He begins with the example of the the new get-naked-or-groped TSA policy and goes on:
From stimulus spending and the health care law to the federal response to oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Obama has continually stumbled...
I add my longtime blog tag "Obama stumbles" to this post.
... blindly, it seems — into some version of the same debate, which is about whether we can trust federal bureaucracies to expand their reach without harming citizens or industry....
Bai notes that during the Reagan and Clinton years, America turned away from "the era of big government," but then:
[T]he unraveling of the second Bush administration and the 2008 election... persuaded a lot of long-dispirited liberals that their philosophy, and not simply their party, had been restored.
What a delusion!
Posts
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»Never mind the parties; government is still growing. It will continue to grow.
I was watching an episode of FRONTLINE last night ("Obama's Deal") and that did seem to be his motivation - proving government can "get things done".
Unfortunately, it wasn't the thing we wanted done.
Pity.
I can't figure out the liberal philosophy. On the one hand, they voice an explicit distrust of the government and authority, yet on the other hand their policy solutions all require an intrusive, big government. It's not a philosophy; it's schizophrenia.
BTW - the quote "[T]he unraveling of the second Bush administration,..." would read more accurately if it said "By unraveling of the second Bush administration,..."
All those lies really added up after a while.
When government expands, it does so because the expansion enhances the power, prestige, and income of government officials.
Thus, members of congress saw their net worth increase dramatically in the last two years as government expanded while private citizens saw their own net worth decline sharply.
Government officials expand government because doing so is good for them personally.
We are the suckers whose money they are taking for their own purposes.
Who paid for all those trips Nancy Pelosi and her family and friends took on luxurious Gulfstream private jets--the ones with the big leather swiveling armchairs and large passenger windows?
We paid for it.
America’s faltering confidence in the ability of government to make things work
The government lost the ability to do this after the moon landing.
The 1960's radicals brought about a culture of mediocrity, emotion over reason and racial spoils.
Who actually believes the govenrment can make things work? (outside of the awesome abilities of the American military, that is)
Bai notes that during the Reagan and Clinton years, America turned away from "the era of big government,"
Exactly how much did governement shrink over the "Reagan and Clinton years"?
The Left lost its way when it BECAME the establishment it came of age rebelling against.
It's sad, really.
Unfortunately, better health science will mean these 60's Leftovers (pun intended...can I get credit for coining a term?)will be with us for another 20 years or so. To further add to the woes, the anonymity and ease of the internet means we'll be dealing with their minds well into their rice pudding years.
And Chase wins by 20 lengths.
Dem or Repub, the gov't does not get smaller. And, mostly, despite what they say, most people don't want it to.
The Lefties have never stopped believing in the wonderfulness of government intervention and supervision.
The Bush 43 administration was brought down in large part by lies about the handling of Katrina and the campaign in Iraq. Conservative outrage about spending and a number of domestic initiatives did the rest.
The Crack Emcee said...
I was watching an episode of FRONTLINE last night ("Obama's Deal") and that did seem to be his motivation - proving government can "get things done".
Unfortunately, it wasn't the thing we wanted done.
But he is souring a generation on the idea that government solutions are best, so it seems to be working out for the best, anyway.
Original Mike said...
I can't figure out the liberal philosophy. On the one hand, they voice an explicit distrust of the government and authority, yet on the other hand their policy solutions all require an intrusive, big government. It's not a philosophy; it's schizophrenia.
You broke the code.
Dem or Repub, the gov't does not get smaller. And, mostly, despite what they say, most people don't want it to.
Unfortunately, true.
Who actually believes the govenrment can make things work? (outside of the awesome abilities of the American military, that is)
For a different, and unnerving, look at the capabilities of the U.S. military, I recommend Fred on Everything. http://www.fredoneverything.net/
Written by Vietnam Vet, soldier of fortune, police reporter and military reporter, Fred Reed.
Don't know if I agree with him, but he sure sees the world in a different way.
Our country was founded on the belief that government should not and cannot "make things work"! Of course, the majority of us still believe that! Government can barely pull off security and warmaking; why would we trust them with our lives and families and prosperity?
Matt Bai needs to go back to school and read history by someone other than Howard Zinn.
"Dem or Repub, the gov't does not get smaller. And, mostly, despite what they say, most people don't want it to. "
Yes but there is a vast groundswell building in the country to finally reverse that trend. One cannot predict the future simply by looking in the rear view mirror.
That being said, the outcome of the war between the statist and libertarian impulses in the body politic is far from certain. At least there is some HOPE to CHANGE things now where there was none two years ago.
Original Mike wrote:
I can't figure out the liberal philosophy. On the one hand, they voice an explicit distrust of the government and authority, yet on the other hand their policy solutions all require an intrusive, big government. It's not a philosophy; it's schizophrenia.
as would setting up profiling for our security, which could invalidate the conservative/libertarian position about how we should profile but that govt shouldn't be in our lives.
Though Israel is in the right and has every right to defend themselves, they are in fact a police state, which requires a lot of trust of the govt and a lot of personal sacrificies of small liberties at the altar of safety.
The government lost the ability to do this after the moon landing.
Oh, I dunno...Desert Storm went pretty well.
I'm happy to see pieces like this. The cons need to be focused like a laser on BHO. They must viscerally despise him. They must feel that everything (from airport security to plugging the damn hole to bubble growth based on financial flimflam) he does is wrong/evil.
By comparison, any R will seem acceptable, it doesn't matter what they do.
Fortunately Rs are good at being scared to action.
But, Rs aren't just pushing fear of the other side. They're for things too: tax cuts, but still spend.
Just a few more tax cuts for Buffet & Co, and few trillion more in defense spending (while keeping the checks rolling to the geriatric base) will solve all our problems. Obviously the trickle down plan has worked flawlessly over the last thirty years. We've seen the flood of money into the top is mostly contained at the top, with just a little trickle escaping to the middle class. Success!!
I can't figure out the liberal philosophy
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month. Fire some teachers? Defund NPR? Always hear a lot of sniping from the sidelines but never hear any real solutions. How come we never see any stories from all these great new Republicans swept into office, and their ideas to improve things?
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month.
We'll soon find out if it keeps up, won't we?
You mean we have to elect Republicans to find out what their plans are?
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month. Fire some teachers? Defund NPR? Always hear a lot of sniping from the sidelines but never hear any real solutions. How come we never see any stories from all these great new Republicans swept into office, and their ideas to improve things?
Because there are no great new ideas. Old ideas work. New ideas either don't exist, or they don't work.
o Cut taxes and spending
o Reduce the size of the public payroll
o Reduce regulation
o Yes, defund NPR
o Yes, fire some teachers.
Conservative is literally about believing in that which is already known and tested.
So, what you're saying, garage, is: Why can't conservatives be liberals?
What would be the point of that?
And, I have to repeat, garage, your comments are almost invariably utterly empty.
To summarize your last post: Why can't liberals be conservatives?
You really think that was worth the time to write it?
Could you hold off writing anything else until you have something to say that isn't utterly empty?
You mean we have to elect Republicans to find out what their plans are?
You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, Garage. Did Palosipalooza not teach you anything?
"I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month."
Go back to the Richard Epstein vid Althouse linked to. The answers are there.
Scott M,
You beat me to it.
When Wall Street steals your money, libs go bonkers. When Uncle Sam steals your money by placing in the mythological Social Security Trust Fund, libs say we need to give Uncle Sam even more of our money.
When Philly cops try to do a Stop & Frisk to check people for guns, the libs go bonkers. When Uncle Sam has the TSA do a Frisk Before You Can Fly, libs say right on right on.
Kinda contradictory thinking IMHO.
"I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month. Fire some teachers? Defund NPR? Always hear a lot of sniping from the sidelines but never hear any real solutions. How come we never see any stories from all these great new Republicans swept into office, and their ideas to improve things?"
There you go again; equating conservatives and Republicans. You are, in fact, incorrect to say you "never hear any real solutions". The economy, and especially job formation, will be depressed as long as the regulatory uncertainty of ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, the EPA regulation of carbon, not to mention the uncertainty of future tax rates, obtains (the argument of the Bush tax cuts is trivial compared to the future increase in taxes required to fund government at Obama-like levels).
You may support ObamaCare, Cap and Trade and all the rest for what you perceive to be good reasons, and that's fine, but you can not have all that AND job growth. Obama's economy is testament to that fact.
Not that this is anything new, but liberals just refuse to believe it.
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month.
Hysterical.
Your ignorance is willful.
In my industry, the regulatory paperwork has tripled in the last 2 years. We've only doubled our markup to cover the costs. Most of it is stupid makework that seems like it was dreamed up in a sophomore's dorm room. The customer is getting a worse deal thanks to the government. The extra regulation hasn't helped the economy, it has retarded it.
Sometimes I dream about getting into an unregulated field such as government work.
"Unregulated field like govt work". Heh good one!
wv = dorni = The Dorney Park in Italy
"In my industry, the regulatory paperwork has tripled in the last 2 years."
Yeah, that 1099 on every transaction over $600 is really going to be good for the economy, ain't it?
Here's a great suggestion, from Steve Sailer, about what Obama could do to stimulate the economy:
As I pointed out last week, President Obama has a unique opportunity, as the first black President, to engage in an act of personal statesmanship that would be good both good for the country and his re-election chances: declare victory in the War on Discrimination. Bring the federal diversicrat troops home from their long battle against America’s employers!
There's a great idea! Whether it's conservative, or just common sense... damned if I know.
shoutingthomas -
Thanks for the link on Fred Reed. You reminded me that I had forgotten about him.
garage mahal said...
You mean we have to elect Republicans to find out what their plans are?
You should win this thread.
The government will always suck at things because if and when they suck they have no competition that cleans their clocks and puts them out of business.
"You broke the code."
Diagnosis is only the first step.
red meat. red meat. red meat.
of course the entire thing is nonsense only exceeded by the rather clownish set of comments by the frothing right wing loonies on here.
If they took Rush and Sean and that Savage putz off the air, I swear you on the right wouldn't have a friggin thing to say.
When Uncle Sam has the TSA do a Frisk Before You Can Fly, libs say right on right on.
WTH? Where are these liberals saying that?
Like Garage Mahal, Obama likes to pretend conservatives couldn't possibly come up with ways to cut the budget.
How about cancelling this bogus $3.6 billion pay-out to black farmers and would-be farmers who claimed they were discriminated against by the government. Does any serious person buy into this sort of nonsense anymore?
Like most previous commenters, I think Matt Bai greatly underestimates the corruption and ineptness of the federal government and the extent of people's justified distrust of it. Bai seems to think "Cash for Clunkers" was pretty much an economic success--you've gotta be kidding.
Bai also doesn't understand that Bush's terrible errors emanated from his liberalism, not any putative conservatism. Outside of naming some sound judges, it's hard to think of any conservative policies Bush will be remembered for.
"WTH? Where are these liberals saying that?"
Not that I'm signing onto this thesis, but Chris Matthews last night was all tingly for it.
of course the entire thing is nonsense only exceeded by the rather clownish set of comments by the frothing right wing loonies on here.
Please, HD. Point out the frothing right wing loonies on here. I'd even settle for just this thread.
If they took Rush and Sean and that Savage putz off the air, I swear you on the right wouldn't have a friggin thing to say.
Don't know who you're referring to.
Never listen to or watch "Rush and Sean and that Savage."
Never watch much of anything on TV except for documentaries and sports.
Never listen to much of anything except jazz, blues, rock and country on Sirius Radio.
You've got a lively imagination.
"WTH? Where are these liberals saying that?"
The ones pulling the levers of power currently come to mind.
MadMan:
The libs in the current admin certainly endorse Frisk Before You Can Fly.
And check out Ruth Marcus today.
I'm going to have to repeat Steve Sailer's prescription for turning around the economy, because I think it's the most brilliant proposal I've heard in a long time.
Stop the Fed's Bigot-O-Mania assault on employers!
Stop the endless lawsuits and regulatory assaults by the EEOC on businesses.
Cease making quotas the first order of business for America's businesses.
End the 50 year old war on American business. Get the government out of deciding who is hired and who is fired.
This, I guarantee you, would be the best stimulus for the economy.
Chris Matthews last night was all tingly for it.
Really? Why? Dear God.
It must be because he's so far to the left that he's actually a righty
Ruth Marcus
What a ridiculous article.
Quoting: My defense of the new procedures assumes that there is some rational basis for the screening madness: that the techniques work and that there is not a less intrusive alternative.
Why does she assume that there is a rational basis that techniques will work? The underlying assumption is that terrorist techniques will not evolve, which is demonstrably false.
Why don't people in power actually think?
Please explain how that could possibly occur, MM, when it's not a circle, but a flat plane. Please explain how you go bigger and bigger in government, extremis in tyranny, and sudden flip over into anarchy, or the smallest government possible.
The Nation is vetting airline passengers who complain for libertarian sympathies.
This piece is timely for me. This am while running I was listening to NPR and two separate items resonated with the concept of an ever-growing government trying to solve every problem.
1) Marketplace, NPR's business feature, had a piece on the fees that banks charge for use of ATM's. The conclusion was there needed to be some new laws. My first response was , just get a different bank I don't need the government to shop for me
2) This was an "ad" for our local WIC program. It pointed out all of the wonderful programs WIC has to support working Mom's struggling with the balance of home and work. Wait a minute, wasn't WIC meant to address nutrition issues in poor infants. How did we get to educating working women on work/family balance? Can't we stay focused. Does a program always have to grow?
If they took Rush and Sean and that Savage putz off the air, I swear you on the right wouldn't have a friggin thing to say.
There you go projecting again.
If it weren't for media matters, Kos, and Olby, you'd have no talking points.
Does a program always have to grow?
Yes for two reasons.
1) The use-it-or-loose-it mentality with annual budgets
2) Bureaucrats are inherent empire builders.
WTH? Where are these liberals saying that?
You mean other than Obama and Napalitano, right?
You should click onto the comments for this article. The readers of the NYT don't agree w/ the article. "I'm shocked to see gambling..."
Oh, another 'malaise' shitck only instead of faltering nerves of Jimmy Carter/citizens, it's now "government can't do it" confidence by the citizens (but not by Obama, right?)
But we all know, the real problem is the leadership of the three stoogies (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) since they are still there.
2012 can't come soon enough.
"Please explain how that could possibly occur, MM, when it's not a circle, but a flat plane."
Well, there is the wraparound hypothesis for the topology of the universe, where the universe is flat but finite. You get to one "edge" and suddenly appear on the opposite edge, like in a video game.
Don't really care for that one, myself.
...of course the entire thing is nonsense only exceeded by the rather clownish set of comments by the frothing right wing loonies on here...
HDHouse's amyloid plaques respond predictably.
They said if I voted for John McCain other countries would abandon the dollar for international trade...and they were right.
(to borrow an oft used quip over at insta)
China and Russia have dropped the dollar for bilateral trade. Put that in yer North Korean Crisis pipe and smoke it.
1jpb wrote:
'm happy to see pieces like this. The cons need to be focused like a laser on BHO. They must viscerally despise him. They must feel that everything (from airport security to plugging the damn hole to bubble growth based on financial flimflam) he does is wrong/evil.
Isn't that the exact playbook used by the left though as used against Bush? Why are expecting that turnaround wouldn't be fair play?
You may support ObamaCare, Cap and Trade and all the rest for what you perceive to be good reasons, and that's fine, but you can not have all that AND job growth. Obama's economy is testament to that fact.?
We did have job growth. Again, -700k when Obama took over, to net gains in the private sector today. Bush and Republicans had the worst job creation track record since the government started keeping track. Carter had 3 times more jobs created than Bush in one term.
OK right wing loonies. You don't like frisk/scan/fly.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
Waiting.
OK right wing loonies. You don't like frisk/scan/fly.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
Why bother engaging you when you start a sentence like that? Fail.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
Waiting.
Depends
@1jpb
(while keeping the checks rolling to the geriatric base)
1. Don't piss us off, we're almost 70 million strong, and we hold the largest asset base.
2. We're getting fed up with the soft-pedaling of generational genocide. We've seen that movie and it doesn't turn out well for the eugenicists and their political allies.
3. See #1.
Again, -700k when Obama took over, to net gains in the private sector today.
Initial unemployment claims tumbled by 34,000 to 407,000
After 9+ million lost.
Your comments are parody.
"We did have job growth. Again, -700k when Obama took over, to net gains in the private sector today."
That's a relief. I thought we had a problem.
"Bush and Republicans had the worst job creation track record since the government started keeping track."
Yet again, you conflate Republicans with conservatives (as well as forgetting who's controlled Congress since 2006). And I'm guessing that your Bush job numbers include the economic tailspin caused by the mortgage crisis.
OK right wing loonies. You don't like frisk/scan/fly.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
Waiting.
Abandon the frisk/scan/fly. Return to the old scanner and old security measures.
The risk is greatly exaggerated. You risk more every time you step in your car.
Accept the reality that occasionally, you'll lose a plane.
OK right wing loonies. You don't like frisk/scan/fly.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
Waiting.
Alrighty then.
Secure the cockpit, and let the rest of us take our chances. The airline could adjust their liability insurance for property loss and damage on the ground, and we the people could exercise our freedom not to be felt up.
If you need to feel safe, pay more and go through the cavity search line.
Harry said...
Like Garage Mahal, Obama likes to pretend conservatives couldn't possibly come up with ways to cut the budget.
How about cancelling this bogus $3.6 billion pay-out to black farmers and would-be farmers who claimed they were discriminated against by the government.
=========================
Sorry, there is a lot of truth to that when Republicans like John Boehner are confronted.
They will yammer about waste fraud and abuse of the sort Republicans didn't support during their obscene 2001-2006 Porkfest and earmark banquet.
Argue for more tax cuts for the rich, more wars overseas - but won't touch entitlements. Do the McCain two-step. "I saved 58 million in earmarks the Dems offered! While I supported Bush's 700 billion new entitlement for free drugs paid full price by China loans for US seniors. Wealthy ot not! And over a trillion in wars of nation-building while we REpublicans let free trade debuild America!"
I'm with garage. What concrete things do the Republicans stand for other then being anti-Obama?
I'm with garage. What concrete things do the Republicans stand for other then being anti-Obama?
o Cut taxes and spending
o Reduce the size of the public payroll
o Reduce regulation
o Reduce the size of government
o End the diversicrat assault on business
Jesus, no matter how many time you say it, they keep pretending they didn't hear.
"Bush and Republicans had the worst job creation track record since the government started keeping track."
What is this supposed to mean?
"The Republicans" controlled both houses of Congress for all of 4 years during the Bush presidency.
What concrete things do the Republicans stand for other then being anti-Obama?
I'd say they're pretty solidly against (proved by the vote) 1099's for all vendor purchases over $600. I still can't believe a group of adults thought that was a good idea.
Argue for more tax cuts for the rich
Yawn.
The Bush tax cuts affected every income tax payer.
I still can't believe a group of adults thought that was a good idea.
Well, when your political philosophy is formed by ceasing to be curious about other points of view after the age of 20 and having no private sector work experience, ideas like this are "reasonable"
Yet again, you conflate Republicans with conservatives (as well as forgetting who's controlled Congress since 2006). And I'm guessing that your Bush job numbers include the economic tailspin caused by the mortgage crisis.
So if Republicans aren't conservative, who the hell did you vote for last election?
Orig Mike said:
"That's a relief. I thought we had a problem."
Said in reply to Garage implying Obama is doing a great job cause we are adding ten [not thousands btw] new jobs every month [and only 9 are with the guvmint!]
Good one Mike!
ok
ScottM
and comradex
you got nothing then.
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge ...
garage, what do your exclusive group of redneck conservative friends you hang with say? I would think you'd have all the inside scoop on our strategerys (yes I spelled it that way on purpose).
I must say I was tickled silly when you called yourself a redneck in that thread yesterday. I mean someone who claimed they made six figures and drives BMWs is a redneck was even more hysterical then you saying you hang exclusively with conservatives.
"So if Republicans aren't conservative, who the hell did you vote for last election?"
YEAH. IT'S A PROBLEM!!!!!
lucid said...
Thus, members of congress saw their net worth increase dramatically in the last two years as government expanded while private citizens saw their own net worth decline sharply.
What should be criminal, but isn't, is that unlike the laws applying to the executive branch, the military, contractors and private industry, Congressmen and staffers can utilize inside knowledge of pending legislation to play the market and make a profit at the expense of the unwashed masses.
some of the animals are more equal than others. Remeber that the next time one is demogoguing on the greed of Wall Street
shoutingthomas said...
"Abandon the frisk/scan/fly. Return to the old scanner and old security measures."
ahhh earth to braindead
it has been determined that what you suggest isn't enough.
so you got nothing except a step backwards.
noted.
Old Dad said...
"Secure the cockpit, and let the rest of us take our chances. "
cockpits are secure. so you got nothing too right?
noted
HD lied:
"cockpits are secure. so you got nothing too right?
noted"
Noted.
ahhh earth to braindead
it has been determined that what you suggest isn't enough.
so you got nothing except a step backwards.
noted.
What has been noted, HenHouse, is that politicians are determined to cover their asses.
No politician wants to be at the helm when the next plane goes down.
So, despite the almost impossibly long odds against any individual becoming a fatality in a hijacking, we are spending billions, destroying our airline industry and inconveniencing everybody. Your chances of being a fatality in a hijacking are way less than your chances of winning the lottery.
So, yes, pandering politicians determined to cover their asses are acting incredibly stupid.
And, stupidity is your middle name. You are HenHouse, author of the stupidest quote in the history of the internet:
"Muslims are the new Jews!"
You give new meaning to the word "stupid" ever time you touch the keyboard.
The certainty between your incredible stupidity is a really remarkable thing.
If they took Rush and Sean and that Savage putz off the air, I swear you on the right wouldn't have a friggin thing to say.
As an avid listener of all three, House knows this to be true.
As an avid projector, he knows it would be true of him.
As an avid reflection of the progressive template, he knows that there is no thinking, only templates.
He presents a classic example of why lefty know-it-alls can't govern.
What concrete things do the Republicans stand for
I think a better question would be: What legislation have they actually passed.
Sure, they stand for less taxes, smaller government, but then when in power, what happens?
Signals of a steady hand and confidence about the economic future are what the country needs most. I'd promise to keep the social security compact for those over 45 years old and I'd promise to re-jigger it and make it better for those 45 and under. I'd let those folks keep the employers' share of their FICA in a private account but I'd have to raise everyone's FIT by 3% or so. The good news is I'd actually be fixing one of country's biggest problems. And I'd be restoring a lot of confidence in the future for all working Americans.
Re airport security, I'd demand all Congress critters and Cabinet members fly commercial and go thru same exact screening as the public.
Bai notes that during the Reagan and Clinton years, America turned away from "the era of big government,"
Did Reagan reduce the size of government?
Government spending under Clinton almost doubled.
it [sic.] has been determined that what you suggest isn't enough. 1:10
"It has been determined ...?"
"It has been determined ...?"
My gawd!
I must say I was tickled silly when you called yourself a redneck in that thread yesterday. I mean someone who claimed they made six figures and drives BMWs is a redneck was even more hysterical then you saying you hang exclusively with conservatives.
I currently drive a 21 yr old BMW with 212k on it. I can't help the fact you drive a Ford Focus. If you want a BMW I can help steer you in the right direction.
Here is what I'm buying next. Hard to believe you can buy a M5 for under 10k these days. M-Power. Mmmmmm.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
Abandon the frisk/scan/fly. Return to the old scanner and old security measures.
The risk is greatly exaggerated. You risk more every time you step in your car.
Accept the reality that occasionally, you'll lose a plane.
Except right after 9/11 everyone was saying that nothing was being done. In fact it was liberals who was saying 'There is no threat."(and they're hypocrites for now saying we need to take serious measures for a threat which they previously imagined was nonexistent) What are you, Michael Moore all of a sudden?
And let that be the plane that you and your family fly on, for the rest of us I'll take a little more security than "shit happens".
"I think a better question would be: What legislation have [Republicans] actually passed.
Sure, they stand for less taxes, smaller government, but then when in power, what happens?"
I doubt the conservatives here disagree. I know I don't. I'm holding out hope that the Tea Party movement actually changes things. A hope born of desperation.
JAY said...
Argue for more tax cuts for the rich
Yawn.
The Bush tax cuts affected every income tax payer.
====================
Disingenuous. THey benefited the rich with a far steeper cut in their taxes than other groups.
They have increased the concentration of wealth in this country in the hands of the Top 1% - while the impact of the deficit has been spread through all sectors of the population.
Republicans would be far more popular if they would just cease being unthinking whores to CEOs and Wall Street bankers.
The Warren Buffet paradox - that he pays less taxes and has more disposible income left on each dollar he makes than his 85,000 a year executive secretary is still true.
The Republican comeback - "Oh, yeah? Well if Buffet is so concerned he or any other rich person can voluntarily pay more taxes" --- doesn't exactly wash in the eyes of people that understand this tax inequity problem.
An equitable society would be one in which each dollar a rich person makes and each working poor or disappearing middle class person makes has the same left in disposable income per dollar earned after subtracting for basic living expenses and taxes.
The pimpery for the wealthy may land Republicans some extra campaign donations but it doesn't win them anymore friends than redistributionist Democrats make who seek to punish the rich by seeking they have less disposable income left of each dollar they make than a mid GS Fed worker does.
it has been determined that what you suggest isn't enough.
That is funny.
And let that be the plane that you and your family fly on, for the rest of us I'll take a little more security than "shit happens".
Risk is part of life. The only way to completely rid your life of risk is to hide in your house.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
Abandon the frisk/scan/fly. Return to the old scanner and old security measures.
The risk is greatly exaggerated. You risk more every time you step in your car.
Accept the reality that occasionally, you'll lose a plane.
God help us if the liberals are now the party treating terrorism as a seroius threat. Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are going to have to erase 8 years of content.
while the impact of the deficit has been spread through all sectors of the population.
Laugh out loud funny.
The deficit was going down in 2006.
The deficit went up after Harry & Nancy took over.
The deficit exploded after Obama was elected.
THey benefited the rich with a far steeper cut in their taxes than other groups.
You mean other than the people it dropped off the tax rolls entirely, right?
Your categoriziation of "rich" doesn't mean what you think it means.
that he pays less taxes and has more disposible income left on each dollar he makes than his 85,000 a year executive secretary is still true.
Um, mr. gullible, that is becauase he uses every available tax shelter/deduction.
This isn't foisted on him.
You are not that bright and easily misled.
An equitable society would be one in which each dollar a rich person makes and each working poor or disappearing middle class person makes has the same left in disposable income per dollar earned after subtracting for basic living expenses and taxes.
And there would be a chicken in every pot!!!
And unicorns!!!
You are beclowning yourself now.
doesn't exactly wash in the eyes of people that understand this tax inequity problem.
This "tax inequity problem" is a figment of your imagination.
Buffett uses tax shelters to lower his rate.
You can't respond to this so you type drivel.
Except right after 9/11 everyone was saying that nothing was being done. In fact it was liberals who was saying 'There is no threat.'
A deliberate misreading of my statement.
I didn't say that nothing should be done. I said, return to the previous standards of walking through a scanner. Seems to mostly be working.
I didn't say "There is no threat." I said that the risk of becoming a fatality in a hijacking is lower than the your odds of winning the lottery.
I didn't say that there is no risk. I said that the risk is extremely low... much lower than the risk you take getting in your car to go to the corner store.
We can live with that risk. Politicians who are worried about covering their asses can't.
Yes, and in other wonderful news, Homeland Security is confirming that they are evaluating use of whole body scanners and patdowns for all Americans seeking to enter certain city subways, certain Federal buildings, or who use Ferries or trains.
As every American could be a terrorist...underwear bombers if stopped at airports, could move on to other targets.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
Risk is part of life. The only way to completely rid your life of risk is to hide in your house.
Yet, you have a door with a lock on your house right? Explain that logic, if risk is part of life. I get that risk is part of life, but that doens't mean you can't minimize risk either.
Polio is a risk, yet we have vaccines that can deal with it. Wearing a mask when you're sandblasting reduces risk of breathing in dust. I suppose construction sites shouldn't even hand those out. Hey, life is risky.
Republicans would be far more popular if they would just cease being unthinking whores to CEOs and Wall Street bankers.
The Democrats have elected 3 Presidents since 1968 for a total of 12 years of governance (so far).
Republicans have had just a bit more success in the popularity department.
Sorry, meant 3 presidents with a almost 14 years of governance.
Cedarford, the fact is that IRS data show that the percentage of total income tax paid by the upper 1% has increased in greater proportion to their share of the total income since the Bush tax rate changes. So the basis of your claim is simply not true.
Yes, and in other wonderful news, Homeland Security is confirming that they are evaluating use of whole body scanners and patdowns for all Americans seeking to enter certain city subways, certain Federal buildings, or who use Ferries or trains
"A republics...if you can keep it."
Buffett counts all FICA payments paid by his secretary as taxes- that is how he concludes that he pays less than his secretary. He is technically correct. But he employs being misleading and inconsistent dollars when he includes FICA as taxes. FICA is supposed to be a forced savings or witholding by the guvmint in exchange for a promise of a future old age benefit.
D'oh..."republic"...ugh
Shouting Thomas wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks
You might want to read about security prior to 9/11 and right after. It sucked. It allowed 19 guys to walk right through checkpoints and take over planes.
Read this report in 2003 about security prior to 9/11 (again, it sucked)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks
It makes the VERY IMPORTANT and relevant point that "the security checkpoint is the the last line of defenese in the war against terrorism in the air. Past this point there is little turning back" and you guys, you strong supporters on the war on terror, want to leave that last defense wide open. They had undercover agents testing security and walking aournd past metal detectors with weapons and walndering arond the airport, even on the planes themselves. That was the whole reason that 9/11 was pulled off. Because the last line of defense was wide open. And now the so called supporters of the war on terror are saying we don't even need that last line of defense. I don't think you're serious that we're even in a war, and now sound like Michael Moore and Bill Maher.
You might want to read about security prior to 9/11 and right after. It sucked. It allowed 19 guys to walk right through checkpoints and take over planes.
Once again, you've completely misstated my comments.
I didn't say we should return to pre-9/11 security measures.
I said we should return to pre-last month security measures.
Get rid of the new scanners. Dumped the body searches.
You keep stretching for the ugliest possible interpretation of my comments. Try dealing with what I've actually said.
I think an essential problem in this "discussion" is that some equate
not doing something
as
doing nothing
(and the corollary is it is always better to do something when a problem arise than to do nothing.)
"...They had undercover agents testing security and walking aournd past metal detectors with weapons and walndering arond the airport, even on the planes themselves. .."
Okay. Now they can walk around the body scans and the gropers. Your point being...???
Shouting Thomas wrote:
I said we should return to pre-last month security measures.
Get rid of the new scanners. Dumped the body searches.
except last months secuirty measures dind't stop the latest threat. And if we never fix that hole, will simply give terrorists, if they want to board a plane the means to do so. Just as if we never addressed the shoe bomber and his threat, terorrists would continue using shoes as the way to get something on board.
If you want to get something on board, based on a few of the oomments here there are a lot of places to put stuff - in your chest area near yoru breasts. In your groin area and aroundthe butt. In your shoes. Also, find older people or younger people or people with prosthetics or women, or women who have had cancer. If they look grandmotherly that's a plus.
jr - what's to stop AQ from simply detonating a bomb in the TSA screening area? You realize currently there is NO security until you hit TSA.
except last months secuirty measures dind't stop the latest threat.
Once again, I never said that they would.
I said that the threat is dramatically overstated, and that your risk of becoming a fatality in a hijacking is less than your odds of winning the lottery. Much less.
It's a risk that a free society must take.
The real risk that we are guarding against is the risk of a politician being blamed for a hijacking when it finally occurs. We paying a hellacious price so that politicians can play cover your ass.
Guys - Don't enable Jr.
"..except last months secuirty measures dind't stop the latest threat. "
The underwear bomber (latest threat??) was a young Muslim single male coming from a suspicious point of departure (Yemen) with a one way ticket and little to no luggage...
Plus he was on the 'watch list'. That's why we need to scan everybody?
"Risk is part of life. The only way to completely rid your life of risk is to hide in your house."
Oh, no: you might die in a house fire. Or slip and break something. Remember Twain's hilarious essay on the dangers of lying in bed, based on all the folks who died there?
"Yet, you have a door with a lock on your house right? Explain that logic..."
I have a lock, too. I even use it. But the lock didn't cost a million dollars, a hundred thousand, or even one hundred. The cost was proportional to the risk.
Any more softballs you want me to hit out of the park?
Jay - "This "tax inequity problem" is a figment of your imagination.
Buffett uses tax shelters to lower his rate."
Lynch responds later with less "whore to the rich" response than Jay in explaining the Buffett paradox. FICA. Which is indeed part of Buffetts argument because he pays that off 1st month and the rest of his year is FICA - free. So he has an effective FICA tax on each dollar he gets approximating 0.0003%.
But Buffett, who points out he does not use tax shelters and independent accountants looking at Berkshire Hathaway confirm that....says the biggest difference is in the tax preference he gets from capital gains vs. ordinary income, as a wealthy investor.
He also notes that all his living expenses inc. his jet come from the money he makes the 1st two weeks of the year, while his secretary worked three months to pay that out for her more basic living expenses.
Locks are only good for keeping out honest people.
@Old Dad
I would add arm the pilots and train the cabin crews to use "soft" weapons; pepper spray, short-arm stunners and tasers.
I lived in Italy during the Red Brigades, Moro kidnapping and murder, frequent Muslim hijackings, Vienna and Rome airport massacres; you haven't seen intrusive airport security.
After intense profiling/ screening, thorough searching, patting down and dog sniffing, passengers were held in groups of 20, each separated by an empty seat under the gaze of heavily armed paramilitary Polizia and dogs. No eating, drinking, talking or moving, hands were to be kept palms up in our lap, handbags or carry-ons between our feet.
Planes were held on aprons away from the terminal. We were loaded onto buses in groups of 20, driven to the plane where we went through a final profiling and paper checking. We then boarded through a phalanx of heavily armed Polizia. One stood in front of the cockpit door, weapon at ready another at the rear in front of the lavs. This was to fly from Turin to Rome on a 40 minute commuter flight.
As foreigners, we were required to report weekly in person to the local Carabinieri. We were accompanied by armed bodyguards anytime we left the compound or workplace. We were driven in armored cars or followed by security if we chose to drive ourselves and lived in apt. compounds under 24x7 security.
Half tracks with 50 mm guns were parked at city intersections. Anyone could be stopped,searched and/or detained for any reason. Italy was an armed camp.
As "the troubles" escalated, the Brits came under increased security and surveillance too, especially after the Household Cavalry bombing on the Mall and PanAm 103.
So I am alarmed by the measures our govt is taking if they lead to UK style surveillance of all public space and confiscation of guns or the blanket suspicion that gripped Italy.
Neither were successful. I don't know the answer, but I guarantee that what we are now doing will not be either. We are facing a patient and implacable foe. They will test and wait us out as they have done in Europe for a thousand years.
We are an independent,impatient,cantankerous, people who do not suffer fools, follow directions well or accept authority easily. Our large, diverse, mobil population and the in-your-face aggro that drives the dialog on this blog may be our saving grace.
We cannot surrender to our own government for the illusion of security; physical or financial. We must remain too damned much trouble to subdue if we are to remain free.
Cford - FICA is not a tax - don't you get that? It's forced savings and it is supposed to keep all of us safe and sound in our old age. The benefits are slanted so that low earners get a higher soc sec check tha the high earners. IOW, the folks who made less money get a bigger check every month per dollar paid in when compared to the high earner's check.
You are a smart guy -what don't you understand about this?
And wtf did yoy imply I said whore about Buffett's secretary. I did no such thing.
I currently drive a 21 yr old BMW with 212k on it. I can't help the fact you drive a Ford Focus. If you want a BMW I can help steer you in the right direction.
Well that's me being a Buy American type of guy garage. I don't see the need to drive a Krautmobile. That's not being very rednecky you know.
The vast majority of residential locks only serve to keep honest people honest. They will not stop someone who really wants to get into your home from doing so - at best, it'll slow them down a minute or two.
that he pays less taxes and has more disposible income left on each dollar he makes than his 85,000 a year executive secretary is still true.
Oh please. Warren is a pretty smart guy and if his precious conscience was so bothered by this, he'd just avoid all those loopholes he and other billionaires like him use to be billionaires.
Really I wish those who spout this kind of garbage would put their exemptions where there mouth is and declare ZERO. Otherwise go pound sand.
Interesting Buffet and Gates set up a nice little charitable foundation instead of just leaving their accumulated wealth to Uncle Sam. You know, like they advocate for the rest of the little folk.
Alex wrote:
what's to stop AQ from simply detonating a bomb in the TSA screening area? You realize currently there is NO security until you hit TSA.
I'm sure they have some level of security, however IF we got hit there they would then have to rethink the security of that area. Their reasoning is that terrorists want to make a grand gesture that not only kills people but also cripples us. Hitting the lobby and killing 10 people wouldn't cripple us the same way. BUT if we were hit, we would then do probably fortify that region and setup yet another security level there. And even further out. We'd probably have people statoined, like they do in Israel, outside who are checking cars as they come in.
They are assessing the most probable targets for terrorists to hit. If that becomes the next target, then they'll have to address it.
An equitable society would be one in which each dollar a rich person makes and each working poor or disappearing middle class person makes has the same left in disposable income per dollar earned after subtracting for basic living expenses and taxes.
There would be no rich or middle class, only peoles wholly enslaved to a ruling class who will exempt themselves as they do now.
Please name one instance where your "equitable society" has succeeded?
Republicans would be far more popular if they would just cease being unthinking whores to CEOs and Wall Street bankers
You mean like this?
“American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms.”
OOPS.
So Obama is a puppet of Wall Street, right?
-cont- but that doesn't mean they have to necessarily use the same degree of security as they would at the security gates. That's literally the last place to check before you get on the plane, so has to be one of the more secure areas.
Republicans would be far more popular if they would just cease being unthinking whores to CEOs and Wall Street bankers
Democrats would be far less dumb if they started realizing that business is what creates jobs and job creation is what creates a middle class. So stop demonizing the potential job creators.
jr - you realize that in Israel most bombers end up detonating themselves at checkpoints. So you're perfectly ok with sacrificing the lives of those security officers...
.says the biggest difference is in the tax preference he gets from capital gains vs. ordinary income, as a wealthy investor.
Um, again, this isn't some fiat from the IRS.
He can claim ordinary income. In fact, since he owns the company, he can push through a change in his compensation package, I'm quite certain.
This isn't rocket science.
Please name one instance where your "equitable society" has succeeded?
The United States?
God help us if the liberals are now the party treating terrorism as a seroius threat.
I actually agree with you there.
Interesting Buffet and Gates set up a nice little charitable foundation instead of just leaving their accumulated wealth to Uncle Sam. You know, like they advocate for the rest of the little folk.
Exactly. The Charitable trust/foundation whatever is a way that the wealthy avoid taxes and are able to pass assets to their heirs bypasssing the estate tax rip off. He is probably drawing a salary from his own foundation as well.
CRATs, CRUTs, GRATs, GRUTs, FLPs,private annuities,S-Corp, C Corps, LLCs LLPs etc are all things that I am quite familiar with in my practice and I'm willing to bet that Buffet is using many of those systems to lower his taxes.
Do you really think that Buffet gets a W-2 paycheck like the rest of the poor slobs? Hardly.
Buffet is using ALL the planning devices, corporate protections, tax credits, charitable giving and anything else that he can to lower is own taxes.
If he feels that bad about not paying more....he can just cut a big ass fucking check to the US Treasury and butt out of every one else's business.
What a hypocrite.
Please name one instance where your "equitable society" has succeeded?
The United States?
I thought you were all pissed off because the tax system isn't equitable.
Make up your mind.
I couldn't figure that one out either, DBQ.
@sofaking
at best, it'll slow them down a minute or two.
Exactly, that gives me time to pickup a Mossberg that I guarantee will slow them down; permanently.
A J Lynch: "FICA is not a tax - don't you get that? It's forced savings...."
Try and leave "your" "savings" to your children or your favorite charity.
An equitable society would be one in which each dollar a rich person makes and each working poor or disappearing middle class person makes has the same left in disposable income per dollar earned after subtracting for basic living expenses and taxes.
Ah, in other words: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
I think that's been tried before and it didn't work out so good.
What is your suggestion. Write it out.
P-R-O-F-I-L-E
@shoutingthomas
so you've got nothing to contribute.
simple question. what do you propose if you don't like what we got.
you got nothing. nada. zip.
a cypher in the sum total of life.
so sad.
noted.
They are assessing the most probable targets for terrorists to hit. If that becomes the next target, then they'll have to address it.
Reactionary.
If a 10-round fight, you'd be out before the first bell.
i guess HD can't spell.
P-R-O-F-I-L-E
Eventually if we keep up the defensive approach after every new terrorist attack on the previous setup, we end up having a garrison state. Which I'm sure the left would love, no?
And the Police State is a static defense.
Scan and grope and probe all you want, an attack will STILL get through.
Fen - we'll just have to learn to live with constant suicide bombings. It's the price of having a free state.
Fine by me. I won't miss NYC or LA or Boston.
Hell, I may even convert.
Lars wrote:
The underwear bomber (latest threat??) was a young Muslim single male coming from a suspicious point of departure (Yemen) with a one way ticket and little to no luggage...
Plus he was on the 'watch list'. That's why we need to scan everybody?
being on a watch list is helpful if yo're on the watch list. BUt notice how even though someone is on the watch list, it can stil fall through the cracks? But what if someone isn't on a watch list. I'm already expecting that interagencies are going to have incomplete info,or be too slow with the info, or will only have a partial picture so that people who should be tagged aren't. Which again, is why, the place where you NEED to have effective security is right when someone is bound to board a plane. You might say, well we should only look at so and so. No, that's too many variables and only looks for common things, and not uncommon things. Security can't be that lazy. And if the primary layers of security failed, they are not going to have the luxury of knowing that someone is on their line with a bomb, unless they check.
Strong horse and all that.
No one will dare question my God. Or disrespect him. Libtards will cower at my approach. Women will remain silent and docile. And I can marry several. Homosexuals will disappear. And I can be rid of any dhimmi who crosses me simply by accusing them of blasphemy.
Whats not to like?
Gotta work on my fastball though. I hear granite gets the best results.
so in the last 4 hours the right wing and conservatives and the GOP have nothing...they offer nothing...they don't like what we have but they offer nothing in substitution...nada zippo...
they bitch and moan but in the end they have nothing to contribute. zero. zip nothing.
nada. how pathetic it is to whine and bitch and moan and offer nothing up.
noted.
pathetic little twits.
nothing.
noted.
Libtard: so in the last 4 hours the right wing and conservatives and the GOP have nothing
Damn you are stupid. For the last 4 DAYS we've been telling you
PROFILE
but you have your fingers stuck in your ears.
btw, that will be a stoning offense under my watch. I can't wait.
Michael:
Yes , I agree. I should have said it is "an alleged forced savings over which we have no conrol or access and if we croak, we lose it".
Can I just stone him now?
Please?
I keep hearing all this claptrap about the "rich". What do you think the "rich" do with their money? Stuff it in mattresses?
Jeebus people, look around.
I clean my own house, do my own gardening, I hire someone to clean windows a couple of times a year, clean the gutters and mow the hill for fire season. I sold my business and do a little consulting from home and I reduced spending the last two years, so while I'm still paying taxes, I'm not exactly creating a lot of jobs.
Yet the software mogul's home at the top of the hill has two cleaning ladies, a weekly gardening service with three men, a pool guy, a personal assistant, a nanny, a chef, a personal trainer and weekly car detail service with two guys.
They directly employ 12 people, not to speak of the entertaining, seemingly endless renovating and decorating they do. A small army of working people attend to one family of five. All of whom are also paying taxes and buying goods and services, who in turn employ people who pay taxes, buy good and services.
So by all means let's increase their taxes to the point that they can no longer afford so many employees and services shall we?
Yeah, that's the ticket, that'll work.
The Israelis profile.. I think.
They train their people to look for the unusual.. We tell our people not to look at the person (lest religion or race might be discovered) but to look at their bodies..
When you look at everybody and nobody I think you are liable to miss more than you would otherwise..
The TSA is purposely telling its workers to leave their common sense at home.. The net effect is less security.
Its nuts.
Unless I'm misinfoemed.. The FBI (federal employees same as TSA) profiles..
Why can the FBI profile but not the TSA?
Can I just stone him now?
Please?
No need. Just ask to see proof of the nine patents HD claims he's got. It's been a lot longer...a LOT longer...than four hours since he was asked to produce that proof and has yet come up with "zero, zip, nothing." The most common retort he has is "do your own research" to find the proof of his own claims. Tiresome, I know, but consider the source.
I can't figure out what conservatives would propose differently if they were in charge when we were losing 700k jobs per month.
Here are about 34,000 words to get you started. Here's an overview. Here's an even shorter overview.
Here are about 34,000 words to get you started. Here's an overview. Here's an even shorter overview.
If Ryan can't even get Republicans on board with his "roadmap", why am I supposed to?
Hoosier Daddy said in response to C-4's
that he pays less taxes and has more disposible income left on each dollar he makes than his 85,000 a year executive secretary is still true.
Oh please. Warren is a pretty smart guy and if his precious conscience was so bothered by this, he'd just avoid all those loopholes he and other billionaires like him use to be billionaires.
Really I wish those who spout this kind of garbage would put their exemptions where there mouth is and declare ZERO. Otherwise go pound sand.
============
Whore to the rich Elite Hoosier Daddy uses this lame logic in response to various rich guys saying that "yes we really do get a better deal on taxes than you working slobs"
With Hoosiers (oft-repeated by others idea) is this structural tax inequity is resolved simply if any rich person admitting they get a better deal decided on their own to voluntarily give up his or her better tax deal..to fix the inequity..at least as it personally applies to them.
And any other altrustic rich, rapacious sorts can also join them/
Hoosiers logic is like a Lefty jumping in after several Welfare mommas admit they are fully exploiting the system of SSI payments and getting far more money than they deserve..and saying "
If any unfortunate mother thinks 7 of her 8 childen aren't truly disabled and she is milking flaws in the system like all her friends are, she can always send those paychecks back!"
Or Hoosiers reaction to a local farmer saying it is true, Ethanol is a giant scam and taxpayer subsidy to farmers like he, who don't really deserve it and the market should set corn prices and not be jacked up by a false, new corn market underwitten by taxes for ethanol..
Hoosier..."Look, any farmer that admits they are getting a sweet deal on taxpayers and motorists backs - and the country is being hurt by it, betrays their fellow farmers in on the deal. That one farmer is welcome to pay back his Ethanol subisidies if he wants to."
Garage Mahal, ladies and gentlemen! Daily perpetuating the monolithic ideological myth of American political parties.
Please refrain from throwing your rotten tomatoes until after the encore.
(not every conservative thinks exactly alike, Garage. Maybe read it and come up with your own conclusions?)
HD House wrote:
they bitch and moan but in the end they have nothing to contribute. zero. zip nothing.
nada. how pathetic it is to whine and bitch and moan and offer nothing up.
While I share your frustration, ti's good to know that you finally think dealing with terrorism is a real threat and not a conspiracy theory hatched by Bush to enrich Haliburton. Maybe if your side hadn't spent so much time making movies about how 7wtc was brought down by demolitions your side wouldn't look so foolish now talking about how we need to implement the various security protocols to protect airplanes. And do you really want to talk about the opposition bitching and moaning about the president in office? Really? really? That would have to be the worlds biggest pot calling the worlds biggest kettle black. You don't get the luxury mr "He's not my president" liberal. And a bunch of people will simlarly sing "Nah nah nah nah hey goodbye" when your guy walks out the door.
Fen said...
"PROFILE"
ahhh dipshit. they do profile.
you got anything else? nada?
noted.
Lem wrote:
They train their people to look for the unusual.. We tell our people not to look at the person (lest religion or race might be discovered) but to look at their bodies..
Why can't you look at both? Your body is your person, and any weapons you have would be on your body (or in your bag) if you're brining it on. That doesn't mean you can't also look at watch lists.But why does it have to be either or?
Yes because corporations do so much better....not.
The government had nothing to do with how the oil spill started. More government oversight was needed, actually.
Althouse you need to think this through a bit. If we give complete control to Corporations that is not good either. There needs to be a balance whereby we the people have some say in what goes on. We the people are the government. We cannot have oversight by ourselves without some kind of government - even if it is small local government. Citizen's groups don't do it. And the bigger the citizen's group - well then they become a government.
the right wing conservative ilk on here continues to have nothing to offer except criticism of what is happening.
tell you what children. come back when you have something. right now you got nothing. nada. zip.
completely without anything to contribute.
noted.
If a security guard sees a character with a suspicious lump in his pants that looks like a weapon, he's not not going to look at it. That would be as releveant a piece of info as where they travelled. In fact that bulge would almost predicate escalating the profiling, and ulitmately the security guard would have to actually examine it even if it's in his shorts. (talking about Israel)
HDHouse - why are you wasting your valuable time arguing with children?
Is there any incentive within a government job to do better than status quo? To go above and beyond?
Going out of business or being put out of it by your competition is what keeps entrepreneurs and managers up at night. But in government, where there is no one else to do the job, is there any built-in incentive to excel?
Especially if you have a state union job wherein it is mighty difficult to get oneself fired.
Matt said "The government had nothing to do with how the oil spill started. More government oversight was needed, actually."
Yes and no. The problem is whether you wish to impede or constrain the freedom of law-abiding individuals and corporations by imposing heavy regulation and oversight upon them or whether you would rather punish the law-breaking/negligent cretins while letting the rest of us go about our business in peace.
It's the gun control argument as well — do we punish the weekend shooting-range pistol owner for the actions of the Saturday night special criminal?
because Alex..
they have nothing. they offer nothing. their contributions are nothing and i want everyone to know that these braindead shitheads have nothing to offer.
noted.
hdh 10...brain dead shitheads 0
Alex said..
HDHouse - why are you wasting your valuable time..
No brown nosing Alex..
Lem - I'm not brown nosing. I'm merely trying to ascertain why someone who so obviously hates the crowd here keeps sticking around.
hd, thanks for starting my holiday weekend off with a laugh.
God bless you and your family and may you all have a happy and festive Thanksgiving.
E.M. Davis
The general safety and welfare of our citizens is an important task for our government. Going after polluters or negligent oil companies is important. But you know and I know that fines mean very little to these companies. They shrug and write a check. So you need some oversight so they don't run amok.
I'm not asking for complete control by the government. Few people are. Nor am I blaming all corporations for the act of a few. But money talks in more ways than one and a good many corporations need a good spanking every now and then. Regulation helps.
Re gun control I'm not a purist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment just as I am not a purist for the 1st Amendment. Some prudence is needed on occasion for both. You want to buy guns? Go ahead. You want to buy machine guns and walk the streets with them I'm going to have trouble with that.
ahhh dipshit. they do profile.
Hysterical.
“Defending the pat-downs that do take place, Pistole said: "It really comes down to what is that balance between privacy and security, and without profiling. ... People talk about, well, why don't we profile? Of course, we don't do that here in the U.S., but we use all the latest intelligence. We have watch lists. We know about people who pose a threat to aviation security. It's those we won't know. And so it's that balance between privacy and security."
”
Interesting that you "dipshit" comment was projection.
If Ryan can't even get Republicans on board with his "roadmap", why am I supposed to?
So I guess you can now bring yourself to admit that the Republicans have actually put forth proposals?
Or are you going to wallow in your ignorance.
HEY THERE TROOPER YORK
my very best to you and your family and friends.
you are a rare bird, albeit not the carving type, and i am lucky to know you and of you.
be well my friend. eat well. embrace your family and to them all things good.
happy thanksgiving.
@alex
1. because i was here long before you were here
2. i will be here long after you are here
3. i'm smart and you aren't
the last comment was obviously not necessary.
@Matt
The government had nothing to do with how the oil spill started.
Um...no.
"The BP rig that sparked America's biggest oil spill in history missed 16 required inspections in the years leading up to the deadly April explosion that killed 11 workers and sent crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.
That's according to newly released government inspection reports that show the Deepwater Horizon rig was only surveyed six times in 2008, even though the government requires drilling rigs to be inspected every month. In total, it missed 16 checks since January 2005."
MMS also failed to carry out the required surprise inspections.
"In 2000, about one in nine inspections of deepwater facilities were unannounced, according to the Journal's analysis; by 2009, that rate had dropped to about one in 80.Meanwhile, the number of deepwater wells pumping oil and gas more than doubled over the decade to 602 from 256, according to federal data.
Some companies, such as Transocean, almost never had a helicopter carrying an inspector appear on the horizon to check on them. Surprise inspections accounted for less than 1% of total inspections for the Switzerland-based company between 2000 and 2010, the lowest among large drilling companies."
What is the point of passing regulation and paying for inspectors if they are corrupt and/or incompetent? Who is inspecting the inspectors?
The inspectors who failed to do their job in the gulf need be severely fined and sent to jail, not allowed to slither away.
HD - thank you for your awesome website. I have enjoyed sharing a lot of it with family and friends.
Though we rarely agree here on this blog, I salute your integrity. You are one who is actually a good example of a thoughtful political liberal.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Happy Thanksgiving to all~
i'm smart and you aren't
Actually, you're an idiot and the silly postings you are making demonstrate that.
But Garage weren't you all stoked about GM's big comback, so why aren't you supporting the UAW and buying American?
I own a F-150, a Flex and an Explorer, just doin' my part 'n all.
@chase....
thank you very much. that was very kind and appreciated.
be well. prosper and enjoy all those around you.
happy thanksgiving.
I couldn't figure that one out either, DBQ.
This is garage you're talking about. He's the liberal who hangs out exclusively with his conservatives friends and even though says he makes six figures and drives vintage BMWs, calls himself a redneck.
I would say he's an enigma. Or schizophrenic.
An equitable society would be one in which each dollar a rich person makes and each working poor or disappearing middle class person makes has the same left in disposable income per dollar earned after subtracting for basic living expenses and taxes.
Actually that sounds like a great idea to me. I don't have to bust my ass at work and still have the same dollar power as the rich guy.
Awesome!
With Hoosiers (oft-repeated by others idea) is this structural tax inequity is resolved simply if any rich person admitting they get a better deal decided on their own to voluntarily give up his or her better tax deal..to fix the inequity..at least as it personally applies to them.
No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that guys like Buffett bemoan the 'inequitable' tax system we have while at the same time taking advantage of it.
Fact of the matter is the 'wealthy' pay the lion's share of the Federal income tax in this country despite the massive tax shelters afforded to them and then people wail that they have 'undue influence' on the government. Well no fucking shit. If I'm footing 80% of the tax bill don't be surprised if I'm not expecting special consideration. Ever clue any of the liberals that a progressive tax rate simply breeds an elite that has an undue influence? Nah...why would anyone think that?
@Chase
Yeah, now we know why HD is over here... link whoring.
Awesome, Dude!
. THey benefited the rich with a far steeper cut in their taxes than other groups.
They have increased the concentration of wealth in this country in the hands of the Top 1%
You clearly don't know what the rate reductions were.
Well, to cure your ignorance:
0-$8,375 - 10%
$8,375-34,000 - 15%
$34,000-82,400 - 20%
$82,400-171,850 - 28%
$171,850-373,650 - 33%
Over $373,650 - 35%
Now, if the Bush tax cuts were to expire, the top 2 brackets move to 36% and 39.6%
So you are really contenting that a 4.9% rate reduction on income over $373,650 create a "concentration of wealth in this country in the hands of the Top 1%"
Really?
That's your story?
@Hoosier
I would say he's an enigma. Or schizophrenic.
I'm going with Occam on this one...he's just full of shit.
'bjm
how apropos your moniker..
don't let that drumstick hit you in the eye.
Yeah, now we know why HD is over here... link whoring.
Of course.
Given the "noted" posts over & over, this clown has little to offer.
This is garage you're talking about. He's the liberal who hangs out exclusively with his conservatives friends and even though says he makes six figures and drives vintage BMWs, calls himself a redneck.
You could be a redneck who drives vintage BMWs and makes six figures too, if you wanted.
Garage: My hat is off to someone who has a 20 year old BMW. I have owned three in my life and loved them all but with each I noticed after about ten years that I was the only person still driving that model, as opposed to Mercedes. You used to see lots of older Mercedes but not so many older beemers. I passed a guy the other day who had the exact 700 series I gave up about ten years ago. It looked beautiful and I was sad I had given up.
Post a Comment