Miscellaneous News. - Page 25

If those things happen it is not the end of the world. Those whose pay is affected will have short term shortfalls, and from what I read there this position of not paying military personnel seems to be against the spirit of the law that states that national defense will still be funded.

To the senators sparring over the budget. If a shutdown is required to bring spending in line, then shut it down. But you damn well better bring spending in line on the other side or all your posturing will have been for nothing.

So pointing out potential negative outcomes is only the 'politics of fear' when Republicans do it and when Democrats do it they're just pointing out pertinent facts that people should know about?

Strikes me as ludicrous that there's so much to shut down in the first place.



Something is wrong indeed, and it is being abused, that's for sure. But probably not in the ways you mean.

Thanks for that objective definition. But I would say that Obama is fear mongering:


Some of what Obama is doing may be stating facts, but, notably he's carefully choosing only the facts that will create or foster fear. Secondly, it's not all facts. Comments about the potential negative effects on the economy are speculation, not facts.

Not sure what you mean.

Oh. So suddenly we're concerned about spending an extra billion or two? Interesting. There wasn't any of this concern when Obama and the Democrats shoved an $800 billion spending bill down the throats of the American taxpayers.

Really? I call bull*#@*, especially on the idea the stimulus had hundreds of "shovel-ready projects" just waiting on his signature. I think it benefited his banker friends more than anything. For a list of his broken promises, take a look here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...romise-broken/

I had hopes. Not any longer.

Yeah...we just had to lose about 3-4 million jobs on the pathway to creating a couple hundred thousand.

Yup, a lot there. Sad, isn't it? And he's not done yet.

And to add still more insults to those that voted for his "change", he continues many of the ridiculed Bush policies. Like Bush he directed the Attorney General to continue supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't' Ask, Don't Tell. And like Bush, told the Democrats to support extending all the Bush tax cuts for the economic health of the country. And like Bush, argued that an extension of the Patriot Act was essential to national security. And like Bush, affirmed the use of rendition in specific cases. And like Bush decided that there's no viable option to Guantanamo detention. And like Bush, supports military tribunals for most of the detainees. And like Bush supports despots and dictators as long as they're our "allies". And like Bush insists on getting involved in the internal politics of other countries, supporting US Imperialism. And goes beyond Bush to claim the Afghanistan war begun by GWB as his own by shipping 10's of thousands more troops to a country whose corrupt President doesn't want us there, and yet he has no firm plans for getting us out.

And how about his statements in support of the Stimulus Bill? He claimed if it wasn't passed that unemployment could exceed 9% by the end of 2009. Guess what? It passed and official unemployment still shot past 9%. And that figure didn't include those that just gave up looking or took minimum wage part-time jobs just to survive. Shovel ready projects? Of course he lied. The projects weren't shovel ready and instead the money was spent to rescue his banker friends. In return we got higher unemployment and a future mortgaged to China. Worst of all he's left us no viable way to pay for those infrastructure improvements and repairs that would really help put people back top work. Most of the money's already spent, given to the rich who didn't want to accept any losses for their under-handed financial schemes. Great job so far, huh?

Try this. Ski down a hill. Keep going. Faster. Now, when I say "now!" turn around and climb up the hill.

Yep, that's right, you can't turn around without sliding down the hill a little further.

Bush had us on a ski jump, and we expected Obama to climb up the hill just when we hit the air...

It's hard to argue with your brilliant and incisive economic analysis and analogy.

Dude, at least try. Sarcasm does not pass on information, it just muddies the water.

There are certain people I've discovered it is not even worth trying. Tonton is one.

Hands, seriously, you should know better. This is France we're talking about. They have a glass of wine. They don't get drunk. It sounds like a stupid decree. Now in UK, where a cop would gladly choose to guzzle five pints with breakfast if they could, it makes sense.

Pakistan stops US using air base to fly drones:



Obama has OK'd use of drones in Libya, Gates says

This is a perfect example of jimmac, BR and tonton thinking. Watch:

A news report with facts and data and stuff:

TRENDING: CNN Poll of Polls: President's approval rating declining:


And what does the first user comment on the page say:


Remember, anecdotal experiences trump actual data.

I am disappointed in Obama for sure! I will vote for a Liberal challenger during primary season and for the presidential vote, even if there's a chance that my vote will be wasted in a close race. I honestly think it won't be such a bad thing if a conservative wins. We obviously won't learn our lesson until we hit rock bottom due to Conservative policies. Apparently, the Bush failure wasn't rock bottom enough. I just want the pendulum to swing back before my daughter hits the job market.

And if that doesn't happen, she'll be trilingual and dual citizenship and can always live here.

British police and football hooligans were cut from the same cloth on opposite sides of the track.

We haven't learned our lesson whene we hit rock bottom due to "Liberal"/"progressive"/"leftist"/Democratic policies. Why would you expect anything different the other way?!



Her ability to be adaptable gives her the greatest opportunity ever regardless of the political situations. My kids are a tad too old and heading down their own American-centric lives. If they were younger we'd probably already be out of here. Some place like Chile, Hong Kong or New Zealand or Mauritius. Some place away from the joke that the US has become...under both parties.

Trump, the trumpeter of made in... China?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=13472355

You have to love it! Trump's got all the answers. Uh huh.

How about this one : Donald Trump and Ron Paul: Republican Fringe Out in Front of 2012 Field


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=13463791

Oh boy!

It's more than a little unnerving that one of the only guys in politics that actually reads, understands and wants to adhere to the US constitution is considered "fringe."

Honestly, it's because his social/religious positions are contradictory to his libertarian claim, and becaus there are a large number of intelligent voters who can see that his economic ideas and government services management ideas are bunk, but don't let that get in the way of your 'regulation is bad 100% of the time' simplistic world view.

Obama is a socialist are you not aware of this yet?

How so?



Remember intelligence is not the same thing as economically knowledgable and well-informed. One can be generally intelligent but ill-informed about economic matters. Often they think they understand things, but possess only a superficial and simplistic understanding of the issues and factors.

For example, some generally intelligent people think that raising the minimum wage or mandating a variety of employer-provided benefits are good things for the poor as a whole. Also many generally intelligent people think that free trade is bad for America. Other generally intelligent people don't know what inflation is and what is causing it. What's more, many generally intelligent people are downright schizophrenic on basic economic principles. They favor raising or adding taxes on things like soda, junk food or cigarettes because they believe this action will lead to a reduction in the consumption of that good...but raising taxes on other things like profits, income, wealth and investments won't lead to a reduction in those things.

Stuff like that. So the "intelligent voter" isn't always correct on basic economic principles and issues.

No time to respond to your whole post... I may get to it... but I had to point out:

Intelligent people don't polarize.

To say that "raising the minimum wage or mandating a variety of employer-provided benefits are good things for the poor as a whole" is just as wrong as it would be to say that "raising the minimum wage or mandating a variety of employer-provided benefits are bad things for the poor as a whole."

I'll try to remember that. Especially when those who are claimed to be intelligent do exactly that.



Some people who are generally considered intelligent say that raising the minimum wage* will help the poor. This notion is, quite often, offered in a categorical way just as I have stated it here such as: "raising the minimum wage will help the poor." The implication here is that it will help the poor as a whole.

Furthermore, these same intelligent people often reject any notion that that raising the minimum wage might hurt some of the poor (or have no net positive effect). This suggestion is often dismissed as merely right-wing, free-market talking points or kookiness or some such similar dismissal. Perhaps a dash of implication about how the person pointing this out probably doesn't care about the poor and probably even hates them.


I'm pretty certain I've ever said that. I have pointed out how it affects people at the lower end of the wage scale and how this likely will negatively effect some (possibly many) poor people who are employed at that end of the wage scale.

I've also pointed out that there are a number of policies that have been implemented in the spirit of helping the poor (again this is never qualified so the implication is always helping the poor as a whole** or all** of the poor) that appear to have the net effect of hurting some (or many) of the poor. I've also pointed out how various policies whether intended to help the poor or not actually hurt them.

*Mandating employer-provided benefits has the same basic effect as raising the minimum wage...raising the cost of the employee to the employer. Minimum wage is used in this example merely for the sake of simplicity.