Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Screwed in NJ

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,043

    Default

    Ok, let's deconstruct Demarn's post point by point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Barry .... President Obama - who deserves the respect of the position title (after-all we don't salute the man, we salute the position), has been doing a fine job.
    Yea, you're right. I should give Barry the respect he deserves. After all, liberals were OH so respectful to Bush for 8 years, weren't they? And if he's doing such a fine job, then why have his numbers been plummeting? Other than his liberal base, some independents and more than 90% of the black community, he's losing support like water through a funnel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    He's doing exactly what he promised.
    And breaking many of them, too.

    He promised not to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. Convince me only the upper class buy tobacco products and I'll agree with you.

    He promised not to hire lobbyists in his administration and has broken that one.

    He promised not to sign a bill that had earmarks and ended up signing one with 6000 (from both parties).

    He is trying to keep his promise on health care reform but the bills coming from the house and senate will result in "fines" and "penalties" that are simply taxes. The latest bucket of trash from the House has so much crap that is in complete contradiction of what he has promised. We'll see if those things stay in the bill and if he signs it (assuming it gets that far).

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    AND COME BACK TO REALITY - President Obama is not a socialist, a fascist, or totalitarian.
    Barry once said during the campaign that he wanted to be judged by the people with whom he surrounds himself. Take a look at all of the czars he appointed this year and their ideological backgrounds. Van Jones may have resigned but plenty of other great socialist thinkers surround him.

    Also, people who believe in capitalism don't absorb private industries into the government. They don't dictate arbitrary wages to employees of private businesses. And they don't change 1/6th of our economy and make the government run huge chunks of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Further, to be a liberal does not mean to be a socialist. And even if it was, there is nothing in the constitution which makes socialism unconstitutional. President Obama may be more like Canadian or British political leaders than Bush or Reagan, in fact, he would be considered conservative in those countries, but to compare him to Chavez is as ridiculous as the fools who compared Bush to Hitler.
    I agree that being liberal does not make one a socialist. It is the policies that one advocates that can be socialist and Barry's certainly are. You might also want to hold back any opinion on socialism and the Constitution. While you may be technically correct, some legal scholars have argued quite effectively that the auto and bank bailouts, actions by the "pay czar", and some of the provisions in the health care bill raise PLENTY of Constitutional questions. When the government absorbs the amount of power it has this year alone, it begins to resemble a socialist state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    If "socialist" policies is so evil, then why don't you complain that our allies, Canada and England, are threats to the American way of life?
    Socialism in other countries doesn't threaten America. Communism does. If you want us to use Canada and England as models maybe you should ask them how THEY are doing with their economies, especially since their governments took over health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Finally, being in favor of lower taxes does not automatically make person a fiscal conservative, and being in favor of government programs does not automatically make a person a socialist.
    Maybe not but the program needs to be examined first before making a judgment. [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    After-all the top tax income rate in Venezuela under Chavez is 34%, lower than Reagan, and only two higher than Bush, and the percent of government spending compared to DGP is 32% in Venezuela, less than the US government spending compared to GDP during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

    As a result, under your definition of socialism, even Reagan and Bush were socialist presidents.
    As far as Reagan was concerned, he lowered the top marginal rate from 70% down to 39%. Second, Bush not only dropped income taxes, he dropped corporate taxes as well. As a result, the federal treasury collected more revenue than any time in history. Interesting, huh? Reduce taxes yet you collect more money. The only problem is that Bush failed to veto most spending bills and took heat for it. Chavez might be doing the same thing but he also controls the oil industry and all but 1 media outlet. Socialism is all about fattening up the government and not the pockets of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Also, government run programs don't equate to socialism either. Not unless you want to consider everyone in the US military a socialist, and everyone that favors public education a socialist too.
    Actually, the government doesn't run the military. They only fund it. The military runs itself and only operates under the mandates of the government. State and local governments run the education system. The federal government does, however, run Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and look at how well THEY turned out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Socialism is when the government controls the means and production of all industry and other economic sectors.
    It doesn't have to be ALL. It can be major segments like 2 out of 3 auto makers and several commercial banks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Having a public option is not socialism.
    It is when the government intends to collect taxes and run it instead of allowing the free market to do it under a new set of rules to improve competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    The military is a public organization with no private competition, but no one considers the military to be socialist.
    Umm.... maybe you should read the Constitution? The government is bound by law to provide for the common defense and security of our nation. Militias were outlawed once the Constitution was ratified and no other entity was ALLOWED to compete with the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Public colleges like Rutgers, are a public option, yet private colleges thrive in competition with them.
    Once again, the federal government is NOT running public education facilities so that point is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    The US postal service is a public option, yet private mailing companies (Fed EX, UPS) thrive in competition with them.
    And this is another example of a government function which is not PERMITTED to have competition. Fed Ex and UPS are not permitted to provide the exact same services as the USPS. Barry was excoriated for that when he used them as an example as to how the government can run health care. It was not one of his shining moments and likely would have been HUGE news if Bush had used that example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Socialists prevent any competition and deny citizens the right to create their own businesses. President Obama favors no such thing.
    He might not favor it but he's not opposing the monstrosity coming from Congress in the form of health care. It has much more in common with socialism than free market solutions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    So come back to reality. IT'S OK to say you don't favor Obama's policies without trying to exaggerate and demonize him or the people that support his policies.
    And again, I suggest you MIGHT have a legitimate argument if not for the fact that Bush was bashed for 8 years and liberals continue through today to blame him for everything. Don't forget. It was Hillary who screeched that we have a right to debate and disagree with ANY administration. Unfortunately, anyone who disagrees with Barry and Dems gets called a racists, a mobster and un-American. I don't see ANY double standard there, do you?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn View Post
    Barry .... President Obama - who deserves the respect of the position title (after-all we don't salute the man, we salute the position), has been doing a fine job.

    He's doing exactly what he promised.

    AND COME BACK TO REALITY - President Obama is not a socialist, a fascist, or totalitarian.

    Further, to be a liberal does not mean to be a socialist. And even if it was, there is nothing in the constitution which makes socialism unconstitutional. President Obama may be more like Canadian or British political leaders than Bush or Reagan, in fact, he would be considered conservative in those countries, but to compare him to Chavez is as ridiculous as the fools who compared Bush to Hitler.
    Uhmm... isn't this a post about the NJ Governor, and not the President of the United States?

    I'm pretty sure that this is what this post was about when it started and I responded to it, but you never know.

    As for Chauncey doing what he promised... hmmm... When even Saturday Night Live is criticizing a liberal president as a "do nothing," it's hard to top that.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasboots View Post
    Allow me to educate on the difference...
    Thanks chashoots that cleared things up for me. To paraphrase what you said, because you and the other two neo-con triplets were privy to the divine revelations and clairvoyance of the neo-con masters/prophets (aka entertainers) who foretold what a future President Obama would do, it was (and still is) okay to belittle, demean, demonize, and otherwise viciously criticize the then President-elect. However, it's not okay to criticize our newly elected governor Christie based on what he actually did in the past. This demonstrates two critical criteria for all good neo-con toadies: hypocrisy and the ability to disassociate oneself totally from reality.

    Now on to some issues you raised in your counter arguments to Demarn's post. First, the "liberals" showed a lot more respect for Bush than the neo-cons for Obama. Yes, they criticized his policies and questioned his intelligence at times, but they weren't on the sidelines screaming epithets and calling him names like a drunken group of adolescents. Cheney was only one given a pejorative name -- Darth Vader. Of course, there were fringe left-wing nuts engaged in that type of behavior; however, with the neo-cons it is the mainstream media. And, it was the neo-con media that provided all the national publicity for these fringe elements and made them appear to be the mainstream left as a means to fire up their automatons. We?ve covered, on numerous occasions, why the mainstream media that provides neo-cons with their opinions and marching orders is popular. At least they?ve come out and admitted that they drove the supposed ?grass roots tea parties.?

    Yes, Obama?s inaction on some of his promises, like excising pork from spending bills is troubling. However, his presidency was very young and he was getting significant pressure from both sides (as you note), so he caved rather than start a war with Congress. I hope he has the courage in the future to act on his promise.

    The government hasn?t taken over industries or running companies. They have made loans to, or purchased parts of companies in exchange for infusing capital into, those companies and, in some cases, requested a seat on the board which is common practice for private businesses (e.g., Berkshire-Hathaway) in that situation. As for exercising control over executive salaries, a majority stockholder (or a group of stockholders comprising a majority) has that right. You would see more of that control over executive salaries in the competitive marketplace, if individuals who owned stock in a company through mutual funds (which is the way most Americans own stock) were allow to vote as individual stockholders.

    As for Wall Street salaries, government deregulation and greed provided the environment for Wall Street firms to offer perverse incentives for short-term gains no matter what damage it did to the US and global economies. In 2008 Goldman Sachs purchased, using other people?s money, and took delivery of huge quantities of oil which it then took off the market (i.e., stored) to reduce the supply and drive up the price. You remember $4+ for a gallon of gasoline. I won?t go into the long sordid history of derivatives. Since the Wall Street firms form both an oligopoly and oligopsony there are no checks and balances like one would find in a free competitive marketplace. Therefore, they are free to pay their executives whatever they choose with impunity. Throughout history, governments have acted through regulation or other means to force or otherwise simulate a competitive marketplace. Given all the Wall Street insiders in the Obama administration, I am not optimistic that they will find a way to reign in Wall Street?s abuses.

    As for Canada and the UK, you imply that government run healthcare is new and has contributed to their lagging economies. The economy everywhere is in trouble. The healthcare systems in Canada and the UK have been in place for decades and have nothing to do with their current economic situations. Healthcare in this country is broken. Comparatively we spend more on it than any other nation with results significantly below that of many other nations. While I believe we need some type of universal healthcare, I have very serious concerns about the current bill, such as the government option, penalties, etc. As a so-called ?left-wing nut? I don?t feel compelled to agree with or proselytize for the ?liberal? agenda which doesn?t really exist as opposed to the neo-con agenda as espoused by the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys, O?Reillys, etc..

    You then suggest that the Bush tax cuts ended up in increased tax revenues. Those tax cuts came at a time when the economy was in a major growth spurt. Capital gains and increased corporate profits are what drove the increase in tax revenues. Whether the tax cuts helped spur some of that growth is subject to debate.

    I just love the distinction you try to create between the government ?running? something and how the military the ?runs itself? through ?funding? and ?mandates.? Congress and Executive Branch play more of a day-to-day role in how the military operates than with any other government entity. By the way, the federal government runs some excellent institutions of higher education, like West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy.

    Despite what the neo-con media is promoting, the governors races in NJ and VA had very little to do with Obama (just look at what they said about the Republican losses in interim governors races after Bush was elected) which exit polls confirmed. Corzine was a very unpopular governor, that?s why he lost. On the other hand, you failed to mention the election to Congress (we are talking about national, not state, politics with Obama) of a Democrat in Upstate New York against a conservative candidate in a Republican stronghold heavily backed by the neo-cons. The first Democrat elected to Congress in that district since 1857. The Republican candidate was forced out of the race by the neo-cons because she was considered too moderate. At the command of Glen Beck and others, neo-cons came from all over the country to campaign for Doug Hoffman, including Republican sweetheart Sarah Palin. Yet he lost. The result of this race for national office is much more telling than two state races.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Yes, Obama?s inaction on some of his promises, like excising pork from spending bills is troubling. However, his presidency was very young and he was getting significant pressure from both sides (as you note), so he caved rather than start a war with Congress. I hope he has the courage in the future to act on his promise
    I don't think it's a question of courage, I think it's a question of brains. This man is, objectively, dumber than our last president, which takes some doing.

    Did you hear about his speech just after the Ft. Hood shootings? He gave a "shout out" to an Indian Chief that he referred to as a "Medal of Honor winner," when the Chief is a Medal of *Freedom* recipient. That's like mistaking a Boy Scout for an Army Ranger. It's "Emily Litella" dumb.

    When Bush mis-pronounced "nuclear," at least he had the right concept. Obama's pronounciation of "Medal of Honor" was perfect - but the difference in award is beyond embarassing, considering it was made by the ostensible head of our Military.

    Speaking of which: he didn't even bother to mention Ft. Hood until the end of the speech, and it came across as an afterthought.

    The Press and his Posse can claim and reclaim and re-reclaim that this man is cerebral, but virtually every time he speaks without a tele-prompter, or is faced with a situation that requires protocol, he's a bumbling fool. A completely empty suit.

    I'm not being harsh, I'm not being mean, and I'm not using hyperbole. He has insulted, through word or deed, virtually every Western Head of State, and he seems to do it without even knowing he's doing it.

    Chauncey Gardener is now President of the United States.

    Later this week I'm sure he'll give a great, practiced, and teleprompted address at Ft. Hood. But when he's "in the moment" his real colors come through - and those colors are dim. Much like his intellect.

  5. #25

    Thumbs down

    Steve000, thanks for proving my point about you being a completely owned neo-con tool. For grins I googled the story and selected the first neo-con website on the list. There was the story, posted on Friday, with many of your little digs like the "cerebral" and "teleprompter" comments.

    However, your disparagement of Medal of Freedom recipients by calling them Boy Scouts is all your own, and another demonstration of your sad and pathetic life. Even the worst of the neo-con rags wouldn't sink that low. And, I doubt any of the living Medal of Honor recipients would characterize the highest honor that this nation bestows on civilians that way.

  6. #26

    Default

    I am very happy the republicans won. Now we have a change to fix all the problems in NJ!

    Republicans are the best!

    GA

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostRyder View Post
    Thanks chashoots that cleared things up for me. To paraphrase what you said, because you and the other two neo-con triplets were privy to the divine revelations and clairvoyance of the neo-con masters/prophets (aka entertainers) who foretold what a future President Obama would do, it was (and still is) okay to belittle, demean, demonize, and otherwise viciously criticize the then President-elect. However, it's not okay to criticize our newly elected governor Christie based on what he actually did in the past. This demonstrates two critical criteria for all good neo-con toadies: hypocrisy and the ability to disassociate oneself totally from reality.

    When you return from Earth 2, please let us know. How convenient of you to forget that Bush was called a LIAR and a LOSER BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS yet Joe Wilson gets excoriated because he dared to do say to Barry's face!

    You also conveniently forgot about the anti-war crowd and leftists like MoveOn and DailyKos not only EQUATING Bush to Hitler but demonstrating with images of Bush made to LOOK like Hitler. Not a peep was made of it from the left-wing controller media yet they made damn sure to show the few signs from the TEA parties had Nazi references to Barry.

    Cindy Sheehan was hailed as a HEROINE by the left DESPITE calling Bush a murderer. True, her son died in combat and we can never know the pain of that experience. But instead of putting her grief in that context, the left encouraged her and even CONTRIBUTED financially to her efforts.

    And speaking of hypocrisy, how about all the people that said Bush hated black people or was just racist for the way in which the Katrina situation was handled? Here again, the media overlooked the responsibilities of the Democrat governor and Democrat mayor who had HUNDREDS OF BUSES at their disposal to move people out of harm's way. For 30+ years they were warned of the possibility that the levees would break yet Louisiana and New Orleans had no adequate evacuation plan for even a CAT-3 hurricane.

    Sure, Bush was racist. Just like all the TEA party-goers that have substantive differences with Barry's policies. Just like the one man who appeared at a town hall over the summer with 2 firearms strapped to himself. Oh, wait. MSNBC got called out on that since it was a BLACK MAN carrying those weapons. But I guess we shouldn't question whether or not Barry is racist. After all, his arm was twisted to include the quote, "White man's greed runs a world in need..." from a Jeremiah Wright sermon in his first book. You know Jeremiah Wright... The Reverend who performed Barry's wedding and the baptism of his 2 girl who can't help but spout anti-American hatred. This "crazy uncle" of Barry's preached to him for 20+ years but he couldn't POSSIBLY have any racist tendencies.

    So, if you want, go ahead and criticize Chris Christie before he gets in office. You still won't be able to get beyond "he's fat", "he can't do anything with a Democrat-controlled legislature", and "he threw his weight around to get out of being ticketed." He simply doesn't have the baggage going into the job that Barry did.

  8. #28

    Default

    I hope with our new NJ leadership that:

    - Removes tenure for teachers. It should be pay for performance like the rest of us.

    - Teachers must work 9am to 5pm. From 3pm to 5pm they tutor kids for free with no additional pay.

    - Pensions should be removed for all new teachers and they should have a 401k or similar.

    They get paid way too much, and have way too much time off compared to the rest of the world.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasboots View Post
    When you return from Earth 2, please let us know. How convenient of you to forget that Bush was called a LIAR and a LOSER BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS yet Joe Wilson gets excoriated because he dared to do say to Barry's face!
    Are you really that clueless that you don't understand the difference? Yes, a few members of Congress said those things about Bush behind his back; however, they didn't yell it at the top of their lungs during a joint session of Congress in the middle of a major speech that was televised around the world. Bush was criticized, sometimes using harsh words, for his action or inaction associated with specific major events, like Iraq, Katrina, etc. But, Bush was never mercilessly pummeled 24/7 on a major television network by everyone from the newscasters, business analysts, to the talk show hosts and on thousands of radio stations for every little supposed infraction. There is a huge difference and if you cannot see that, then you're the one living on another planet.

    (By the way, I actually liked the Earth 2 series.)

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grizzly_adams View Post
    I hope with our new NJ leadership that:
    - Teachers must work 9am to 5pm. From 3pm to 5pm they tutor kids for free with no additional pay.
    Actually, the workday for most teachers begins well before 8am and ends well after 3pm. Plus, there is all the work in the evening preparing lessons, homework problems, and quizzes/tests, and then grading them. A 9am to 5pm schedule would be a welcome reduction in their hours.

    I do agree that the tenure system and salary guides that reward seniority and not performance need to be replaced with a new pay system that is based on merit. I've already stated that I believe the pension system in NJ for state, county, and municipal workers (including teachers) is way too generous, a major contributor to our tax burden, and needs fixing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •