View Full Version : The Obama Household Model for the U.S.
threlayer
05-18-2009, 03:05 PM
That's a non-issue!
Remember these are kids now hoping to go out and get theirs! They need to be reminded that EVERYONE has social obligations, unless they choose to live on a deserted island. To the extent that we are a narcissistic, selfish, acquisition-neurotic society, we are then a hedonistic, self-centered, exploitative brutal society.
glambman
05-18-2009, 03:31 PM
They need to be reminded that EVERYONE has social obligations,
We have a duty to ensure all he whimsical socialist programs. yeah right.
I'm curious why you guys don't voluntarily give up more money to the government, over and beyond the tax scheme, if you guys actually believe your own crap.
Paris
05-18-2009, 03:57 PM
We have a duty to ensure all he whimsical socialist programs. yeah right.
I'm curious why you guys don't voluntarily give up more money to the government, over and beyond the tax scheme, if you guys actually believe your own crap.
Does donations to political movements count? I give money to the Archimedes movement to lobby for health care reform, I also donate to government supported entities like NPR, and send care packages to soldiers serving overseas. Oh, and when the local schools have fund raisers I always buy magazines or wrapping paper or candy bars or whatever it is the kids are selling. Ever stuffed a boot for your local fire department? I recently sent a payment to the summer concert series in Portland Oregon. I probably won't get to a concert, and haven't been to concert in many years, but the fact that the city can't foot the bill for the waterfront concerts anymore makes me sad. It looks like due to private donations, we are able to keep the concerts going this year, again.
So, yeah, "Us guys" do practice what we preach.
glambman
05-18-2009, 04:44 PM
I donate to right wing causes and other charities that 'benefit' people. But no, they don't count because it is not going to the govt to spend it on their crappy programs. If 'you' want a 90% tax rate, voluntarily send in the balance on your next tax day.
threlayer
05-18-2009, 07:13 PM
I spend a lot of tlme helping out partially disabled and elderly neighbors and, with my various organizations, we help the elderly homes etc. My website helps folks with similar hobbies to mine. I repair things for people I know who have problems doing that. I do minor repairs for school classrooms that otherwise slip thru the cracks. I rarely give money to any group; I prefer hands-on helping.
If those are left-winged socialist charities, I'm a Martian.
They CERTAINLY are not right wing rabble-rouser groups like the Patriots, the NRA Assault Weapons Support Team, the Get the Government Out of the Postal Business and the Back to Gold Standard lobbyists, and the Back to Africa movement, etc.
Paris
05-18-2009, 07:25 PM
We have a duty to ensure all he whimsical socialist programs. yeah right.
I'm curious why you guys don't voluntarily give up more money to the government, over and beyond the tax scheme, if you guys actually believe your own crap.
I donate to right wing causes and other charities that 'benefit' people. But no, they don't count because it is not going to the govt to spend it on their crappy programs. If 'you' want a 90% tax rate, voluntarily send in the balance on your next tax day.
I'm just wondering if you actually read what you post? I would have thought that you would have been supportive of the actions of people donating to the public good, but you come back with some smart-assed answer. If the public is taking care of itself, that is less burden to the government, and by result you (and everyone else) can pay lower taxes.
Eric Stoner
05-19-2009, 07:16 AM
^^^^^ I'm sorry but you folks are confusing apples and oranges. Nobody is belittling charity. Of whatever stripe- private, public, large or small. Whether it consists of donating money, time or is in kind. Likewise, nobody is minimizing public service. Civilian or military.
My beef with the Obamas and the thrust of their graduation speeches is that they fail to honor the very capitalism that creates the wealth that enables all the programs and organizations they think are so valuable. Before it can be donated and/or before it can taxed and distributed in accord with Obama's predilictions and preferences, SOMEBODY has to create the wealth ! Obama may have written the books but a publisher printed and marketed them; bookstores carried them and people bought them so that he could be paid royalties.
Obama and many Dems have seized on current events to battle "greed". First of all, government does a comparatively poor job compared to the market. So long as consumers are informed, most choose NOT to accomodate what THEY perceive to be excessive greed. The best examples are what is happening with the new Yankee Stadium and web-sites like Stub-Hub. Many Yankee tickets in prime seating areas have NOT been sold. So much so that the Yankees had to offer discounts to get the seats sold. Likewise, on Stub-Hub, prices of premium tickets for all sorts of sporting events have been declining except for about 48 hrs. before the event ( last minute impulse buys).
I'm saying that success and achievement are nothing to be ashamed about. Just as not everyone is cut out to be a CEO, not everyone is meant to work at a non-profit. In fact, the former facilitates the latter.
glambman
05-19-2009, 03:00 PM
I'm just wondering if you actually read what you post? I would have thought that you would have been supportive of the actions of people donating to the public good, but you come back with some smart-assed answer. If the public is taking care of itself, that is less burden to the government, and by result you (and everyone else) can pay lower taxes.
If you read the first post you quoted, I followed my statement by 'yeah right'. In the context of the post I was responding to, I was being sarcastic. We do not have the social obligation that he said.
Now do I, for my own moral reasons happily contribute? Yes. And please note that I completely left out any politicos in that statement. Whether it's NPR/ PBS or The New American/ NRA, this rights group or that rights group, even the pro-life groups I support (for the most part), and even a church's administrative/ upkeep costs, they are not "charities".
Ohhh, BTW, I volunteer at a National Refuge in Fl. It takes me 2 1/2 hours just to drive there. But even I would not equate that with donating to Hospice (sadly whose services I used for my father <even though his insurance covered the cost>).
The term social obligation is too broad and IMO does not cover crappy governmental programs (by any side) or any politico (including media, PACs, etc.).
Alas, the government doesn't want people to help each other, it would but them out of business.;)
glambman
05-19-2009, 03:07 PM
^^^^^ I'm sorry but you folks are confusing apples and oranges. Nobody is belittling charity. Of whatever stripe- private, public, large or small. Whether it consists of donating money, time or is in kind. Likewise, nobody is minimizing public service. Civilian or military.
First of all, government does a comparatively poor job compared to the market. So long as consumers are informed, most choose NOT to accomodate what THEY percieve to be excessive greed.
I'm saying that success and achievement are nothing to be ashamed about. Just as not everyone is cut out to be a CEO, not everyone is meant to work at a non-profit. In fact, the former facilitates the latter.
Well said.
Paris
05-19-2009, 03:07 PM
The term social obligation is too broad and IMO does not cover crappy governmental programs (by any side) or any politico (including media).
Alas, the government doesn't want people to help each other, it would but them out of business.;)
And who, exactly, do you think the government is in the United States? I'll give you a hint, we all stare at him or her in the mirror.
"We the People..."
glambman
05-19-2009, 03:16 PM
And who, exactly, do you think the government is in the United States? I'll give you a hint, we all stare at him or her in the mirror.
"We the People..."
In our Federal system, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect people to well, lead us.
Our States and local governments are more democratic, but as you see when the overwhelming majority vote something in (pro traditional marriage), the minority sue. So even then, well...... we could make the case that we are run by the Judiciary since the Congress has been a bunch of pussies and are too chickenshit to 'make the laws'. It also gives them someone else to blame (the other side) so they can get the brainwashed masses to continue vote for their incompetent asses.
Melonie
05-19-2009, 03:20 PM
And who, exactly, do you think the government is in the United States? I'll give you a hint, we all stare at him or her in the mirror.
"We the People..."
If this were true, GWB would never have been president !
glambman
05-19-2009, 03:23 PM
If this were true, GWB would never have been president !
Thank goodness for college (the Electoral College, that is). For some reason, I suddenly got the urge to sing.......'conjunction junction, what's your function.....' lol
threlayer
05-30-2009, 09:31 AM
In our Federal system, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect people to well, lead us.
It is called a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, as opposed to a direct Democracy like our local and state governments. The democracy allows for representative and direct forms. Check it out!
BTW if you don't feel any kind of a social obligation, that's your own personal problem. Otherwise. your only need for other people is to exploit them for your own perszonal needs. If you can't give back, other than asa money machine, who needs you? I'm using the 'you' in an impersonal sense.
Eric Stoner
06-01-2009, 08:19 AM
It is called a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, as opposed to a direct Democracy like our local and state governments. The democracy allows for representative and direct forms. Check it out!
BTW if you don't feel any kind of a social obligation, that's your own personal problem. Otherwise. your only need for other people is to exploit them for your own perszonal needs. If you can't give back, other than asa money machine, who needs you? I'm using the 'you' in an impersonal sense.
State and local governments are NOT direct democracies. The closest things we have are the Proposition system in California ( look how well they are doing ! ) and New Hampshire Town Hall Meetings.
My "social obligations" and everyone else's are two and ONLY two : Obey the law and avoid becoming a public charge.
Nobody "gave" me anything. I worked for everything I've got. I pay my taxes and contribute to charity.
You appear to be infected with the "class envy" virus that makes you think you are not rich because someone else is and thus they owe you something. If they are rich ONLY because they inherited their wealth like Ted Kennedy or married it like John Kerry, then afaic there is something to talk about. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I support inheritance taxes. But if they worked for it; if they started a business or invested; afaic that is THEIR money. What they do with it is THEIR business.
threlayer
06-01-2009, 12:32 PM
State and local governments are NOT direct democracies. The closest things we have are the Proposition system in California ( look how well they are doing ! ) and New Hampshire Town Hall Meetings. Technically you are correct. But tell me how can one enforce "Parliamentary Procedure" in a community meeting of 10,000 people, each looking after their own iterests, as well as common interests? Even online? You are talking about a form of government which became outmoded in about 1830.
You appear to be infected with the "class envy" virus that makes you think you are not rich because someone else is and thus they owe you something. If they are rich ONLY because they inherited their wealth like Ted Kennedy or married it like John Kerry, then afaic there is something to talk about. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I support inheritance taxes. But if they worked for it; if they started a business or invested; afaic that is THEIR money. What they do with it is THEIR business. Has nothing to do with class. If you keep ooking foran undercurrent of motivations beytone what I've posted already, you will just get farther anf farther from te TRUTH. Big businesses very often wield power they have acquired from their, and their leaders', influence, not from their merits. From "Robber Barons" right on thru to Enron and AIG type cases (and local corp cases I could describe). Further selfishness and exploitation are historical earmarks of capitalistic societies; not all selfishness and exploitation is good, you know.
Eric Stoner
06-01-2009, 12:41 PM
Technically you are correct. But tell me how can one enforce "Parliamentary Procedure" in a community meeting of 10,000 people, each looking after their own iterests, as well as common interests? Even online? You are talking about a form of government which became outmoded in about 1830.
Has nothing to do with class. If you keep ooking foran undercurrent of motivations beytone what I've posted already, you will just get farther anf farther from te TRUTH. Big businesses very often wield power they have acquired from their, and their leaders', influence, not from their merits. From "Robber Barons" right on thru to Enron and AIG type cases (and local corp cases I could describe). Further selfishness and exploitation are historical earmarks of capitalistic societies; not all selfishness and exploitation is good, you know.
YOU are the one who claimed state and local governments were "direct' democracies. I simply pointed out how and why you were mistaken.
Most of the powerful big business you ( and I decry ) get at least part of their power from GOVERNMENT. It is government that doles out the favors and preferential treatment that a truly free market would make impossible.
You talk about "selfishness and exploitation". Please tell me what system has successfully eliminated them while still maintaining prosperity ?
Melonie
06-01-2009, 02:57 PM
Does donations to political movements count?
following up on Stoner's comment, it is an ideal time to revisit your earlier question. The answer is 'only if they are made voluntarily'. This is of course a reference to the public funding granted to ACORN and other arguably political groups as part of the Obama stimulus package which essentially constitute an 'involuntary contribution' being forced on ALL US taxpayers.
threlayer
06-01-2009, 06:59 PM
And I suppose the lack of regulatory oversight which led to this financial disaster does not cost all of us anything? However, if those companies receiving cash pay back their debts, so that they can contunie to exist, much of that TARP money will be recovered. And quite a bit of the 'stimulus' will be recovered in terms of value added to the country's infrastructure. I'm sure a lot will never be seen directly again. But will help to recover our 'confidence' and consequently lessen the recession.
Melonie
06-01-2009, 07:06 PM
^^^ that's the theory anyhow. However, in the case of the GM bailout, it would appear that the US taxpayer will be required to front an ADDITIONAL 30 billion on top of the 20 billion or so in TARP funds already paid out to GM ( and that doesn't count the TARP money paid out to GMAC ) just to keep the company functioning. It remains to be seen whether a restructured GM will ever actually turn a net profit. It THEN remains to be seen whether or not any earned profit will be returned to GM's private owners (i.e. the UAW pension / health insurance fund) versus returned to US / Canadian taxpayers versus returned to 'screwed' GM bondholders. Check out the 'bonds are cursed' thread.
Eric Stoner
06-02-2009, 07:23 AM
And I suppose the lack of regulatory oversight which led to this financial disaster does not cost all of us anything? However, if those companies receiving cash pay back their debts, so that they can contunie to exist, much of that TARP money will be recovered. And quite a bit of the 'stimulus' will be recovered in terms of value added to the country's infrastructure. I'm sure a lot will never be seen directly again. But will help to recover our 'confidence' and consequently lessen the recession.
I am tired of this canard that blames the current mess on the free market and NOT where it properly belongs- On The Government !
Melonie and I have detailed how all the futzing with Fannie and Freddie through the CRA and other meddling created the sub-prime market. We have detailed how Greenspan and the Fed futzed around with interest rates that helped create the housing bubble AND how Greenspan and Gramm led the fight NOT to regulate derivatives.
It was G.W. Bush who opened the Pandora's Box of TARP and bailouts which Obama and the Dems are now gleefully rummaging through. Now we have Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida ( by an amazing coincidence Disney World is in his district) who wants Congress to mandate that all companies with at least 100 employees provide a week of paid vacation to those who work at least 25 hrs. per week and after three years they'd be entitled to two weeks. He would NOT mandate that those vacations be spent at Disney World. The travel and tourism industries are very much in favor.
The Congressional Black Caucus wants subsidies for minority broadcasters to "maintain diversity".
Wagoner is still on G.M.'s payroll becuase Geithner and the 31 year old twerp (who hasn't graduated Law School and has never set foot in an auto plant) who is supervising G.M.'s bankruptcy ( I am NOT making this up ! ) haven't decided whether or not to HONOR HIS CONTRACT and pay him the $20 million in severance he is owed that accrued over 32 years of service !
Obama's policy of forcing Detroit to make more fuel efficient cars ( lighter, more cramped and less crashworthy ) will run up against a bill currently pending in Congress to give new vehicle buyers a Government funded rebate of up to $4500 even if the "new" vehicle gets just two mpg more than their current clunker. Dealers currently have 400,000 unsold large pick-ups.
Bondholders aka SECURED CREDITORS are supposed to be first on line in any Bankruptcy. Actually they stand behind Uncle Sam and any other government creditors. Chrysler's and GM's creditors include many pension funds, both state and private who were forced to accept less on the dollar than one of the prime architects of the current state of the American Auto Biz, the U.A.W.
There is already one lawsuit by Indiana's Pension Fund objecting to Obama's heavy handed and unauthorized re-writing of 100 years of Bankruptcy Law and the 5th Amendment's proscription of seizure of private property. Additionally TARP was specifically authorized to aid Banks and other financial institutions like AIG and NOT troubled industries whose workers just happened to have voted for Obama. Look for there to be more when some of those pension fund trustees do the math and figure out how badly their beneficiaries have gotten screwed.
I'm waiting for a Federal policy that will choose between and finally settle a decades long debate of the highest public health and environmental import ; disposable or cloth diapers. To favor the former would of course protect the disposable makers and their employees.
On the other hand, cloth diapers help the cotton industry and detergent makers. Not to worry, I'm sure Obama in his infinite wisdom will choose wisely and well.
Melonie
06-02-2009, 09:25 AM
^^^ and not only did the Obama treatment of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies shaft secured creditor bondholders ( see bonds are cursed thread) but they are now setting up GMAC for a replay of Fannie / Freddie i.e. using US taxpayer guarantees to provide underpriced loans to 'subprime' borrowers. In the case of GMAC, however, the gov't bailout is being included as an integral part of the deal from the git-go !!!
threlayer
06-02-2009, 02:39 PM
^^^ that's the theory anyhow.
However, in the case of the GM bailout, it would appear that the US taxpayer will be required to front an ADDITIONAL 30 billion on top of the 20 billion or so in TARP funds already paid out to GM ( and that doesn't count the TARP money paid out to GMAC ) just to keep the company functioning. It remains to be seen whether a restructured GM will ever actually turn a net profit. It THEN remains to be seen whether or not any earned profit will be returned to GM's private owners ....
It's more of a committment than a theory. As far as political committments go anyway.
I agree that it's risky, more risky than a gamble I'd take. But I don't have millions of jobs at stake to worry about.
threlayer
06-02-2009, 02:49 PM
I am tired of this canard that blames the current mess on the free market and NOT where it properly belongs- On The Government ! Does everything that goes wrong with this country the fault of the government?
Melonie and I have detailed how all the futzing with Fannie and Freddie through the CRA and other meddling created the sub-prime market. We have detailed how Greenspan and the Fed futzed around with interest rates that helped create the housing bubble AND how Greenspan and Gramm led the fight NOT to regulate derivatives.Yes, and I didn't buy it. I pointed out repeatedly that many factors are responsible, that the near-poor couldn't have placed that much mortgage money in action, and that there's plenty of guilt and stupidity to go around, not the least of which is the ignorant and greedy American consumer and the financing industry. That is just PLAIN obvious. But I guess those people those people don't bug you as much as government
hockeybobby
06-02-2009, 04:51 PM
Eric: what's so bad about workers getting a weeks vacation?
Melonie
06-02-2009, 05:19 PM
^^^ nothing wrong with a week's vacation, or three weeks or six weeks, as long as the 'value' being added by that worker versus the worker's 'all in' labor cost still results in number that is sufficiently positive to 'pay for' the paid time away from work. Things go wrong when gov'ts and unions wind up diverting taxpayer funds to indirectly 'pay for' the paid time away from work when the worker's level of added 'value' versus the worker's 'all in' labor cost is negative. In the latter case, vacation paychecks are in the final analysis an indirect form of gov't 'handout', but a gov't handout nonetheless.
threlayer
06-02-2009, 08:14 PM
YOU are the one who claimed state and local governments were "direct' democracies. I simply pointed out how and why you were mistaken.I claim that direct democracy is impossible. A poster here pointed out that there is only one kind of democracy, and I pointed out he is WRONG. The best he could describe the US was as a republic, which merely means we don't have a monarchy. That is just completely WRONG again. I refuse to take on the role of a Junior High Civics teacher beyond this correction.
You talk about "selfishness and exploitation". Please tell me what system has successfully eliminated them while still maintaining prosperity ?The US is just a BIT extreme and destructive in promoting this attitude. Though the world is never going to be ideal, it can have ideals.
Eric Stoner
06-03-2009, 07:29 AM
Does everything that goes wrong with this country the fault of the government?
Yes, and I didn't buy it. I pointed out repeatedly that many factors are responsible, that the near-poor couldn't have placed that much mortgage money in action, and that there's plenty of guilt and stupidity to go around, not the least of which is the ignorant and greedy American consumer and the financing industry. That is just PLAIN obvious. But I guess those people those people don't bug you as much as government
Bubbles are a natural part of any free economy. The ancient Romans and Egyptians had them with grain ; olive oil and wine. The Dutch had one with tulips in the 1600's. We had them with wheat; oil and real estate BEFORE the Dow bubble of 1929.
Contrary to the nonsense coming from Geithner, no government has ever successfully regulated or prevented bubbles from occurring. When they burst, as they always do, government ought to do nothing more than keep people from starving. Period ! It ought to resist the temptation to pick winners and losers and stimulate an economy. None of the stimulus used to date has worked. Neither did any of FDR's , Nixon's or Clinton's. What did work were JFK's tax cuts; and Reagan's; and Clinton's Capital Gains and business cuts and G.W.'s. The unifying thread for all of them is MORE money left in private hands to be spent in a relatively free market.
After some initial open mindedness toward government regulation of banks ( a la Glass-Steagall ); deep draughts from the spring of knowledge i.e. economic history, have sobered me again and I say that government ought to do little more than promote and enforce transparency. * Thus if an investment bank like Lehman Brothers is stupid enough to overleverage itself; if the shareholders are properly informed of same and go along; if AIG is dumb enough to issue trillions in credit default swaps without adequate fees and reserves and it's shareholders are properly advised of same and go along; and the whole thing goes "poof"; I say "Fuck em all !!!! " . Too bad. Too sad. Let the Bankruptcy Courts clean up the mess.
Wise investors will do what they did before this current bubble burst: Get out before the pigs get slaughtered; avoid high risk , high yield investments, patronize conservative banks and investments etc. The FDIC ought to charge premiiums based partly on the risk paradigm of a particular bank just as auto insurers do.
* Apologies to Alexander Pope who wrote the famous maxim : " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or taste not the Pierian Spring. Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain. Drinking largely, sobers us again."
Eric Stoner
06-03-2009, 07:35 AM
I claim that direct democracy is impossible. A poster here pointed out that there is only one kind of democracy, and I pointed out he is WRONG. The best he could describe the US was as a republic, which merely means we don't have a monarchy. That is just completely WRONG again. I refuse to take on the role of a Junior High Civics teacher beyond this correction.
The US is just a BIT extreme and destructive in promoting this attitude. Though the world is never going to be ideal, it can have ideals.
The only ideal with a successful track record in this world is economic self interest rationally pursued within reasonable ethical bounds.
Eric Stoner
06-03-2009, 07:36 AM
Eric: what's so bad about workers getting a weeks vacation?
Nothing. For FULL TIME workers.
threlayer
06-04-2009, 09:59 AM
The only ideal with a successful track record in this world is economic self interest rationally pursued within reasonable ethical bounds.
The issue is "reasonable ethical bounds" on the part of eveyone. That is what is missing.
Eric Stoner
06-04-2009, 11:17 AM
The issue is "reasonable ethical bounds" on the part of eveyone. That is what is missing.
Are you talking about folks like Bernie Madoff ? The SEC was told about him TWICE and each time gave him a clean bill of health.
I am referring to legal obedience which means don't steal someone else's money or property; don't lie to a borrower about the terms of the loan you know they can't afford; don't rate junk as "AAA".
threlayer
06-04-2009, 07:40 PM
The list is much longer than Bernie Made-off. It include politicians and businesses alike.
BTW there are many more ideals to pursue in this world than self-enrichment. To me it's obvious that this concept is beyond what small world you are considering.
Eric Stoner
06-05-2009, 07:01 AM
The list is much longer than Bernie Made-off. It include politicians and businesses alike.
BTW there are many more ideals to pursue in this world than self-enrichment. To me it's obvious that this concept is beyond what small world you are considering.
Although it may be "small" , my world is a REAL one.