The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

carbon dating

[larrymcg421]

Um, I beleive in creationism. Just throwing that out there for those that like to paint with a broad brush.

[miked]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And? You are so willing to believe a man made tool. How do you know those fossils arent 6000 years old? Why do they have to be 6 million years old?

You are reading a book that says 6 million years old, other people are reading a book that says 6000 years old. But they are crazy or lunatics?

Sometimes it's better to have people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Combined with your bogus Obama's christian vs. muslim post (with paraphrased, out of context quotes), we are heading down the pooper.

Anyway, I believe in God and evolution, but one is faith and the other is science. My problem is the people advocating that creationism be taught in science class, or that people brand the front of their text books with disclaimers and such. When I was growing up, my book called it the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity. It was fairly clear that these scientific theories, and unlike creationism, testable. Not saying the Miller-Urey experiment was the be all and end all, but testable.

[DaddyTorgo]

I like how the Obama-Muslim post was so cuckoo that nobody even bothered to refute it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I like how the Obama-Muslim post was so cuckoo that nobody even bothered to refute it.

Yeah, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

Sorry, you clearly don't get religion.

Sorry, you clearly don't know how to take a light hearted jab in stride.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont believe the Earth is 6000 years old. But I do believe God created it.

So how did humans come about?

One day a monkey jumped down from his tree, picked up a rock and told his fellow monkeys who were still up in the tree: "I've had it up to here with fruit, nuts and leaves. Daddy's gonna get himself some steak."

Sadly, said steak was raw because he hadn't discovered fire yet, but you get the picture.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I beleive in creationism. Just throwing that out there for those that like to paint with a broad brush.

Out of curiosity, does believing in creationism also require that you believe the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old (I ask this seriously, I don't know the nuances here)?

I mean, I can understand people believing in creationism. It's the "Young Earth" thing with which I have a problem. But I've always had a leaning towards Deism anyway.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some good points made in this interview as suggestions to Democrats. It's something I've said several times in this thread. Stop courting the Republicans. The Democrats keep asking for 'bipartisan support' and the Republicans end up throwing pies at them every time in one form or another. If the support for this bill is good, pass the thing along partisan lines and let's get on with seeing whether health care reform under the Democrats works or doesn't work. Take a stand for once and vote on the thing rather than looking for cover in the form of any bipartisan support.

Huff TV: Arianna to White House: "Welcome to Reality" (VIDEO)

[molson]

One does have to wonder that if the Dems are so confident in this plan, why do they need the Republicans at all? If they had that support, it would certainly mitigate the political damage if this was a disaster, but wouldn't the political gains be even greater if they could be the party that saved healthcare? What are they afraid of?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

One does have to wonder that if the Dems are so confident in this plan, why do they need the Republicans at all? That would certainly mitigate the political damage if this was a disaster, but wouldn't the political gains be even greater if they could be the party that saved healthcare? What are they afraid of?

i think they're afraid (rightfully so) that if they do pass this on a straight party-line basis that there will be outcries before we even know how it is working that they essentially abused their power and abandoned democracy and rammed this thing through and so on and so forth.

I'm not saying I agree that they should just ram it through or not (i'm fairly undecided) but I think if they do just ram it through, regardless of if it will work or not you'll see an even larger gnashing of teeth by conservative media talking about how the Democrats have abandoned bipartisanship, etc. When really, bipartisanship takes two to make it work, and by all accounts it doesn't seem that the Republicans are that interested in making anything work - they've become the party of "NO" rather than the party of "No, but"/

[DaddyTorgo]

Economic Scene - How the U.S. Surplus Became a Deficit - NYTimes.com

from the article:

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded

[Mustang]

Man, this thread is all over the place.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by molson

One does have to wonder that if the Dems are so confident in this plan, why do they need the Republicans at all? If they had that support, it would certainly mitigate the political damage if this was a disaster, but wouldn't the political gains be even greater if they could be the party that saved healthcare? What are they afraid of?

I think they are afraid of "owning it" by themselves, in case it doesn't work out well. It is silly and you raise a good point: if you aren't confident enough to push it through when you have a strong majority, why is it even on the table and why are we wasting time on it?

I guess it is no secret, but this is probably the most evidence that I have ever seen (along with the ongoing who was for/against the war post-2004) that almost all politicians are far more worried about self preservation than they are about doing their jobs once they are elected. Both sides of the aisle are afraid to do anything right now, less than a year after the last round of elections, because they don't want to be responsible for something that doesn't work.

[sterlingice]

More importantly, something that may not look like it's working in the short term- long term be damned

SI

[larrymcg421]

That's a good point. Something could look bad short term, thus resulting in a reverse of power and nixing the plan before it really gets a chance to work.

[KWhit]

Yeah, I mean something as complicated as health care reform will likely need time to succeed with adjustments needed along the way.

[flere-imsaho]

Swaggs' point is right on the money.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think they are afraid of "owning it" by themselves, in case it doesn't work out well. It is silly and you raise a good point: if you aren't confident enough to push it through when you have a strong majority, why is it even on the table and why are we wasting time on it?

I guess it is no secret, but this is probably the most evidence that I have ever seen (along with the ongoing who was for/against the war post-2004) that almost all politicians are far more worried about self preservation than they are about doing their jobs once they are elected. Both sides of the aisle are afraid to do anything right now, less than a year after the last round of elections, because they don't want to be responsible for something that doesn't work.

Maybe it's time to start talking term limits again.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Maybe it's time to start talking term limits again.

Or not. We'll just end up with the same crooked people, under a different name.

If the public isn't smart enough to vote the idiots out, then it's their own damn fault.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yeah, I mean something as complicated as health care reform will likely need time to succeed with adjustments needed along the way.

Yeah, i mean look, the TARP money is starting to come back + interest.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Economic Scene - How the U.S. Surplus Became a Deficit - NYTimes.com

Yeah, I posted that in June when the article first came out (maybe in the "Recession" thread, though). However, I noted that someone has done a pie chart from the article:

[Arles]

So, basically, a president who was in office for 8 years has contributed more the deficit than one who hasn't been in 8 months? Shocking...

Bush was a disaster on spending, but if this health care proposal goes through, that pie chart will look much different in 2011.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

One does have to wonder that if the Dems are so confident in this plan, why do they need the Republicans at all? If they had that support, it would certainly mitigate the political damage if this was a disaster, but wouldn't the political gains be even greater if they could be the party that saved healthcare? What are they afraid of?

Look at where healthcare industry dollars have gone since 2006. It's not that hard to connect the dots from money to obstruction. Max Baucus is a particularly egregious case.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If the public isn't smart enough to vote the idiots out, then it's their own damn fault.

How do you determine the vast majority of idiots though?

With the amount of legislators that are "allowed" to vote against some bills when the numbers are believed to be there (and visa-versa), the water gets pretty well muddied. Add in the fact that many (most?) tend to vote based on what their legislator has done for their locality...and this is why I am (nearly) universally against increases in federal government size & authority.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think this has been a very good debate (Monkey business aside). To build on an earlier point, many doctors have decided against accepting currently public-based insurance programs. The reasons are long delays in payment, reduced coverage options and too much paperwork/oversight:

This is also how consolidation happens since small businesses get run out due to the amount of legal hurdles required to be in compliance with. Sure...they handle quite a bit, but there is a threshold (obviously variable by industry) where buyouts and consolidations make sense (for the individual companies...not consumers/workers necessarily).

All that to say...this how companies start down the road of too big to fail.

[Arles]

I'm not sure doctor consolidation is in the best interest of patients. When you go from 9-10 independent practices to one big practice, it seems like the doctors feel less like their practice is a "labor of love" and more like a cog in a bigger wheel. I think you will find the quality of care will suffer as more doctors feel like hospital/ER residents instead of private practice owners.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think you will find the quality of care will suffer as more doctors feel like hospital/ER residents instead of private practice owners.

Eww, as I recall a number of experiences with staff doctors as opposed to private practice doctors.

Maybe that's actually the secret to paying for the plan. If the level of care & concern of the staff physicians I've run across in the past few years is indicative, we'll see steady population reductions pretty quickly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, basically, a president who was in office for 8 years has contributed more the deficit than one who hasn't been in 8 months? Shocking...

Bush was a disaster on spending, but if this health care proposal goes through, that pie chart will look much different in 2011.

Read the whole NYT Article. Many of your questions are answered. You may not agree, but the article addresses a lot of those points.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure doctor consolidation is in the best interest of patients. When you go from 9-10 independent practices to one big practice, it seems like the doctors feel less like their practice is a "labor of love" and more like a cog in a bigger wheel. I think you will find the quality of care will suffer as more doctors feel like hospital/ER residents instead of private practice owners.

Yeah, but it's already been heading that way over the past decade long before the current health care debate heated up.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eww, as I recall a number of experiences with staff doctors as opposed to private practice doctors.

Maybe that's actually the secret to paying for the plan. If the level of care & concern of the staff physicians I've run across in the past few years is indicative, we'll see steady population reductions pretty quickly.

Ingenious!

SI

[JPhillips]

Really good article by David Frum.

http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/colum...ourts_violence

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Really good article by David Frum.

The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

That small but non-zero chance we were talking about around and after the election is getting larger. I wonder if that's the primary reason for Biden being chosen as the VP- veteran statesman who is ready for the Presidency.

SI

[molson]

The rhetoric hasn't changed over the last 8+ years, all that's changed is the target.

Edit: A quick google search tells me that the Bush/Nazi stuff was even more elaborate than I remembered.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure I remember a former Dem VP candidate claiming Bush wanted old people and the mentally handicapped to die.

[Flasch186]

There is no doubt that Palin is being rather unethical in her statements at this time as a role model for some. That being said, As Ive pointed out before to MBBF during th campaign and now, if you dont "Believe" the verbiage coming out of one of the mouthpieces OR you dont trust one of the candidates/mouthpieces, than there is no debate anymore. All you have is spin, rhetoric, and faux-shock and a willingness to do anything to 'win' (whatever that means).

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure I remember a former Dem VP candidate claiming Bush wanted old people and the mentally handicapped to die.

There was plenty of similar fear-mongering about invasions and police states and such.

It's only when that stuff comes from the "other" party is it considered "dangerous"

Why do people here only want to talk about Palin and the extremes? Why not pick a fairer fight? Somebody made that point before and its a good one. If it's Palin, death counsels or whatever, there's this enthusiasm here, it's like, "HEY, I can WIN this argument!". There isn't the same enthusiasm about the regular debate, the regular concerns.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

There was plenty of similar fear-mongering about invasions and police states and such.

And it turns out all they were doing was spying on our email, tapping our phones, firing judges for political reasons, torturing people, and invading countries on faulty intelligence.

SI

[cartman]

Yeah, I mean protesting that someone should face war crimes charges is exactly the same as saying they should be violently removed from office.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, I mean protesting that someone should face war crimes charges is exactly the same as saying they should be violently removed from office.

We had the latter with Bush as well.

[cartman]

Yep, I remember all of those Bush town hall meetings where folks brought guns. And all of those mainstream voices in the Democratic party advocating violent solutions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yep, I remember all of those Bush town hall meetings where folks brought guns.

What's your point, ultimately? Democrats are perfect? That this health care plan must be the right thing to do because Palin's an idiot?

I don't agree with Palin, or the town hall behavior. But why are people here so obsessed with it? It's incredibly obnoxious. You've got your team colors and you want to fight the other team. You're always right and they're always wrong. You're smart and they're ignorant.

It's depressing because there's no real thoughts, no real ideas, no non-sheep viewpoints. It's awful if Obama is called a socialist but you could care less if Bush is called a nazi. People's opinions are all set in stone before we know anything, they just loyally line up with their team.

The number of people that can fault with their own party, or respect a differing opinion is getting smaller every day. If you're an Obama guy you just CAN'T ever criticize him. It's like that part of the brain is missing.

And MBBF gets get beat up on for posting links when that's all we see from other side as well. It's really bizzare - you go out on the internet, find the opponents with the easiest viewpoints to argue against, and make that the entire focus of any healthcare debate. Why is everyone so afraid of the merits of this thing? Why do they need Palin to make this look like a good idea?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

What's your point, ultimately? Democrats are perfect? That this health care plan must be the right thing to do because Palin's an idiot?

No, the point is that the rhetoric is not exactly the same, as you were trying to make it out to be.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

What's your point, ultimately? Democrats are perfect?

No one has claimed this.

That this health care plan must be the right thing to do because Palin's an idiot?

The point is that Palin's comments are irresponsible. That should be evident to anyone no matter what they think of the health care proposal.

In the article that started this little tangent, Frum was critical of the plan and other policies. It's possible to dislike the plan and also dislike the type of rhetoric being used, and I'm sure you could figure that out if you could get beyond your default "omg liberuls wur meen 2 boosh!" post.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

What's your point, ultimately? Democrats are perfect? That this health care plan must be the right thing to do because Palin's an idiot?

I don't agree with Palin, or the town hall behavior. But why are people here so obsessed with it? It's incredibly obnoxious. You've got your team colors and you want to fight the other team. You're always right and they're always wrong. You're smart and they're ignorant.

It's depressing because there's no real thoughts, no real ideas, no non-sheep viewpoints. It's awful if Obama is called a socialist but you could care less if Bush is called a nazi. People's opinions are all set in stone before we know anything, they just loyally line up with their team.

The number of people that can fault with their own party, or respect a differing opinion is getting smaller every day. If you're an Obama guy you just CAN'T ever criticize him. It's like that part of the brain is missing.

And MBBF gets get beat up on for posting links when that's all we see from other side as well. It's really bizzare - you go out on the internet, find the opponents with the easiest viewpoints to argue against, and make that the entire focus of any healthcare debate. Why is everyone so afraid of the merits of this thing? Why do they need Palin to make this look like a good idea?

well to be fair the Bush family has/had legitimate historical business ties with powerful Nazi party members.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's possible to dislike the plan and also dislike the type of rhetoric being used, and I'm sure you could figure that out if you could get beyond your default "omg liberuls wur meen 2 boosh!" post.

Please, I'm still trying to figure out what you contribute here that's so brilliant as to repeatedly criticize my posts. I could just fall in line with the masses but don't we have like 15 identical posters in this thread who pretty much share a brain?

A few pages ago, Jon made a joke about dumb voters, and Rainmaker went on a tantrum about how Republicans have dumb people too. Where was the larrymcg421 thread police then? Why didn't you have a problem with that?

That's the essence of the thing that annoys me about the team politics. You disagree with me, so you invalidate my opinions. You agree with Rainmaker, so his identical tactic is pefectly OK.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

well to be fair the Bush family has/had legitimate historical business ties with powerful Nazi party members.

Point being? It's OK to call him a Nazi or sell a t-shirt with his face and a swastika? Haven't you criticized people for refering to Obama as a Muslim? That connection is much closer.

(The list of Americans who did business with Germany in the 1930s is quite long, by the way. Actually, it would include anyone of note). To use this "connection" to justify calling Bush a Nazi is just, I mean, can you hear yourself?

[cartman]

You are stopping the analysis at the name calling. I don't think anyone would deny that each president was called these things. But how folks react to the name calling is much different. There is currently a much more violent overtone than existed with Bush.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Point being? It's OK to call him a Nazi or sell a t-shirt with his face and a swastika? Haven't you criticized people for refering to Obama as a Muslim? That connection is much closer.

(The list of Americans who did business with Germany in the 1930s is quite long, by the way. Actually, it would include anyone of note).

Nah...point not being it's okay to call him a Nazi or sell t-shirts like that. Just that there's more of a basis in fact for referring to Bush in that way then Obama (although not correct). Just like there's more of a basis in fact for referring to Obama as a Muslim (although also not correct) than Bush.

And yes the list of Americans who did business in Germany in the 30's is quite long. But the list of those who continued to do business until their assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act is a lot shorter. And of those families how many used the profits gained to establish a political dynasty?

there was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs.
...
UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.


The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.
Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors." But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Please, I'm still trying to figure out what you contribute here that's so brilliant as to repeatedly criticize my posts.

A few pages ago, Jon made a joke about dumb voters, and Rainmaker went on a tantrum about how Republicans have dumb people too. Where was the larrymcg421 thread police then? Why didn't you have a problem with that?

That's the essence of the thing that annoys me about the team politics. You disagree with me, so you invalidate my opinions. You agree with Rainmaker, so his identical tactic is pefectly OK.

The irony of this is I never see you go after Jon or MBBF or dutch or anyone else that uses the tactics on the right. So by your own reasoning, you're playing the same team politics that you purport to have a problem with, except you do it while pretending to be above it. That's what I really have a problem with, and I took a shot at Bucc for doing the same exact thing a while back.

And if you only go back to a previous page, I noted my displeasure with Christians being painted with a broad brush, as I am one myself.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nah...point not being it's okay to call him a Nazi or sell t-shirts like that. Just that there's more of a basis in fact for referring to Bush in that way then Obama (although not correct). Just like there's more of a basis in fact for referring to Obama as a Muslim (although also not correct) than Bush.

And yes the list of Americans who did business in Germany in the 30's is quite long. But the list of those who continued to do business until their assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act is a lot shorter. And of those families how many used the profits gained to establish a political dynasty?

And you make fun of the birthers? What about Joe Kennedy for goodness sakes?