several hundred times you yourself used that exact pronoun.

Artful Dodger: When talking about someone in the room (or a poster here) "she" is considered rude and bad manners, the same rule does not apply when discussing someone as a topic.

Now you can twist that all you like, but it ain't gonna change 100's of years of English language use and the rules thereof.

Justaminute:
I guess it depends where you were brought up. If I referred to someone as "she" when I was growing up and they were in the room the response would be "who's she the cat's mother". Meaning you are being rude. It isn't rude to refer the same way about soeone who is not going to over hear the conversation.