In his best Diamond Dave voice...I hope you missed me...I'm baaack

Wow...a sh*tstorm about Obama vs. Romney on Talk2Joe...I guess this place is still part of the real world ;?)

Seriously though, I think they're both turds; still debating whether I'll hold my nose and vote for one of them (hint: it won't be Obama) or someone who hasn't a chance in hell but more closely (if not perfectly) represents my ideals.

If you have a problem with Obama because he's black, then you're a racist. If you think that Obama is disrespected or feared by some merely because he is black, you probably don't want to hear the substantive arguments against his policies, and may simply not understand economics through other than the failed lens of Keynesianism.

If you have a problem with Romney because he's rich, then, at best, you're jealous, and not much better. If you think Romney is being panned by some merely because he is a rich white guy, you too are wearing blinders, and wish to ignore the fact that this guy has had more positions on important issues than adult film stars have in a career.

If you're not in love with either of them, but merely think of them to be the lesser of two evils, consider making your vote count by voting Libertarian, Green, or even Socialist Workers party, if that's your thing.

You might also consider not voting, as it's biggest real function is to legitimize the current system.

"it's the "every man for himself" way of thinking that is the problem"

Quite. A society cannot function this way. I can't understand why some people still think it can.

IMO, USA is lucky to have Obama methodically tidying up the ruin left by the Bush regime, and is lucky to have a presidential figure who can think broadly, for the normal people, rather than aspiring to make improvements for the rich.

I don't believe in "every man for himself". I also don't believe government to be the appropriate helping hand when the time comes. It is the entity most ill-informed and ill-suited for the task.

Look at NOLA during Katrina...who showed up to help people first after the fact? Private & not for profit organizations...the Red Cross, even the EVIL Walmart. What happened when government entities showed up? People were given all the help they didn't need, and more, their rights were run roughshod over (forceful evacuations and or gun confiscations ring a bell?) and thousands of temporary housing trailers sat empty for months, turning toxic with mold, because the bureaucracy couldn't be waded through quickly enough for anyone to move in.

Also, much like Bush didn't make the financial mess in this country, Obama isn't fixing it. Trust me, I'm no Bush fanboy, but to think that the real estate and other bubbles happened on his watch and on his watch only is to be ignorant of over 100 years of U.S. economic history.

Bailouts don't work...GM and all the banks that were bailed out should have been left to fail...this is the only way for the malinvestment to be cleared...instead, both Bush and Obama (and the relevant congresses, Republican and Democrat alike) chose to put the little guy on the hook for the connected rich guys in the banks and the auto manufacturers.

The malinvestment of which I speak was spawned, for the most part, by the reckless interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve.

Interest rates are prices for borrowing. As with all prices, if they are not market driven, those participating in the market don't have the appropriate information necessary to make rational decisions regarding the allocation of their capital.

This is why price controls of any sort at any time are always (yes, I said always) horribly destructive. Looking back to my earlier example of Katrina, one might be tempted to ask "What about after a hurricane? What about water? Surely you would advocate price controls for such a situation...". Quite the contrary...imagine price controls on water after a Hurricane...a politician, in his infinite wisdom (and infinite ignorance of economics) declares that water prices will not be allowed to rise, and that anyone found to be "gouging". What happens next? Hoarding and shortages. Price ceilings always lead to shrotages, and price floors (think minimum wage - a control on the price of labor) always lead to gluts.

Simon, you mentioned that Obama was methodically unraveling the mess left by Bush. I ask with all seriousness, from your perspective, what were the issues, and what has Obama done to fix them?

Again, while I, like Peace_Lily, voted for Bush in 2000, I haven't voted for a Republican for president since. In full disclosure, I have never voted for a Democrat. That said, I am always amazed when anyone highly lauds the policies or outcomes of either party. Both stand for increased control, albeit over different targeted areas, of one's life.

Social safety nets, over time, trend toward social hammocks for the "cash" payout systems, and tend to lead to shortages and reduction in quality where government intervenes in service delivery (think healthcare...it's coming).

Suggested Reading: The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek

As for the money Obama is spending to fix the mess here in the US - how much did Bush spent to make it? The money spent on the war alone, and the aftermath of what becomes of all the broken soldiers coming home. Their short term and long term healthcare. Their mental healthcare, which will take longer to heal than their physical wounds, not to mention the physical and monetary toll it takes on their families. Add all that mess to the infrastructure of the US. The roads, bridges, and all the sewer, gas, water and everything else that's rotting under the ground and needs repairs. Water pipes are breaking and causing giant sinkholes all over the place over here in the tri-state area. You can't 'rebuild" America without spending money.

cuth, " If you think that Obama is disrespected or feared by some merely because he is black, you probably don't want to hear the substantive arguments against his policies, and may simply not understand economics through other than the failed lens of Keynesianism. "

If you're in denial that his being black hasn't swayed people's way of thinking about him, well, I don't have enough hours to debate that one. I've heard the most ignorant, unbelievable, and just mind blowing statements from people who have fed and spread the lies and fear tactics spread by hate towards the man. That doesn't necessarily make them racist (some truly are), but it does make them ignorant. Do you remember the blatant disrespect by some of the republican members of congress, and the S.C. congressmen who called him a liar during one of his speeches? They've even stooped so low in their hate rally as to compare him to Hitler and Marx. HITLER! Are you f'n kidding me?

I don't ever remember in my 48 years on this planet (who knows where I was before that?) such vile hatred and disrespect for any president, or hearing anything like this for any before my time. What has this president done that is so outrageously different than any other Democratic president before him that would cause so much disrespect and hate??

As for people not liking Romney because he's rich, hell, Obama is rich if you think about it. How far does a person who isn't rich get when running for president? Not to damn far. It's not that he's rich, it's that he's completely out of touch with how most American live on a daily basis. He's out of touch with pretty much everything except stepping on people to better the top half, or "thinning the herd". He's grown up in a very privileged lifestyle. Yay for him. It's not that's he's rich, it's his CHARACTER that is the problem.

Thanks for the birthday wishes :-)

962, if I had a thumbs up icon, I'd use it now. lol!

As for NOLA - that was, once again, one of the biggest messes Bush created for the US with his lack of action, total disrespect for the people of Katrina, and the unbelievable way he tried to "make up for it" by "helping". That was the gov't under the watch of Bush and his people. Since Obama has been in, has there been any natural disasters that have been handled anywhere near that badly? Any? Not playing tit for tat, but there was a LOT of bad shit that went down in the 8 years on Bush's watch that the next prez had to deal with - no matter who they were.

Anyways, happy Monday y'all!

Michelle

Regarding Hitler and Stalin, you haven't been paying attention...Bush II was compared to Hitler...Clinton was compared to both...I think even Bush I got a few Hitler comparisons.

Again...many messes may have come to light during the Bush years, but to think they are all Bush's fault or that Obama can clean them up on his own (or, for those so inclined, that Romney could clean up what you consider to be Obama's mess) is very short sighted.

Both parties have buried this country fiscally over the course of decades. It will take a long time to dig us out. Obama's basic plan of digging deeper won't work. Whatever plan Romney and Ryan have to dig us out won't work either; it's too little too late.

Only one man who was in the primaries came close to understanding what level of cutting would be needed to have a chance to prevent default. That man is out of the running.

Is that our man Ron Paul?

Boy...a quote function would be awesome...I have been spoiled elsewhere...

Anyway, on NOLA, most of my point wasn't about the feds. Other than the trailers, the problems to which I referred were due to state and local agencies or entities, such as the National Guard, under their control. Though the trailers were from them and could have been Bush's fault or, more likely, the result of massive and distant bureaucracy trying to address a local problem.

I'm not hung up on who the president is when government screws up...for state and local issues it never matters, and for federal issues, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.

Yes, I've been a supporter of Paul since before he threw his hat in the ring in February of 2007.

He's not perfect...no man is. He just has a firm understanding of economics. I firmly believe that misunderstanding (or, manipulation if you prefer, but I'm fresh out of tinfoil) of economics is at the core of most problems this country (most of the world, in fact) faces.

He also understands that much of the world is not as enamored of our nation's military adventurism as many here seem to be.

hi joe, I saw that the g3 tour to South America is in October, and I was wondering how do I know the prices of the show to see the possibility of a presentation of g3 in panama city for those days?, excuse my English

sinceresly

I saw a political commercial last night saying since Obama has no track record, he is resorting to lies and attacks because he has nothing else.

Eat THIS Obama haters

I don't get how anyone can hate him after watching this.

I reckon that initiating a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East counts as spending money to try and put the pieces back together.

The economic impact of moving all those soldiers and all those resources out of hostile territory is far smaller than the economic impact of keeping them there.

That is possibly the biggest difference made, for the benefit of American citizens, by your current president.

I also believe Obama's current comments on women's health(care) and on alternative energy sources are worth taking note of. They'll make a massive difference to the quality of life of the average American citizen in the long run.

I can't claim to know a whole lot about Romney, apart from having read the usual political propaganda....I just think it's sad that so much criticism is so readily leveled against Obama. As a leader on the world stage, he's really pretty damn good, and that makes life better at home. I'm positive that a large number of the proposed improvements would be successful, but I doubt if enough people will be patient enough to vote for them to happen.

Care to share what you do for a living htuC?

Political rants on Satchweb are basically it today and yesterday...I've been home sick.:?)

Guitarman

I don't hate him...just most of his policies and proposals and thinly-veiled innuendo for future plans. That said, Romney doesn't thrill me either.

962

The economic impact of moving all those soldiers and all those resources out of hostile territory is far smaller than the economic impact of keeping them there.

Getting out of the ME is definitely a good thing...I was against going in in the first place, even though I had voted for Bush in 2000.

I also believe Obama's current comments on women's health(care) and on alternative energy sources are worth taking note of. They'll make a massive difference to the quality of life of the average American citizen in the long run.

I don't believe the government should have any role in health care, aside from preventing fraud and being an uninterested arbiter in the case of negative outcomes (the courts).

Most people who would take issue with this stance would point to the exorbitant cost of healthcare as proof the government needs to get involved. This is static analysis, and fails to take into account the failed policies of government intervention in the health care markets from the time of the Johnson administration and before.

Again, the root is economic. Government involvement has caused distortions of price in the market. There hasn't been a free market in healthcare, even in the US, for quite some time, with few exceptions. One notable exception is in Lasik surgery. With Lasik being relatively unregulated, innovation has compounded, outcomes have improved, and prices have (GASP!) dropped. This is due to competition between providers, and a lack of government stepping in to choose winners and losers, as it has in so many other arenas.

I can't claim to know a whole lot about Romney, apart from having read the usual political propaganda....I just think it's sad that so much criticism is so readily leveled against Obama. As a leader on the world stage, he's really pretty damn good, and that makes life better at home. I'm positive that a large number of the proposed improvements would be successful, but I doubt if enough people will be patient enough to vote for them to happen.

Ah...on the world stage he may not be that bad, but by the standards of liberty and the Constitution, he is very poor and possibly among the worst we have had (yes, he ranks up there with W, for different reasons). Going back to bringing the troops home, I'm all for it...in fact, I'd bring them home from far more places than Obama would ever hope to dream....domestically, however, this cat is an economic nightmare.

Oh and "planned parenthood. We're going to get rid of that". WHAT?!? Someone please enlighten me as to how this constitutes progress!

Since he can't eliminate Planned Parenthood per se, I would guess he was just referring to their federal funding (YMMV), though I would actually question whether a PotUS could do this on his own; he likely anticipates (assuming he wins) a cooperative majority in both houses.

If I am correct in interpreting his meaning, I see it as a worthy goal. Catholics should no more be expected to fund Planned Parenthood via their taxes (yes, I realize all the dollars are fungible) than should a Planned Parenthood supporter be forced to fund Catholic abstinence education or screeds supporting the Quiverfull movement.

People on "both sides" (see: Nolan Chart) of the aisle seem to consistently ignore that power in the hand of their champion would scare the hell out of them in the hands of their opponent.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to incite a dispute here, over matters of opinion, but: Every government has a 3rd tool - Cooperation.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to incite a dispute here, over matters of opinion, but: Every government has a 3rd tool - Cooperation.

Force and threats are not the only way!

I think you misunderstood my meaning.

While cooperation is possible within the confines of government e.g. while establishing law or regulation, once said law or regulation is codified, enforcement relies upon force, or the threat thereof.

<edit> Cooperation may also occur between separate governments, of course. </edit>

Think about any scenario where there is a law, moral or otherwise, with which you disagree. You choose not to comply based on your beliefs. Your refusal causes no harm, explicit or implicit to any person, entity, or object not your own. What is the end result of continued non-compliance?

Force.

There may be civil interactions along the way; there will be threats along the way; but the end result of your continued refusal to yield to the power will be force.

The sovereign maintains a monopoly on the legalized - whether legitimate or otherwise - use of such force, and will not hesitate to employ it, up to and including the theft of your property, life, or liberty when that sovereignty is threatened by refusal.

Peace Lily - sorry to hear that your family are being cruel to you :( *HUG* Jesus is my Lord & Saviour but i will not listen to any christian leader about how i should vote. Billly Graham told christians to vote for Nixon and look how well that turned out, not only was he a crook but he used the Lord's name in vain, the same name that those who voted for him hold dear.

your vote is your choice and it is personal and your sister was wrong to share what you told her. there is not one candidate that can hold a candle to Christ therefore christian leaders, pastors etc. should not be saying 'vote for this man'. everyone, esp. christians should vote with their heart and with what they are comfortable with. no politician has Jesus's stamp of approval.

And now for something different.

Cheese- Definitely uplifting!!!, Thanks for posting . Needed some uplifting.... seems like most of my loved ones are facing some tough challenges right now.... wearing me down with worry a wee bit...