Log in

View Full Version : Why Obama looks like a one-termer.



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

threlayer
11-17-2008, 10:49 AM
So we will be exporting the 'tin foil hat crowd.' I wonder how many people thought of emigrating when GWB won a second term? Who wants to live in a country where a near majority are non-thinkers? At least I had the foresight to not vote for that bozo in either election.

Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 12:00 PM
So we will be exporting the 'tin foil hat crowd.' I wonder how many people thought of emigrating when GWB won a second term? Who wants to live in a country where a near majority are non-thinkers? At least I had the foresight to not vote for that bozo in either election.


I sure wouldn't miss them much but I am not holding my breathe that they will depart. Most can't afford it and those that can have the ability to work around their issues of complaint. Legally or otherwise. Some will indeed go but I predict the numbers will be very, very low.

In fact, I doubt our Melonie will go anywhere either. Like many others with her political leanings I feel she is just expressing a bunch of butt hurt from losing the election. Plenty of Dems did the very same thing in 2004. Nothing new. They will get on with life just like we did. The sooner the better too.

Melonie
11-17-2008, 03:14 PM
no chance ... did you see this recent news story ?



New York City wants to increase their top state + local income tax rate to 11% ... on top of Obama wanting to increase the top federal income tax rate to 39.6%. Of course New York's state governor is fighting this because he can 'see' the likely exodus of comparatively high earners from New York that will result (even though he is legally blind).

dlabtot
11-17-2008, 05:18 PM
When you tell us the date of your move, perhaps it will seem slightly less than 100% bullshit, which is what it looks like now.

Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 05:25 PM
When you tell us the date of your move, perhaps it will seem slightly less than 100% bullshit, which is what it looks like now.

Or maybe one of those countdown things in her siggy? I bet there are some fun ones made for just this issue.


no chance ... did you see this recent news story ?





Yea, I saw it but I'm sticking with what I said before. Most of you aren't going anywhere just like most of my fellow Dems who were saying similar things back in 2004. Maybe you'll be the exception. Time will tell.

Miss_Luscious
11-17-2008, 05:31 PM
Dudes, I'm telling you, Melonie is not going anywhere. She's been saying she's going to move for YEARS now. She loves being pessimistic about the US too much to leave. What could she constantly cut and paste about if she left?!.

Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 05:38 PM
Dudes, I'm telling you, Melonie is not going anywhere. She's been saying she's going to move for YEARS now. She loves being pessimistic about the US too much to leave. What could she constantly cut and paste about if she left?!.

Years huh? Oh boy!

ps- lmfao at the cut and paste comment. Good one :great:

flickad
11-17-2008, 08:27 PM
I sure wouldn't miss them much but I am not holding my breathe that they will depart. Most can't afford it and those that can have the ability to work around their issues of complaint. Legally or otherwise. Some will indeed go but I predict the numbers will be very, very low.

In fact, I doubt our Melonie will go anywhere either. Like many others with her political leanings I feel she is just expressing a bunch of butt hurt from losing the election. Plenty of Dems did the very same thing in 2004. Nothing new. They will get on with life just like we did. The sooner the better too.

Melonie did not lose the election. She has said several times that she voted for Obama. Granted, she didn't do it because she agrees with his policies (quite the opposite, in fact), but nonetheless that's where her vote went.

Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 09:35 PM
Melonie did not lose the election. She has said several times that she voted for Obama. Granted, she didn't do it because she agrees with his policies (quite the opposite, in fact), but nonetheless that's where her vote went.


You're correct. I forgot about that part. Opps. Oh well I still think it's about being butt hurt that Dems are going to be in power.

Many Dems claimed to be leaving in 2004 but I don't know of a signal person who actually left. I think it's going to be the same for the Republicans.

It's all venting of hot air, imo.

But as I said before if they want to leave and can I say go for it. Life is short and the world is big wonderful place.

flickad
11-17-2008, 11:06 PM
^

I guess the reason that people are bandying that threat about is that it will equal loss of tax revenue. However, I imagine that the percentage who do leave the country will be so small as to not make a hugely significant dent. There are reasons besides money that people often stay where they were born. Leaving your culture, friends, family is huge, and not a decision most will take based on a tax hike of a few percentage points. I imagine some will hire a good tax lawyer and find ways to wriggle out of paying the increase in real terms, but people earning upwards of 200K have been doing that since the year dot anyways (and being the daughter of a tax lawyer, I should know :P).

Melonie
11-18-2008, 04:01 AM
while this is off topic, I will answer ...

A) I'll be out of the USA by the middle of january. This is the result of the 330 / 35 day IRS rule re foreign income treatment and the fact that I need to make some transactions which will affect 'American' income in 2009.

B) Tax minimization and cost of living minimization aren't the only reasons I have decided to leave. (hoping I'm actually wrong about this) the other reasons will probably be obvious by next fall.

Lucy in the Sky
11-18-2008, 12:48 PM
while this is off topic, I will answer ...

A) I'll be out of the USA by the middle of january. This is the result of the 330 / 35 day IRS rule re foreign income treatment and the fact that I need to make some transactions which will affect 'American' income in 2009.

B) Tax minimization and cost of living minimization aren't the only reasons I have decided to leave. (hoping I'm actually wrong about this) the other reasons will probably be obvious by next fall.


I'd be a liar if I didn't say I think you are full of shit BUT if you do follow through send pics!

The areas you are considering are beautiful and quite interesting. I've visited both and I'd love to live in either place too, maybe not to the extent you are looking at but a 1-5 years sounds pretty nice to me :)

If I only had myself to think of I might go for it. But alas I am only one part of a pair and have other people to take into consideration.

Guess we all better get back to topic now though before Paris comes to spank us for being bad.

Wait.. Paris is pretty hot so I might like that ;)

dlabtot
11-18-2008, 07:47 PM
while this is off topic, I will answer ...

A) I'll be out of the USA by the middle of january. This is the result of the 330 / 35 day IRS rule re foreign income treatment and the fact that I need to make some transactions which will affect 'American' income in 2009.

B) Tax minimization and cost of living minimization aren't the only reasons I have decided to leave. (hoping I'm actually wrong about this) the other reasons will probably be obvious by next fall.

Sure seems more believable now... so what are these 'other reasons'? Don't be so mysterious... give us your predictions of gloom and doom so we can check back next fall and see whether you should change your nick to Nostradamus.

threlayer
11-18-2008, 08:51 PM
Somehow I think the third world living conditions (generally in more temperate climates) are not all as beautiful as people with money think they will be. It's like 'the grass is greener on ....'

You have to live in a society likely where ...

the educational level of many people you'll be interacting with (car repair etc) makes it difficult to get what you expect,
the medical system is going to be pretty basic by our standards,
the gendermes will have much more power over monied immigrants with consequentally lower civil rights than they are used to,
the church will have a much larger role in everyday life than it has here,
the monetary system will have a lot more bumps then here,
there will be a lot of corruption in the entire system and bribes will be necessary,
the language barrier will be a lot higher than they anticipate,
food and cleanliness will have different standards,
travel systems will be much less refined than here,
but things will be cheaper than here, which is the only advantage I can see, unless they like hot, humid weather year-round.

If this is not the case, just let us know. Because we'd all like better living conditions than we have now.

Melonie
11-19-2008, 08:35 PM
Because we'd all like better living conditions than we have now

Actually, it's not about the living conditions that we have now. It's about the living conditions that some are likely to have a year from now !!!

If you really want my 'gloom and doom' predicition, it goes along the lines of the US gov'ts credit rating being cut sometime next spring after president Obama and democratic super-majorities in congress embark on an unrestrained spending spree of union industry bailouts, democratic state bailouts, and additional unemplolyment / social welfare benefits. This will be followed by foreign lenders finally becoming so disgusted that they will back away from further loans to the USA (a.k.a. back away from future purchases of US treasuries, or even the sale of treasuries they already hold). At that point, the US will find itself insolvent ... leading to either an Argentina-like stiffing of foreign creditors or the wholesale printing of new US dollars. The world's response will be to revalue the US dollar exchange rate to a new level commeasurate with America's future creditworthiness ... at least 30% less than it is today (and possibly 50%). This in turn will cause a near immediate 30% (and possibly 50%) increase in the price of all world market commodities i.e. gasoline, food, anything else imported. With massive price increases, with zero change in (or declining) after-tax earnings, but with far less in the way of available credit to cover the shortfall (unlike last year's use of credit cards to paper over family budget shortfalls), the [email protected]#t will finally hit the fan in regard to the 'unsustainability' of middle class American lifestyles.

Additionally, for those Americans who are 'lucky' enough to still afford food, gasoline etc. at 30-50% higher US dollar denominated prices, there is also the issue of bankrupt retailers, of distressed banks, and of wary foreign suppliers choosing not to ship goods to the USA for fear that they will not actually be paid ... or fearful that the amount of US dollars they receive in payment will have depreciated versus their 'home' currency between shipment and delivery and actual payment to the point of cancelling out their original profit margin. As such, it is probable that real shortages will start to appear ... particularly shortages of formerly low cost imported food items a la WalMart. Yes there will still be plenty of US grown organic vegetables to go around ... but at three times the former WalMart price for Chinese import vegetables ! This will lead to dilemmas for many US families of buying food versus buying gasoline versus making the rent payment.

As a result, urban areas are likely to see unprecedented levels of 'civil unrest' as well. And this is likely to happen at the same time that de-facto bankrupt states and large cities will be forced to lay off police officers by the thousands !

!

arctic717
11-19-2008, 10:23 PM
Somehow I think the third world living conditions (generally in more temperate climates) are not all as beautiful as people with money think they will be. It's like 'the grass is greener on ....'

I moved to Panama a few years ago and will try to give some of my perspective to your list:
the educational level of many people you'll be interacting with (car repair etc) makes it difficult to get what you expect, Not a huge factor, by and large not service oriented and there is frustration. Once you find competent people not an issue
the medical system is going to be pretty basic by our standards, Not true, I find it better. Has a John's Hopkins Medical Center. Costs are about 1/3-1/4 of US. Ins. is $60 per mo. Health care people much more concerned with the patient
the gendermes will have much more power over monied immigrants with consequentally lower civil rights than they are used to, Foriegners here areconsidered elite and get to slide on most smaller stuff as long as they're not making trouble
the church will have a much larger role in everyday life than it has here, None at all. Legal prostitution, tons of bars, 24 hour nightlife and casinos. Permissive population
the monetary system will have a lot more bumps then here, US dollar is the official currency
there will be a lot of corruption in the entire system and bribes will be necessary, It's easy to get by and get stuff done sans bribes, but they can be used to speed things up. Contacts carry more wieght as it's a very small country (3 million). If you know the right people (which is easy) pretty much everything is a breeze
the language barrier will be a lot higher than they anticipate, Surprisingly there is not more English spoken here as we have been around in big numbers for a long time with the Canal. Pretty easy to get by w/out though. All professional and tourist people speak English
food and cleanliness will have different standards, Pretty much 1st world standard with this. Probably because of the US assistance in infrastructure as well as the fact that Panama is a leading financial center and gets alot of business travel
travel systems will be much less refined than here, Not sure what is meant by this but pleny of regional travel by plane, boat and bus. Panamanian airline Copa consistently rated one of the best in the world
but things will be cheaper than here, which is the only advantage I can see, Very true although electronic items made in the US are slightly more expensive because of import taxes.
unless they like hot, humid weather year-round. Panama City does have that. There are tons of great pools in every hotel and most apartment buildings. If it's an issue alot of ex-pats wind up in Boquete in the moutains which is one of the top retirement destinations world wide.Here are some pic's that show you're not dealing with the typical 3rd world location.

threlayer
11-20-2008, 05:05 AM
Looks like I was the setup man for your advertisement. LOL

Eric Stoner
11-20-2008, 09:10 AM
Actually, it's not about the living conditions that we have now. It's about the living conditions that some are likely to have a year from now !!!

If you really want my 'gloom and doom' predicition, it goes along the lines of the US gov'ts credit rating being cut sometime next spring after president Obama and democratic super-majorities in congress embark on an unrestrained spending spree of union industry bailouts, democratic state bailouts, and additional unemplolyment / social welfare benefits. This will be followed by foreign lenders finally becoming so disgusted that they will back away from further loans to the USA (a.k.a. back away from future purchases of US treasuries, or even the sale of treasuries they already hold). At that point, the US will find itself insolvent ... leading to either an Argentina-like stiffing of foreign creditors or the wholesale printing of new US dollars. The world's response will be to revalue the US dollar exchange rate to a new level commeasurate with America's future creditworthiness ... at least 30% less than it is today (and possibly 50%). This in turn will cause a near immediate 30% (and possibly 50%) increase in the price of all world market commodities i.e. gasoline, food, anything else imported. With massive price increases, with zero change in (or declining) after-tax earnings, but with far less in the way of available credit to cover the shortfall (unlike last year's use of credit cards to paper over family budget shortfalls), the [email protected]#t will finally hit the fan in regard to the 'unsustainability' of middle class American lifestyles.

Additionally, for those Americans who are 'lucky' enough to still afford food, gasoline etc. at 30-50% higher US dollar denominated prices, there is also the issue of bankrupt retailers, of distressed banks, and of wary foreign suppliers choosing not to ship goods to the USA for fear that they will not actually be paid ... or fearful that the amount of US dollars they receive in payment will have depreciated versus their 'home' currency between shipment and delivery and actual payment to the point of cancelling out their original profit margin. As such, it is probable that real shortages will start to appear ... particularly shortages of formerly low cost imported food items a la WalMart. Yes there will still be plenty of US grown organic vegetables to go around ... but at three times the former WalMart price for Chinese import vegetables ! This will lead to dilemmas for many US families of buying food versus buying gasoline versus making the rent payment.

As a result, urban areas are likely to see unprecedented levels of 'civil unrest' as well. And this is likely to happen at the same time that de-facto bankrupt states and large cities will be forced to lay off police officers by the thousands !

!

Uh Mel. How's your Espanol ?

arctic717
11-20-2008, 10:04 AM
Looks like I was the setup man for your advertisement. LOLNot looking to advertise or sell anything, just trying to swap perceptions for facts (at least where Panama is concerned). As for most other 3rd world countries your analysis would be right on.

Lucy in the Sky
11-20-2008, 11:36 AM
If you really want my 'gloom and doom' predicition, it goes along the lines of the US gov'ts credit rating being cut sometime next spring after president Obama and democratic super-majorities in congress embark on an unrestrained spending spree of union industry bailouts, democratic state bailouts, and additional unemplolyment / social welfare benefits. This will be followed by foreign lenders finally becoming so disgusted that they will back away from further loans to the USA (a.k.a. back away from future purchases of US treasuries, or even the sale of treasuries they already hold). At that point, the US will find itself insolvent ... leading to either an Argentina-like stiffing of foreign creditors or the wholesale printing of new US dollars. The world's response will be to revalue the US dollar exchange rate to a new level commeasurate with America's future creditworthiness ... at least 30% less than it is today (and possibly 50%). This in turn will cause a near immediate 30% (and possibly 50%) increase in the price of all world market commodities i.e. gasoline, food, anything else imported. With massive price increases, with zero change in (or declining) after-tax earnings, but with far less in the way of available credit to cover the shortfall (unlike last year's use of credit cards to paper over family budget shortfalls), the [email protected]#t will finally hit the fan in regard to the 'unsustainability' of middle class American lifestyles.



!

LMFAO! Paranoid much or what? Seriously babe, take off that tin foil hat for awhile and let your brain breathe in some fresh air for a change. Lack of oxygen isn't a good thing for your brain cells ;)


Uh Mel. How's your Espanol ?

Good question. If she is really going I hope it's at least passable. If not, time to invest in a Rosetta Stone program.

Miss_Luscious
11-20-2008, 12:00 PM
I believe this (http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/american-gotterdammerung/) prediction is right up Melonie's alley:



Get Depression 1.0 out of your head right now.

We are not that people. We are not that population.

A collapse on the scale we are in danger of right now is unprecedented in all of human history. There is absolutely nothing else to compare it to. This is a strange land we have never before visited.

I’m going to take you through a tour of this possible future. I intend to scare the living shit out of you in doing so. I do it not of out some perverse glee. I do it to try to wake all of you up to the very real and probable calamity ahead.

This is some of what we will face. I’m not intending to be comprehensive here. Much more will happen that just this. The longer it continues, the worse it will get. Consider this a glimpse of the opening act.

1) You have no money. You think you do. What you have in the bank is gone. You need to understand this point first and most of all. Your money became collateral. It’s been loaned out easily over one hundred times, most probably even more. For every dollar you think you have in the bank, there’s probably only a penny or a fraction thereof left that you can claim. What about FDIC insurance? Forget it. It can’t handle every bank account. And that’s what’s happening here: total collapse. All money zeroed out.

2) Your cash on hand will not go far. Prices will inflate immediately and ferociously. Food will skyrocket most of all. Because everyone needs to eat — and nobody can eat money.

3) All ATMs will stop working. So that money in the bank you still thought you had? It’s gone. The system is dead. The ATMs were the pulse of the financial circulatory system — and that system has had a fatal heart attack and dropped dead.

4) The initial stupid glee people will feel over their “liberation” from the system will be gone within the first 48-72 hours. Because everyone will be stuck at home. There’s no longer a job to go to. And all you self-employed people? You’re fired too. There’s no longer any market for what you were selling, so save your energy. You will need it to maintain your very existence.

5) You will no longer be able to sleep at night. Because of the sound of gunfire. All those people who have already been worse off than you? Hey, they have kids. And those kids need food. And during this time, a gun has become the new ATM card. Withdrawals will initially take place at night. It won’t only be the sound of gunfire keeping you awake, there will be the sirens too. Police sirens. Fire engine sirens. Ambulance sirens. And the sound of burglar alarms and car alarms.

6) Food will become short. Everything is on a cash-only basis now. You think it’ll be a simple matter of lining up in front a supermarket hours (and it will be hours) before it opens? No. First, most supermarkets will be closed. There’s no staff left. And for the rare supermarket that does open — in the early days — do you think a supermarket manager will be stupid enough to let hundreds of people swarm in all at once? You’ll go in ten at a time. And before you’re allowed in, you’ll be hand-frisked by whatever few staff remains. That gun you brought to keep you safe? It will prevent you from getting food. You’ll be denied admittance. As it is, you’ll pray that a) you’ll get in before they close the doors, and b) that there’s something left to buy. Expect limits on what you can buy — but only after the lucky early ones have grabbed all they can still afford with cash on hand.

7) Lining up at a supermarket will make you a target. Your presence there will announce that you have cash on you. Expect to be shot for your money. You imagine it’ll be one person with a gun holding you up? Have you ever had the experience of opening up a cabinet in a slum apartment? Swarms of cockroaches run out. The cockroaches of society will likewise swarm out to steal from you. There will be carloads of people attacking the supermarket line. You’ll be lucky enough to get away with your life. You’ll never get that food you planned to get.

8) And if you do happen to be one of the lucky ones to get food, expect to never get home with it. If you’re not robbed in the supermarket parking lot on the way to your car, expect to be followed as you drive away. Your car will be rammed and you’ll be overrun by armed thieves who will shoot you first — and they’ll go for your head, so there’s no witness left — and then take your food.

9) Don’t expect electricity. I’m not saying your lights will be turned off for non-payment. That’s naive. I’m talking about the breakdown of the infrastructure. I’ll coin the term you’ll be hearing in this alternate awful future: micro-terrorism. All of you think terrorism means some madman with a bomb strapped to him. That’s the past. Micro-terrorism is this: you live in an area where your electricity and cable TV and telephone are delivered on old wooden posts? Expect bastards to go out there with chainsaws and take those poles down. This is micro-terrorism. An entire town’s or city’s lights don’t have to go out all at once. Terror can be done neighborhood-by-neighborhood. Hardly any of this will be political. It will be criminal. A population kept off balance is easy prey.

10) There will be no gasoline. Gasoline, like food, is delivered by truck. And many trucks will never, ever get to their destination. The highways will become overrun with hijackers. At some point, truckers will no longer move goods. What’s the point? Why should a trucker try to go several hundred miles to deliver food or gas when he can’t get either of those at home, for himself and his family?

11) Police? There aren’t enough police in the entire country to restore order once the rampage begins. In New York City, for example, most of the cops live in the suburbs. Do you think they’ll leave their families in jeopardy to keep order among a population they’ve daily shown contempt and hatred for?

12) You’ll smell smoke all the time. Something will always be burning somewhere. If it’s not an abandoned home, or a fire accidentally caused by candles (remember, no electricity), or people keeping warm with a fire in a metal barrel (hey, this is winter now, right?), it’ll be an outright act of micro-terrorism. Cars, tires, anything that can set alight. Burn baby burn. Burn it all down will be the sentiment.

13) There will be curfews. For you. Not for the criminals who will own the night. They have nothing to lose. They never wanted a stake in this country. They never lived by its rules. It’s open season for them to take whatever they want whenever they want.

14) National Guard? Did you see what happened in New Orleans with Katrina? What’s happened in Houston with Gustav? Those are just two cities. This is now national, every city. You’re on your own. Literally.

15) You’re isolated. No electricity means no Internet, no TV. And if you don’t have a hand-crank radio, you’ll run out of batteries. You won’t know what reality is because you’ve been cut off from the flow of information. You’ll hear nothing but rumor. And lies. None of it will be good and your daily sense of dread will eventually turn to gut-wrenching panic. You will have no rest. You can’t sleep at night. And you need to also be awake during the day to try to connect with people to see if anyone knows what’s really going on.

16) Imposters. That guy coming towards you in a cop uniform or National Guard uniform? He’s neither. He took those off of someone he killed. So you’d be fooled into trusting him. You won’t be able to trust anybody.

Do I need to continue? Is this enough for you to grasp the magnitude of the alternative we face? How many more words must I pour out? This should be enough.

If this hasn’t scared you, you’re not taking the gravity of the situation seriously.

And you’ll probably be one of the first to die.



AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Melonie
11-20-2008, 07:35 PM
^^^ that is the infamous 'Mad Max' scenario. Even I'm not that pessimistic. However, given what happened in New Orleans during the stressful conditions of hurricane Katrina ( not to mention a totally democrat state and city government ), I can't say that scenario is impossible.

Lucy in the Sky
11-20-2008, 09:44 PM
Hmmm.

What does it say when someone believes that the result of an Obama election will turn the US into basically a 3rd World nation and yet they voted for him all while planning to leave the country as soon as he takes office?

Melonie
11-21-2008, 04:20 AM
it 'says' that she's not poor, that she's not 'rich', but that she doesn't want to become 'poor'.

It says that she has enough faith in the common sense of Average Americans that they will believe their own eyes and their own wallets when the 2012 election rolls around no matter what mainstream media chooses to report.

Lucy in the Sky
11-21-2008, 10:12 AM
it 'says' that she's not poor, that she's not 'rich', but that she doesn't want to become 'poor'.

It says that she has enough faith in the common sense of Average Americans that they will believe their own eyes and their own wallets when the 2012 election rolls around no matter what mainstream media chooses to report.

Why have faith in the average American in 2012 but not 2008? Did we not believe what we saw around us and felt in our wallets and in terms of national elections decide to 'throw the bums out'?

What is bugging me here is that you voted for a person you believe will bring about as you called it 'gloom and doom' and thus cause million and millions of people to suffer. I find that really, really offensive. Actually more than offensive. It can only be described by terms I doubt Paris wants used in her section so I'm out of this for now at least. Hmm, maybe for good.

Melonie
11-21-2008, 02:00 PM
What is bugging me here is that you voted for a person you believe will bring about as you called it 'gloom and doom' and thus cause million and millions of people to suffer. I find that really, really offensive

I voted for the candidate that I felt would be best for America in the long term ... since there wasn't any candidate among the two serious alternatives who was good for America in the short term. If that offends you, you obviously haven't studied Machiavelli or the 'real world'. Hopefully you were equally offended by Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's recent comments about 'not letting a Crisis go to waste' !



At any rate, today Obama took another 'official' step in addressing the economic crisis. He nominated the comparatively inexperienced but Democratically well connected ex-Clintonista Tim Geithner as the new secretary of the treasury.

(snip)"It was then that Robert Rubin, the onetime Clinton Treasury secretary, put forth a former colleague named Tim Geithner [ as nominee for NY Fed president - sic ]. Geithner had obvious assets. He'd spent the 1990s in a series of high-ranking Treasury jobs, where he worked alongside Rubin and his successor, Larry Summers, to stave off one financial crisis after another. Geithner also enjoyed a warm rapport with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who could effectively veto the appointment.

Still, there were question marks. Officially, the New York Fed is one of the country's top bank regulators; unofficially, it's the Federal Reserve system's "eyes and ears" on Wall Street. Geithner had neither a banking nor a Wall Street background. There was also the matter of his youthfulness. New York Fed presidents have traditionally been a grizzled, dyspeptic sort. At 43, Geithner was svelte and baby-faced, with teen-idol locks and a boyish voice to match. Who would take this man-child seriously? "(snip)

PS it appears that Wall St and Detroit both love Geithner ... because they are confident that he will back the use of taxpayer 'bailout' money to maintain 'business as usual'.

~

Lucy in the Sky
11-23-2008, 05:22 PM
If that offends you, you obviously haven't studied Machiavelli or the 'real world'.


Oh now isn't that just fucking rich! You equate my being offended at someone who WANTS to see harm come to millions of people as being ignorant of the 'real world' and the works of Machiavelli.

HA!

I can assure you that could not be farther from the truth.

Melonie
11-24-2008, 10:50 AM
again you seemed to have missed my point. I am not wishing that harm to come to millions of people. I am merely acknowledging that harm IS going to come to millions of people, and that I am powerless to change that fact.

As to the true causes of that harm, and the agents that will bring about that harm, I refer you to Machiavelli.

glambman
11-24-2008, 11:20 AM
Read Frederic Bastiat instead of Machi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat


"The govt creates the problems, and then offers solutions."


"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." – from The Law

Lucy in the Sky
11-24-2008, 11:28 AM
again you seemed to have missed my point. I am not wishing that harm to come to millions of people. I am merely acknowledging that harm IS going to come to millions of people, and that I am powerless to change that fact.



That is so not true and there are posts all over this website that prove it.

'nuff said!

Eric Stoner
11-24-2008, 12:43 PM
That is so not true and there are posts all over this website that prove it.

'nuff said!

If you really believe that, then you are in desperate need of remedial READING.

Melonie has NEVER gloated or wallowed in our economic misfortune. Events have proven her pessimism to have been spot on and well founded.

LizardQueen
11-24-2008, 12:45 PM
Obama warns about the economy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27885917?GT1=43001

Hmmm. :-\

threlayer
11-24-2008, 02:56 PM
The common question is: "are you better off now than you were eight years ago?"

Mel has presented a lot of posts about our troubles, but few successes. Probably because there are so few. Not all have been objective, as I see objectivity. We all have a right to present our opinions. We can take criticism, but there is no need for insults, as those just reflect negatively and in all liklihood not influence the opinion-holder, if that is the objective. However, expressing dissenting opinions is how we try to arrive at the truth. and that should be the objective.

I would prefer to be an optimist on this issue. So far I am slightly encouraged.

threlayer
11-26-2008, 04:29 PM
And so far the team I've heard of looks good.

But if they are doing their work now to get ready to MOVE on 1/20/09, as Obama says, I wonder who pays them. Also I wonder why we are paying GWB, who seems to be napping.

VegasPrincess
11-26-2008, 09:27 PM
Le Sigh.

Melonie I really like you, I know that you clearly believe in what you say you do to put up with all the crap that people are saying to you in the these threads and I think that's awesome, bc it shows you have a back bone.

That said, I don't believe in your beliefs, and I don't think what you're touting about the future of our economy is going to come to fruition.

I also think it's really sad that you don't support higher taxation in favor of better governement resources. The fact is the reason we have so much crime , etc is bc people are poor, have no resources, and are desperate. Desperate times, desperate measures.

The economy is FUCKED right now, you are right. I am a college educated, articulate, attractive young woman who has been seeking a job in a more professional field, and I can't get paid right now to do a damn thing but take my clothes off. Well, I can, but I have yet to be offered more than 10/hr.

For a lot of people, the reality right now is if they can get a job, they are offered 7 dollars an hour. And it's not bc they are lazy crazy or stupid. It's just pure fact.

We need a change, we do. When you combine my boyfriend and my income, together we aren't near the 250K range but we are far over the 100K range. I am 100 percent in support of paying more tax to make this world a better, more hopeful place.

It saddens me that not everyone feels the same way I do.

And as for the tax increases, paying 40% on your income of 300K a year is a far smaller sacrafice in regards to the quality of your life than paying 15% in taxes if you make 12K a year. And plenty of people earning minimum wage make between 10 and 12k. And not all of them have the option to make more money, and if they could, then our economy would fall apart as we wouldn't have any check out baggers at the super markets, people to clean the hospitals, ETC.

Those people are still intitled to healthcare, fair housing, ETC, even if their jobs don't meet some standard of excellence in people's eyes. I'm sure being a stripper, there are plenty of people who think I am a worthless whore who deserves nothing, just as people (not you Mel just making an example) think the guy who shines their shoes or runs them through a car wash is subhuman.

glambman
11-26-2008, 09:46 PM
I also think it's really sad that you don't support higher taxation in favor of better governement resources.

When you combine my boyfriend and my income, together we aren't near the 250K range but we are far over the 100K range. I am 100 percent in support of paying more tax to make this world a better, more hopeful place.

It saddens me that not everyone feels the same way I do.



Individuals have the opportunity to pay additional (voluntary) taxes, so the question is, do you? Do you send the government an additional amount of money to make up for your lower taxes?

If not, your post made me lol, if so, I still lol'd.

Melonie
11-27-2008, 03:31 AM
just as people (not you Mel just making an example) think the guy who shines their shoes or runs them through a car wash is subhuman.

This brings us back full circle to the underlying points. How much productivity ( added value ) is created by shining shoes or washing cars ? What standard of living accompanies a person shining shoes or washing cars in Eastern Europe or Asia ? Who picks up the tab for the difference ?


Those people are still intitled to healthcare, fair housing, ETC

Nowhere in the US constitution is there a reference to people being entitled to healthcare, housing, or anything else other than the PURSUIT of happiness. The idea of all Americans being entitled to a minimum standard of living that their own abilities / productivity cannot pay for, with the tab being involuntarily picked up by the forced transfer of 'wealth' from other Americans with higher skills and productivity, is a 'foreign' political principle ... called socialism.

On a personal note, I really wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if that money were actually to be used to make the world a better place. However, arguably, allowing the gov't to spend more money has not helped the US education system produce more ( and/or more competent) high school graduates, has not helped the US 'urban poor' become less poor etc. Arguably, what the additional money has done is to allow the gov't to grow bigger, to allow more ( unionized Democrat) public sector employees to receive a gov't paycheck etc. And arguably this is precisely the trend that the Obama administration would like to see continued.

glambman
11-27-2008, 08:11 AM
Nowhere in the US constitution is there a reference to people being entitled to healthcare, housing, or anything else other than the PURSUIT of happiness. The idea of all Americans being entitled to a minimum standard of living that their own abilities / productivity cannot pay for,



Melonie, ohh Melonie you are sooo wrong. You see, our Constitution has what is commonly referred to as the General Welfare Clause. It entitles people to healthcare, housing, having children paid for, and everything else.

signed, Dummo dem O'Cwat

Melonie
11-27-2008, 09:50 AM
^^^ ah yes but if I'm not mistaken the constitutional terminology is 'promote the general welfare' ... not 'guarantee' or 'provide'. But I'm certain that a couple of new Supreme Court nominees can be found that will resort to foreign law or their own personal opinions and reach the 'new' interpretation you point out !

Lucy in the Sky
11-27-2008, 12:11 PM
If you really believe that, then you are in desperate need of remedial READING.

Melonie has NEVER gloated or wallowed in our economic misfortune.

While ignoring the undeserved insult to my intelligence I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

glambman
11-27-2008, 03:42 PM
^^^ ah yes but if I'm not mistaken the constitutional terminology is 'promote the general welfare' ... not 'guarantee' or 'provide'. But I'm certain that a couple of new Supreme Court nominees can be found that will resort to foreign law or their own personal opinions and reach the 'new' interpretation you point out !

Most people assume the 'general welfare' statement in the preamble is the GWC (that allows unconstitutional crap to go on), but it is not. The GWC is actually::

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."


http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html

threlayer
11-27-2008, 04:02 PM
This brings us back full circle to the underlying points. How much productivity ( added value ) is created by shining shoes or washing cars ? ... Who picks up the tab for the difference ?....

Here is the essence of the question. The value is in the judgement of the person wanting that service. For example, what is the 'value added' to me in whatever I am getting a stripclub? Nothing. If I go, it is because I want to and can pay my way (put money in others' pockets).

What services you don't want/need you are free to avoid. But those you do want, you should pay a fair value for, and not exploit a worker (or contribute to that) because you have more economic power than they do.

This has happened a lot on our country's past. I can post several examples right off the cuff. And it still happens even in this country.

You don't think economic power can exploit workers? Just look at what those game-playing finance companies have done to us all by playing footsie with our 'government' for the past so many years.

threlayer
11-27-2008, 04:08 PM
"Common Walfare" has nothing to do with the 'welfare state.' I look at it as like the infrastructure we need to attending to the country's needs, not just bridges and sewers but also systems we need for oversight on how the government is working.

For example, are taxes collected over all of the country going to pay for work and facilities provided only to a few favored states or are they being spread more or less in proportion to where they come from and for the purposes needed for the common good? Oddly enough, this oversight is an area the government is still weak on.

threlayer
11-27-2008, 04:20 PM
We have an awful lot of selfishness in this country (and in humans in general). In this country I guess it is because we are cajoled from birth to death to compete and get more and more for ourselves. We are told that we 'deserve it' by commercial advertisements over and over. Humans are intelligent and social enough to recognize that all of us have some degree of social responsibility to watch over and help others who are weaker or damaged in some way or are exploited by others. Yet we largely do not do this and when we do see it in others, it bothers us that it might take away some of the comfort and trappings that we expect for ourselves.

For example look at post-Katrina New Orleans. How would those people have ever fared without help that takes away a little from each of us thru taxes, if thru nothing else.

Many people just cannot see beyond their own personal welfare. Selfishness is certainly necessary for humans to survive, but excess selfishness can destroy others' ability to survive.

glambman
11-27-2008, 04:23 PM
Here is the essence of the question. The value is in the judgement of the person wanting that service.

But those you do want, you should pay a fair value for, and not exploit a worker (or contribute to that) because you have more economic power than they do.


But who determines fair value? Go over to the pink side (not the pinko site lol) and you will see how tough it has been in the SC for the employees to make money (especially in comparison to a number of years ago). Should we assess a minimum wage of 1K per shift (if she is unable to sell mass blocks or vip's)?

How about when you get your car washed, is 20 bucks really sufficient? Wouldn't the employees do better if we adjusted the price to pay them 3x what they are earning now?

We pay based on the service. I can go to a do it yourself car wash and it'll cost me 7.00. At the non do it yourself car wash, for 20.00 I get an even better set of services than when doing it myself. Is 20.00 a fair price? Absolutely. (I wouldn't mind even paying 5.00 more, but I'm not having it done for say 35.00.)

Wages reflect that real value, and not someones idealism.

glambman
11-27-2008, 04:28 PM
For example look at post-Katrina New Orleans. How would those people have ever fared without help that takes away a little from each of us thru taxes, if thru nothing else.



I think this is a different issue. No one really has a problem helping in these cases. It's the people who get a SSI designation of alcoholic/ drug addict/ etc. that we then pay for. And people doing nothing more than spreading their legs and making babies in order to get more welfare money.

Everyone talks about the failure of the War on Drugs, but not about the failure of the War on Poverty. Wealth redistribution is a failure.

threlayer
11-27-2008, 05:09 PM
Who determines value? YOU do.

Who determines exploitation? Certainly not the person doing the exploiting.


But who determines fair value?...Should we assess a minimum wage of 1K per shift (if she is unable to sell mass blocks or vip's)? I don't understand.

How about when you get your car washed, is 20 bucks really sufficient? Wouldn't the employees do better if we adjusted the price to pay them 3x what they are earning now?

We pay based on the service... Wages reflect that real value, and not someones idealism.[/quote]

Wages, via an employer, reflects what the employer chooses to pay, not what the consumer chooses to pay. Problem is that often jobs are in higher demand than supply and often employers do not pay fair wages because they know the worker needs to job badly enough that he/she is willinig to put up with bad conditions. A relevant example here is some of the sleazily-managed stripclubs.

threlayer
11-27-2008, 05:15 PM
...It's the people who get a SSI designation of alcoholic/ drug addict/ etc. that we then pay for. And people doing nothing more than spreading their legs and making babies in order to get more welfare money.

Everyone talks about the failure of the War on Drugs, but not about the failure of the War on Poverty. Wealth redistribution is a failure.

I agree with that, but the scope of the wealth redistribution is not in the larger scope you are expecting it to be. I further think that people on welfare, even with small kids, can do some work of value in some way. Far as that goes, actually most of us can do more than we are exployed for. And still futher, many employers can do more to help with the situation that they are currently willing to do.

threlayer
11-27-2008, 05:35 PM
I have not even started discussing rest the issues of my concern.

glambman
11-27-2008, 06:40 PM
Who determines value? YOU do.

Who determines exploitation? Certainly not the person doing the exploiting.

I don't understand.

Wages, via an employer, reflects what the employer chooses to pay, not what the consumer chooses to pay. Problem is that often jobs are in higher demand than supply and often employers do not pay fair wages because they know the worker needs to job badly enough that he/she is willinig to put up with bad conditions. A relevant example here is some of the sleazily-managed stripclubs.


Right, but if the car washes decide to pay a wage 3x of what they do know, my 20.00 wash is now 35.00. It's no longer of value too me. I'll do it myself. And with the others who feel like me, 80% of car washes are now out of business, paying no one any wage.