President Barack Hussein Obama Backpedals On Both Public Healthcare Option And His “Bush Operation TIPS II” Program

DON'T MISS ANOTHER ARTICLE: JOIN HUNDREDS OF OTHER GTL™ READERS BY SUBSCRIBING TO OUR SYNDICATED NEWSFEED OR RECEIVE A PERSONAL EMAIL EACH TIME A NEW ARTICLE IS POSTED -- CLICK ON THE APPROPRIATE IMAGE BELOW:

READERS DON'T BE SHY -- HAVE YOUR IMAGE SHOW UP ON EACH OF YOUR COMMENTS FOR FREE BY CREATING YOUR OWN GRAVITAR BY CLICKING HERE. IT JUST TAKES A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND IT WORKS ON EVERY OTHER GRAVITAR-ENABLED SITE ON THE WEB. NO AGENDA -- WE JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR SMILING (OR FROWNING) MUG...

 Click Here For A Printable Version Of This Article -

• bad dog
  2:08 am on August 18th, 2009 1

  This is horribly embarrassing for the Obama Administration.

  Not that they did anything wrong, because they didn’t. They explicitly did not want information about people. They wanted to create a central point to collect the lies and propaganda that swirl around the internet and viral emails, snapped up and consumed eagerly by dittoheads everywhere.

  Unlike Bush’s TIPS program, which really was about neighbors informing on neighbors.

  But that’s the GOP for you. The Party of Shamelessness. They’re happy carrying water for a police state, and then pointing to something innocent the Democrats are doing and yelling, “Police state!” Some hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  No, this is incredibly embarrassing for the Obama Administration for one reason, and one reason only.

  They actually took the email address down in response to hypocritical protests of wingnuts.

  I mean, Mr. President, the wingnuts were only protesting for theater. These are people who think they’re reliving the American Revolution over an increase of taxes on the richest 1% of Americans and to protect insurance industry profits from the consequences of real competition. They didn’t actually expect you to do anything.

  But you’re so nice, Mr. President, you’re such a uniter, you couldn’t imagine giving these people what they deserved–big hot steaming mugs of STFU–no, you had to actually legitimize their craziness, give them a victory, and show your weakness. And guess what? They’re still going to come after you tooth and nail until you learn how to fight fire with fire.

  Eight years to learn a simple lesson, and we still can’t learn it. And I thought we had all the intellectuals in our party.

  This President is an embarrassment. For Democrats, that is.

  Christ, one thing Bush was good at, was fighting tooth and nail to get his insanely wrongheaded and destructive agenda accomplished.

  It’s like Bill Maher said. We need Obama to be a little more like Bush.

• Gaia's Child
  7:23 am on August 18th, 2009 2

  I expected him to be more aggressive and more of a leader.
  When LBJ wanted something out of congress he told them what he wanted and then he twisted arms until he got it and he personally twisted arms, he didn’t send out proxies to see how the wind blew. Because of LBJ we have President Obama. He would never have been elected without the Civil rights and Voting rights bills being passed.

  First President Obama caved in on the living will provisions so the screams began about the public option so he’s caving on that. Now the latest is that hospitals are going to be forced to hire gays.

  Come on President Obama, you’re a Chicago pol. Act like it.

  PS I went to whitehouse.gov a week ago and didn’t see the tips line then. Had mixed feelings on it and wanted to see just what was asked for.

• bad dog
  12:30 pm on August 18th, 2009 3

  I don’t know why he’s “caving” on anything. He gives an inch, they take a yard. He shows weakness, they grow stronger. He caters to the nuts, they only get nuttier. He gives away everything away in a compromise, and they still spit in his face and vote against it. He continues some of Bush’s worst policies, and then they blame him for them.

  After the Clinton years, and especially the last eight, why did any sane person think things would be different?

  Don’t blame me, I voted for Hillary.

• SJ
  1:10 pm on August 18th, 2009 4

  Based on his (limited) voting history, many of my fellow conservatives were very concerned with Obama. The thinking was that he would pursue the same left wing agenda his voting record showed. I disagreed a bit with that. I saw Obama as left (of course), but with a good dose of political pragmatism – look at all the Clintonites they are on his staff. All these guys that make it this far in politics have to be, at some level, concerned about their “legacy”. Whether this is fair (or unfair), you can’t have much of a legacy with only 1 term (JFK a notible exception). I believe Obama will do what he has to do to get re-elected.

  Bush was no different here. He comprised big time on the domestic agenda (Medicare Prescription Drug and NCLB), getting bipartisan votes on some large issues.

  So far, the bipartisan votes on major Obama agenda items have been mostly against him. Look for that to change as he adjusts.

  Perhaps Obama has overestimated his “political capital” like Bush did in term 2?

  Another thought, maybe he is trying to protect congress in 2010?

  I like the shot gun approach. Not only is it good for home defense, one of my theories is bound to be right!

  Steve

• bad dog
  1:44 pm on August 18th, 2009 5

  @SJ: No, that’s a fair assessment you made. But I didn’t vote for Obama to ensure his political survival. I voted for him to clean up the titanic messes left behind by the Bush Administration, and advance a progressive agenda. Christ, I would settle just for a rollback of Bush’s worst policies. Mr. President, can I at least have that? Or is that not pragmatic enough for you?

• Joe Lovell
  2:15 pm on August 18th, 2009 6

  Steve wrote: “Whether this is fair (or unfair), you can’t have much of a legacy with only 1 term (JFK a notible exception). ”

  If you really look at JFK he doesn’t have a legacy so much as a mythos. Or maybe hagiography would describe it better. He hit at just the right time – one of prosperity, fairly low crime, emerging civil rights, and over the trauma of WWII and Korea. He was Americas poppin’ fresh boy president with a radient smile and friendly manner. And his assination shocked America and froze him in place as forever young, forever hopeful. It was almost as if our national identity had been killed.

  What gets buried under all that is the abuse of power by using the FBI and other agencies to spy on or intimidate those who were his political enemies.

• bad dog
  3:50 pm on August 18th, 2009 7

  Joe, with all respect, you often confuse Republicans with Democrats. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nixon years and the FBI COINTELPRO program, which was recently revived by the Bush Administration. Hell, Bush’s DHS even had FBI undercover informers joining the anti-war Quakers, which they considered a terrorist organization, and stirring up violence at anti-war events to get the police to crack down on them.

  I agree Kennedy was largely the Democrats’ Ronald Reagan, in other words largely mythos. On the other hand, Kennedy did launch the space program. That’s a hell of a legacy. What did Ronald Reagan do, besides invade Grenada? (If you say he caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, let me know so I can mail you a check to retake high school and learn the basics of history and economics.)

• bad dog
  4:08 pm on August 18th, 2009 8

  I wonder what would happen if a right winger suddenly developed critical thinking. Would they rush to the doctor for a shot of penicillin from all the intellectual whoring they’ve done?

  These are people who cheered on the sudden appearance of a police state over the last eight years, and endlessly parroted every justification for it. Torture? Good! Surveillance? What have I got to hide? People wearing a T-shirt critical of the war hauled out of Bush’s town hall events? Ha, ha, libs! TIPS line? My neighbor is a Quaker, I better call Deep Throat about it! Habeas Corpus gone? I personally don’t know anybody thrown in jail without a warrant, so what do I care? Illegal search and seizure? Okay by me. All of the above done breaking the law? 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, traitor, traitor, traitor, why do you hate Murika, why do you want the terrorists to win?

  Now a Democratic administration is in power and suddenly right wingers are worried about a police state. Obama criticizes the wingnuts disrupting town halls? Oh my God, a tyrant! Obama wants to tax the rich? It’s time for a Teabagging Party, weeeee! He’s forced to spend his way out of the Bush Recession? Oh my God he’s stealing my kids’ future! The government won’t let me put a big taxpayer-funded neon sign in front of city hall that says JESUS IS BETTER THAN YOUR FALSE GOD AND YOU’LL BURN IN HELL FOR IT? Oh golly, white Christians being oppressed! Obama wants to provide healthcare to people who don’t have it? It’s communism come to Murika! He sets up an email address so the White House Communications Office can rapidly respond to lies and propaganda making right wingers upset for the sake of being upset? The Gestapo resurrected!

  Do these *ssholes ever say to themselves, “Why am I falsely condemning something that I am pretending is something real that I used to defend by questioning others’ patriotism?”

  I wonder if they realize how stupid they look, sound, are. How hypocritical. And how unwelcome in a country that desperately needs to recover from eight years of this kind of stupid. America is falling from its leadership status in many areas. And we’ll know the losers who are to blame.

• Alabama Moderate
  4:32 pm on August 18th, 2009 9

  “I wonder what would happen if a right winger suddenly developed critical thinking.”

  Go read my blog. You’ll find out. Not sure how it happened, but one day in 2004 I just decided to listen to both sides and question everything. I started reading up on stuff, researching history, etc.

• Mike 300 spartans
  4:47 pm on August 18th, 2009 10

  @BD -Excellent point on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Seriously, I’ve always been willing to give Ronald Reagan credit, when infact it was the over expansion of government that made the Soviet Union collapse on itself. No, Obama hasn’t taken us that far yet, but he is heading in that direction.

• bad dog
  4:55 pm on August 18th, 2009 11

  @Mike300: If we keep overspending on our military and trusting our financial system to free market idiots, we could easily suffer some of the same problems.

  @Bama: I’ll check out your blog, thanks.

• Mike 300 spartans
  6:32 pm on August 18th, 2009 12

  Sorry for leaving out my typical crediting of Bush for being the first to run a single year trillion dollar budget deficit. Ofcourse the cure to over spending is doubling that overspending by 2 trillion in 6 months.

  Every system has some idiots in it. But a free market has proven to be self correcting. Governments can and sometimes do good things to help the economy. The only problem is, unlike a free market, any idiots in government are not self correcting.

  I’m not at all against a cut in spending on the military, there may be some big saving in restructuring where we put our troops and how many bases we actually need.

  At the risk of sounding redundant, again from a personal perspective, if I spend too much on 4 or 5 vices and I cut back on one only to increase another, financially I’m not improving at all. My financial health is only going to improve with a steadfast commitment to staying within a limit no matter how much it hurts. Pick anything I’d personally abhor, like spending money on statues of John Maynard Keynes. I’d vote to pass a budget that spent $10 million on statues if it was one that was within annual revenue.

  The bigger question now is what to do with the mess BOTH parties created. The answer is obvious to me, I speak more as a prediction than as a perscription. Law makers aren’t going to raise taxes to pay for everything. Law makers aren’t going to allow defaults on Social Security payments, Government Bond cashing, or anything else. With no chance (in my opinion) of the feds bringing in enough revenue, and no political chance of cutting down benefits, the only answer is printing higher denomination bills, we are going to print our way to inflation surpassing the Jimmy Carter days. Hang on to hard assets guys, look forward to your wages doubling (no thanks to unions these days* yes BD, they had done good for all back in the day, but now they are mostly just deadweight) ..as I was saying, your wages will be doubling but your food will be quadrupling. It will be a bit easier to pay off those old credit card balances with the weaker money but a lot harded to by an evil gallon of gas.

  Ultimately the positives and the negatives will work themselves out. That’s what markets do, free market, black market, government messed with market, it will correct itself. Cue the Bob Marley music here…everything’s gonna be alright, everything’s gonna be alright…so woman don’t cry..No woman no cry.

• Gaia's Child
  6:58 pm on August 18th, 2009 13

  Mike, when was the last time we actually had a free market?

  privatage the profits, socialize the losses.

  get your paid-for congress critter to pass a bill just for you giving you a tax break or better yet a bill hampering your competition.

  wanta expand your business overseas, like McDonalds, just have the taxpayers put out the cash for the advertising in those countries you’re expanding to.

  if you’ll make more money polluting and paying fines well then pollute away. The taxpayers will pay for the clean-ups. Superfunds anyone.

  don’t worry about having bloated, non-inovative management because if you’re too big to fail the taxpayer is always there to catch you.

  When you get caught with your pants down, blame congress. If it wasn’t for all those awful rules and regulations your pants would still be up.

  Free markets?

• bad dog
  7:08 pm on August 18th, 2009 14

  @Mike300, who says, “Every system has some idiots in it. But a free market has proven to be self correcting. Governments can and sometimes do good things to help the economy. The only problem is, unlike a free market, any idiots in government are not self correcting.”

  Ok, your point is well taken. But consider what it means for the free market to be self correcting. Most economists now agree that Obama’s financial policies have mitigated the impact of the economic free fall. The economy is now stabilizing (although there is still a lot of downward pressure that may trigger another free fall). If you compare today’s economy to the Great Depression, we were pretty much on track to duplicate it.

  So if Obama had let the economy self correct–let GM fail, let the banks fail, etc.–and assuming we were actually on track to repeat the Great Depression–millions of people would suffer incredible misery for many years. In fact, the odds of you losing your job, and your wife losing hers, would be 1 in 3. The credit card company would charge you astronomical rates, and the banks would refuse you credit, and the state government, if you live in a red state, would let your unemployment benefits run out without extending them, so as to avoid you from being humiliated by depending on government handouts. Guess where you might end up? At the mercy of charity, or even on welfare.

  The thing is markets don’t serve people, but government is supposed to. So if a market self corrects and that correction hits you in the face like a rain of bricks, it doesn’t care. Government, meanwhile, at least has in its interest (to get reelected) to mitigate the worst excesses of a free market to prevent hard-working, honest people like you from being ruined. Look at Bush. What do you think really made people mad about him? Was it his horrible economic policies that only benefited the rich and big business? Was it lying the nation into war? No. It was his apathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of a major American city. But why should he do anything? Why not let those people starve? Why should government interfere in a “self correcting” market? Because despite all their bluster, even right wingers want government to serve them when it’s their house being destroyed by a hurricane.

  See, Mike, once you add people to the equation, a self-correcting market sounds a lot less desirable than one in which the government uses wise policies to prevent market tampering and mitigate its worst extremes. Seeing as I’m a person and not a market, I’m going to have to say I’m in favor of government intervention that benefits people and against a free market that wouldn’t care if it wiped out my entire family and yours, with no happy ending.

  Check out this short comic, trust me, you’ll get a laugh from it:

  http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/12/09/tomo/

  And more if you like that one:

  http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/09/10/tomo/index.html
  http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/07/29/tomo/

  Tom Tomorrow’s one of the best, right up there with Tom Toles.

• bad dog
  7:13 pm on August 18th, 2009 15

  @Mike300: One last point. Remember when everybody was talking about the banks being “too big to fail”? They meant that if the banks failed, the entire $11 trillion US economy would have imploded and we all would have gone down with the ship.

  Now why should I trust a free market, which can destroy institutions that are “too big to fail,” with anything?

  The only way to have a free market that can’t destroy the economy in one of its cyclical downswings, then, is to make sure no firm is too big to fail. But oh, that’s government intervention.

  It sounds like the only way then to have a free market is to accept that every 10-20 years, the banks might crash and cause a Great Depression, impoverishing tens of millions of people.

  In fact, the very statement, “too big to fail,” all by itself tells you that a free market is a bad thing. For humans, I mean.

• Mike 300 spartans
  8:01 pm on August 18th, 2009 16

  @BD- On a different blog, I asked someone to back up a claim that “most scientists” accept some aspect of global warming. (I forget now which aspect it was) The guy referenced a solid looking survey supporting his point. Thus, I don’t ask this flippantly, but when you say: “Most economists now agree that Obama’s financial policies have mitigated the impact of the economic free fall.” Do you have anything to back it up in terms of numbers of economists?

• bad dog
  9:06 pm on August 18th, 2009 17

  @Mike300: I was quoting Paul Krugman, who blogs at The New York Times website. I read his stuff every day and his columns are excellent. He’s a Nobel winning economist, predicted the housing bubble burst and resulting crash, and oh yeah, he’s unabashedly liberal. You may see him on some of the screaming head shows. He’s a greater writer and has a brilliant mind, but personally I don’t think he’s very good on TV. Anyway, I was quoting him, and he didn’t back it up. He hasn’t lied to me yet, so I took him at his word. But if you want to be skeptical of my claim as I present it without better proof than that, that’s cool.

• bad dog
  9:11 pm on August 18th, 2009 18

  @Mike300: I’m curious what your response is to my simple argument in #15. If banks can get “too big to fail,” meaning if they fail they will destroy the economy, and a free market means occasionally these banks will fail, then do you still think a free market is better than government intervention?

• Mike 300 spartans
  10:06 pm on August 18th, 2009 19

  At work BD.. I’ll answer tonight thanks.

• Susan
  12:46 am on August 19th, 2009 20

  Why don’t you give President Obama A Chance. This fight
  is not about HEALTH CARE REFORM, ITS PEOPLE THINKING THAT IF THEY SOMEHOW MAKE ENOUGH NOISE ON THIS SUBJECT, THEY CAN MAKE PRESIDENT OBAMA INTO A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.
  THEY COULDN’T MAKE ENOUGH OF A MAJORITY TO BEAT THE HARVARD-EDUCATED BLACK GUY OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, SO THEY WILL BEAT HIM ON AN ISSUE WHERE THEY SEE HIM AS BEING MOST VULNERABLE. IN THE PROCESS, THEY’LL COME AFTER
  HIM ON HEALTH CARE, THE WAY KENNETH STARR WENT AFTER BILL CLINTON. IT IS WHY SO MANY ARE SCREAMING ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS TO KILL GRANDMA, AS IF HE’S SUDDENLY TURNED INTO “JACK KEVORKIAN”
  PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS TO PUT THIS COUNTRY INTO THE 21ST CENTURY, ALL THE COUNTRY HAS GONE BACK TO THE WILD WILD WEST WITH GUN TOTING COWBOYS.

• Chuck
  10:29 am on August 19th, 2009 21

  Interesting turn this thread took. A couple of points came up that I’m interested in. I’d like to ask the Lefty’s here a couple of questions, just out of curiousity, and with no snark implied or intended.

  1) On the subject of the downfall of the Soviet Union, what do y’all think caused the collapse of the USSR?

  2) What level of government involvement in the economy do y’all think is appropriate? For example, if you think certain sectors should be nationalized, what are they? I’ve asked a variation of this question before, but here I suppose I’m curious about specifics.

  Thank you in advance for any thoughtful replies.

• Gaia's Child
  11:24 am on August 19th, 2009 22

  Chuck, good questions1

  1. I think that basically the USSR fell because communism is an unsubstantial economic system. While a small commune, of maybe 20 people will last, never will a nation commune succeed.
  The second reason is the overspending on their military. The race with the USA started with Sputnik and then when we went to the moon they put up the space station. If we had 10 nukes then they buildt twelve. Because of their weak economic system they could not afford this type of military spending.
  The third reason was their imperialism. They had to keep a hugh military in order to keep their subjects in order. And again they could not afford this type of spending. Also they had to keep justifying their imperialism. I don’t remember how many countries the USSR invaded after WWII but the government of the USSR had to spend a huge amount of time putting out brushfires, actual revolts, underground liberty groups and lying to the rest of the world why the conquered really, really wanted to be part of the USSR, so much time that they lost sight of the freedom fighters in Mother Russia.

  2. I think that what should be nationalized already has been. Such as interstate highways, our military, the post office, etc. What I was trying to point out that our Free Markets haven’t been Free Markets in a strict libertarian sense since 1862. In a true Free Market Goldman, AIG, GM and Crysler would have all been left on their own to fall or succeed. But there have been so many previous bailouts of private companies (airline and the railroads for two) that a majority of Congress passed TARP and the lump sums to the auto companies. What do you call property tax abatements to certain businesses. I call it taxpayer subsidy of a private business which means to me that that business is really not operating in a free market.
  We have already nationalized right at 30% of the health market; active military, VA, the children’s program, Medicaid and Medicare. All we are arguing about now is how much more of it we want to nationalize.

  Pardon any typos, we have an electrial storm coming up and I’m watching out my window more than I am my keypad.

• Gaia's Child
  11:28 am on August 19th, 2009 23

  And the storm is here so good=bye until it clears up. This is our sixth electrical storm in two days.

• Chuck
  11:35 am on August 19th, 2009 24

  GC

  Thanks. BTW, I can’t find much wrong with your assessment of the “freedom” of our free markets. That actually was something I was hoping to get at with my question. Call it scouting for the common ground, if there even is such an elusive place.

• Mike 300 Spartans
  11:50 am on August 19th, 2009 25

  @BD sorry I didn’t answer last night as I said I would. My home computer went “Federal Government” on me and I couldn’t access the web.

  I reject entirely the “too big to fail” concept. I think we already have evidence that the so called crisis was over rated. So much to say and no time to say it. The whole Tarp thing, they ended up not using the money the way they said they would use it. If someone told you that you had better spend $2000 on transmission work or totally ruin a $35000 car, you authorize the money, then they fix the brakes instead, hey maybe the brakes needed to be fixed but the credability of the person taking your money and doing “the work” is shot. T.A.R.P didn’t end up going to toxic asset relief as billed. Stimulus goes to shovel ready projects that aren’t going to be ready for awhile. Something that I was hesitant to share publicly, stand by, perhaps latter today, but more than likely in a day or two. Here is the deal, the facts that I can and am willing to share in public. I got a job at Indymac Bank less than two years ago while the whole industry was having difficulty. Particularly ones that had a lot of interest only, ajustable rate, and negative amortization loans such as Indymac. We were going through a bumpy ride but it looked like with some extreme measures taken that we would survive. Then Chuck-you Schumer came out and said he thought Indymac was going to become insolvent. Immediatly after his announcement there was a run on bank deposits and we got taken over by the Federal government. The federal government owned us for about 9 months and sold us to a group of private investors. One of the more prominent names of those private investors is George Soros. This is all public info. One point I’d like to emphasis is that I’m pretty low on the bank totem pole and am not privy to much high level information.

• Joe Lovell
  12:06 pm on August 19th, 2009 26

  Good post,Gaia’s Child. One little quibble.
  You wrote: “What I was trying to point out that our Free Markets haven’t been Free Markets in a strict libertarian sense since 1862.”

  In which I think you are referencing the huge federal subsidy of the railroads by giving them land. See: http://www.coxrail.com/land-grants.htm

  Why was the govt. so generous with the open land? Becasue they saw the military necessity of rail. The ease and speed with which troops and supplies could be moved by rail was staggering to a culture used to moving by shanks mare and mule team.

  And our interstate system was designed to move troops and materiel quickly and efficently. That it happens to be great for commerce and travel is a bonus.

  and you also wrote: “But there have been so many previous bailouts of private companies (airline and the railroads for two) that a majority of Congress passed TARP and the lump sums to the auto companies.”

  I will suggest that these – RR, airlines, and to a lesser extent auto companies, (as much as it galls me) are deserving of some federal assistance for the same reason that the feds originally gave the RRs so much land, and built the interstate system – potential military necessity.

  Airlines – an air “fleet in being.” Not strike aircraft, but transport. Also, by giving some support to airlines,it keeps the aircraft companies tooled up so they can afford to build the small numbers of military aircraft they do.

  Rail I have mentioned.

  Auto industry – again some subsidy is needed to keep them tooled up and staffed. Who turns out the vehicles for the military? Auto industry. The govt. by itself can’t buy enough to keep that massive production capability online. But there is always the potential need to have it switch quickly from civilian to military production.

  Look at the USS Iowa. 20 years ago there was that catastrophic failure of the #2 16 inch 50 caliber gun, #2 turret. We do not have the manufacturing capability to replace that gun. I think that is shamful.

• Mike 300 Spartans
  12:18 pm on August 19th, 2009 27

  Let us just pretend for a while that there was a privately owned cafeteria on a college campus. It primarily sells pizzas, but also smoothies, and snacks such as candybars and such. The cafeteria allows college kids to do I.O.U.s on their food. The cafeteria hits a point where I.O.U. losses makes the I.O.U. system they had unstustainable and the college up and takes ownership of the cafeteria. The college then sells it to a new owner, the selection of the owner shrouded in mystery and the terms of the sale also not publicly known. Now pretend there is this one guy who only works the snacks section, he doesn’t know what the pizzas (the main bulk of the business) or the smoothies sold to the new owner. But he knows that his snacks, and the I.O.U.s basically were sold at 10 cents on the dollar. He also knows that the agreement is that the new owner has agreed to the following terms: If someone pays their dollar, the new owner ofcourse, profits 10 times on the investment (nothing wrong with that, risk, reward, profit, all good in the way of the worker’s thinking). The new owner, by agreement is compelled to settle for less than what is owed with some of the college students in some circumstances. Still when compelled to settle, the new owner never has to settle for less than the 10%, thus breaking even. If however, the new owner doesn’t get the dollar and is unable to settle with the student for the minimum, then the college pays the new owner between 70 and 90 cents on all the candy I.O.U.s that don’t get paid. What an awesome deal for the new owner, break even on some, make 10 times the investment on others and make at least 7 times the investment guarenteed on all others. The worker doesn’t know if this small portion was some kind of “loss leader” to sweeten a deal but is very suspicious that the pattern might extend to the pizza and smoothies too. The worker wonders if the selection of the new owner and the phenominally profitable terms of the cafeteria sale may have something to do with the new owner’s support of getting the college president elected to that position in the college.

• bad dog
  12:53 pm on August 19th, 2009 28

  @Chuck: Don’t have anything to add to Gaia’s explanation of why the USSR collapsed.

  As far as what should be public and what should be private, I’m not an economist. I only have the evidence in front of my own eyes. So I would revert to my experience and suggest that whatever is working as a public institution, should stay one: post office, fire, police, military, etc. The Commons should stay the Commons–air, water, etc. And whatever is working as a private institution, should stay one.

  That means no more overpaid, accountable mercenaries. No more war profiteering by companies like KBR; the military will provide. We re-regulate the electric power industry, which was partially deregulated in 1992 and turned into a disaster of wholesale acquisitions, high costs and poor service. We make our elections process again public, transparent and with a paper trail to ensure election results can be verified. The air travel market and telecommunications markets appear to be working fairly well as private institutions, so they should stay so. And if the banks fail, they should be allowed to “fail”–that is, be nationalized temporarily, then sold off to private investors after being cleaned up. If large businesses like GM fail and a deep recession is starting, a temporary bailout or rescue is in all of our interest. Otherwise, public-private partnerships can work, and the private sector can work, as long businesses are properly regulated and those regulations are enforced. Frankly, I’m amazed at how trusting some conservatives with giving their money to corporations.

  Over the next few days, I’m going to poke around and see if I can find any studies or interesting articles on this topic where experts have looked into it deeper. Your question really gets to the crux of things.

  @Mike300: Sorry about IndyMac but I think the fault was with the company making bad business decisions, not Chuck Shumer, although I’m sure he makes a useful scapegoat. Tying it to George Soros is, frankly, the stuff of tin foil hats. He’s not the puppet master of some vast left wing conspiracy.

  If only we actually had a nefarious left wing conspiracy, funded by billionaire masterminds, and enacting our evil will. I wish!

• Mike 300 Spartans
  1:32 pm on August 19th, 2009 29

  @BD- Nothing wrong with letting a bank fail, even the one I work at. But I’ll have to get you a chart on the pre-Schumer-post Schumer withdrawl rate. I believe Indymac published it and I might be able to find it but I’m off to work again. As far as Soros, I’m not saying he is a puppet master as much as just another example of run of the mill politicians paying off their friends. This just happened to be a payoff with a few extra zeros behind it than previously. However, talk to some people in Malaysia about Soros and currency speculation and you might find a country full of people ready to put tin foil hats on because they are living the dream. The dream of Soros anyway. Hey,I’m not saying all government is all bad, it is just ours today is growing like a cancer and needs to be cut down.

• Gaia's Child
  1:53 pm on August 19th, 2009 30

  Mike, I was actually referring to the Homestead Act which was a brillant move on the part of Lincoln and the Republican congress. Most of the free land was in “Free Staters” country which gave a hugh advantage to the North.
  And the Homestead Act lead to the Railroad land grants which lead to much faster communication and commerce with the west coast.

  I agree with the transportation industries being helped. The only thing I disagree with is that after they have accepted the help they find some regulation they don’t like and then start yelling “Free Market” “Free Market”. And I love your college cafeteria example. So true.

  Big Dog: Thank you for reminding me of electrical companies. I will state right now that I think all electrical companies should be nationalized, to hell with regulating them. I’m under WestStar and we, the customers, are having to pay the legal bills of the CEO who did a pretty good job of stripping the company. We have to pay because that was part of his contract. This is so even though he was found guilty on most of the charges. And you’re right in what you are calling taxpayer helped business. the public-private partnership. I just don’t want to call them Free Market.

  For a last thought as it is thundering again. Just give me one of those billionaires, I don’t care what wing he is.

• bad dog
  2:02 pm on August 19th, 2009 31

  @Mike300: My question is: Why Soros? What about all the other rich fat cats? It is because he contributes money to liberal causes? I frankly don’t understand why the Right is so obsessed with the guy. I know every story needs a villain, and just as groups like ACORN and MoveOn are demonized on the level of Satanic cults, so is Soros in right wing mythology. Who knows, maybe you are making a solid point, and it’s a topic close to home for you, so I don’t mean to be insensitive. But I stop listening as soon as I hear somebody bitch about Soros because the topic has been so heavily propagandized by right wingers. I just don’t feel like playing along.

  If you want to see the face of evil, look up a guy named Richard Melon-Scaife. He’s a nutcase billionaire (who inherited his money, he didn’t earn it) who has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into developing right wing “think tanks” and attack groups and propaganda distribution. He was partly responsible for the workings that led to the impeachment of Clinton. It’s because of him that public discourse in America has become a toxic waste dump and the lunatic fringe has become legitimized.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

• Alabama Moderate
  4:03 pm on August 19th, 2009 32

  @ Mike – I actually wonder if it was more the size of the country than the government involvement. China, of course, would appear to be the exception to the rule, but look at other civilizations… Egypt, Rome, the USSR, British imperialism… All of them reached a size that made it harder and harder to maintain them. I have often wondered if the U.S. is getting there, and it made for some interesting discussion with the spousal unit the other day.

  And to be honest, the only way we’ll get this country turned around is if the people running it are forced to feel the consequences of their own decisions.

  @ bad dog – I mostly like Obama, but if there’s an upturn right now, it’s not due to the stimulus. If there’s a downturn, it’s not due to the stimulus. The stimulus hasn’t even really been spent yet, for the most part– so it’s impossible to say that the stimulus has affected anything one way or another. I will however give credit where it’s due and say that the uptick in minimum wage paired with the C4C program has increased spending somewhat, and that’s what we need, but we can’t yet determine if this will have a lasting effect. I’m hoping that it will be enough to turn the spiral in the other direction, and if that happens, it should be sustainable without government help. Here’s to hoping.

  I agree with you to a point. Government regulation is needed to some extent because a totally free market only works in a perfect scenario where greed and laziness do not exist. However, past the point of regulations to make sure that corporations provide a quality product to the consumer and anti-trust legislation, I’m not much for regulations. Company decisions that cause these corporations to fail should result in them failing. Of course, had we not allowed these companies to swallow each other up so that they became “too big to fail” we wouldn’t have had such an issue with them failing. There would have been plenty others to take its place.

  And MoveOn is the devil.

  @ GTL – That reminds me… Keep an eye on JP Morgan. The proverbial stuff is about to hit the fan when Larry Langford isn’t considered the “big fish” by the feds. (They didn’t exactly save him for last.) My money is on them going after the banks regarding that and several other cases of public corruption.

  Also of note… Looks like the nonprofit coops were put on the table for the sole purpose of showing that the GOP wasn’t interested in any form of reform. Now that they’ve proven the case, I have no doubt that they’re going to use that cram the most liberal legislation they can manage down our throats. The GOP and Blue Dogs had a chance to tone it down, and they just pisssed it away in a bout of cockiness.

  @ Chuck – I answered #1 in my response to Mike. My response to #2 is this… I think that when it comes to where government should be involved, it’s a matter of asking whether or not something is more important than a corporate profit. Because at the end of the day, if the government isn’t doing it, a corporation will. Public safety is one of them. That doesn’t just apply to police and fire protection, but it also applies to things like building codes and road work. Health care is another, for me. Life and death decisions are too important to worry about whether or not they’re profitable. Education is one of those things that I’m iffy on. While I believe that private schools do better, I wonder about how viable it is to have personal responsibility if you live without the means to attend a private school and better yourself through education. Public transportation is another one that I’m iffy on. It’s technically not something that I’d have a problem leaving to private corporations, but it seems that it would require government for organization purposes, like in placement of rails and such. I think the post office should go, with the exception that we are still assigned addresses by the government– again for organizational purposes.

• Chuck
  4:28 pm on August 19th, 2009 33

  BD

  I believe the rights’ fascination with Mr Soros is the incredible contradiction it appears to represent. Here is a man that made a vast fortune essentially being a hedge trader, ruthlessly manipulating currencies. Yet he has adopted, and been adopted by Left wing ideologues that refute everything everything he (on the surface) represents. I personally find this as strange as if Leo Trotsky joined the “Club for Growth”. While I had to recycle my foil hat years ago (needed the beer money), I’m rather suspect of incredibly wealthy individuals actively working against what appears to be their interest. Then again, I’m a cynical bastard.

  Now, to amuse my friends on the Left, and risk losing my key to the Conservative washroom, I will say openly that I favor nationalizing Banks. Not banks of the investment variety mind you, but the everyday neighborhood bank that we all transact our mundane business with. If there was only 1 standard issue commercial bank, chartered with the dull but vital business of demand deposits,basic savings instruments and home mortgages, we could eliminate risk ( and with it most profit in these areas)and provide a much more stable platform for average consumers. The Fed would have a streamlined system for monetary control, as these banks would effectively be branches of the Fed. With this system, even a partial collapse of investment banking would not endanger the banking system as a whole, allowing we the people to let bad decisions be their own punishment. As GC pointed out, we would be able to break the “privatized profit, socialized risk” problem.

• Mike 300 spartans
  6:16 pm on August 19th, 2009 34

  @ Alabama Mod- Good point, the more tightly controlling a government is, the bigger the problem the size of a country is. Dictators might have a better chance for long term survival in tiny countries, a massive country with everything running through one office from auto industry, to banks, to health care no doubt contributed to Obama’s…oops, I mean no doubt contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

• Mike 300 spartans
  6:59 pm on August 19th, 2009 35

  The following link to MSNBC doesn’t paint Soros as a bad guy, it just confirms him as a new co-owner of my bank.
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28472166/

  Here is LA Times post citing a regulator making a direct connection between the run of withdrawls at Indymac immediatly following Schumer’s PUBLIC letter to the FDIC:

  “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.
  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum/comments/page/2/

  Hey, but whats done is done, no sense in bothering to find a scapegoat, right Valerie Plame?

  One last comment about my company that I probably made before. The Negative Amortization loan, how wreckless of a company to offer a product that gave a customer ridiculously small monthly payments by putting the real cost in an increasing principal balance right? Well, it was a tremendous opportunity for lower income people to get into a house that would increase in value over time and thus increase the wealth of those lower income people. Provided there wasn’t a CRASH. Guess what, crashes happen and these smart cars that the government is trying to sell everyone on are just like Negative Amortization loans, they save you a lot of money on gas provided you don’t get in a crash. Crashs happen, people die, and a strong case can be made that Iraq was an optional war, but there are far more deaths on the roads in the USA in one year than the war has produced in 6 years. These cap and trade politicians don’t care how many people die, they just want to push their agenda while they fly in government airplanes, at taxpayer expense and demand automanufacture corporate executives come grovel to them in the form of transportation they perscribe.

• bad dog
  11:44 pm on August 19th, 2009 36

  @Bama and Chuck: The USSR’s demise is a testament that a totalitarian state is damned expensive, especially one that seeks to govern without the consent of many of the governed. The USSR was an empire in every sense of the word, and couldn’t afford the military necessary to confront the west and keep its republics’ nationalist impulses in check. In my opinion, anyway…

• bad dog
  11:56 pm on August 19th, 2009 37

  @Chuck, who says, “I believe the rights’ fascination with Mr Soros is the incredible contradiction it appears to represent … I’m rather suspect of incredibly wealthy individuals actively working against what appears to be their interest.”

  What contradiction? Seriously, what?

  I will tell you a few things about myself. Me: white, 40s, married, 1 kid, small business owner for nearly 10 years. My wife and my income put us in the top 10% of income earners in the U.S. We are not in the investor class; we both work for a living and we are frugal with our spending. But we would be considered rich by the average person. I tell you this not to brag–you don’t know me, I’m just an electronic person to you so who cares what I say, really–but to establish my credentials as the average guy you might imagine voting Republican.

  After all, Republicans look out for my financial interests, right? I can afford private schooling, private healthcare. I have a rainy day fund. I should be saying: If you can’t afford it, you don’t get it, you bum, and too bad for you. Right? I can afford mine: Why should I pay for you? Right?

  Except I’m not an ***hole. I actually understand where I make my money. My area of expertise is in the construction field. If the economy is good, people are working and shopping and playing, and that means buildings are built. And not just rich people working, etc., but everybody. If they fail, I fail. If they succeed, I succeed. I actually understand that it’s not all about my wallet, my world, me, me, me–that every dollar I spend on social programs is an indirect investment in my own prosperity.

  What am I supposed to do, say thanks a lot libs for helping to create a middle class, putting me in the skilled labor force, and making sure I live in a great country–but screw you, I don’t want to have to pay for it?

  George Soros is not the contradiction. Every other rich turd who got where he is from the benefits of living in the United States, and then saying he doesn’t owe anybody anything, is the contradiction. And an obvious one.

  Think on it, and let me know if that answers your question satisfactorily.

  P.S. To address your other point, that he manipulated currencies, etc. to make his money, that may be true. I honestly don’t know much about the guy other than he contributes to some liberal causes. Or maybe he doesn’t. I’ve only heard it from right wingers, so who knows. The thing is, Chuck, good propaganda needs an opponent that can be demonized. And the right wingers are good at propaganda.

• Mike 300 spartans
  12:25 am on August 20th, 2009 38

  @B.D. I dare say your last post sounds more from the heart than some that come across as banter. I’m about to head home to my broken computer, maybe I can fix it tommorrow. But to have one last input, the contrast seems to be, in this particular case, just as conservatives always have a villian, be it a specific “Nacy Pelosi” or a generic “big government” , the liberals also tend to have their villians: Rush Limbaugh or generic “fat cats” and/or corporations. Even most recently, last year when gas in the states hit four bucks a gallon, temporarily “hedge fund speculators” were more specifically singled out. Thus, the statement, as I read it: Mr. Soros, how can you be in the camp that makes the hedgefunders the villian when you are one of the biggest hedgefunder persons. I don’t think it is much more than that. As far as you not knowing Soros, no problem, but even liberal leaning comedy “Saturday Night Live” has had a “Soros” characature. Thus, while personally he is not one that runs to the spotlight, he is very well known similar to Warren Buffet. His actions, good or bad, do draw a lot of attention, be it impacting entire small economy countries or simply massively funding support for a little law loosening restrictions on marijuana in Massechussetts. But you are correct, propagandists always have to put a face on an opponent.

• bad dog
  5:03 am on August 20th, 2009 39

  @Mike300, who says, “… the contrast seems to be, in this particular case, just as conservatives always have a villian, be it a specific “Nacy Pelosi” or a generic “big government” , the liberals also tend to have their villians: Rush Limbaugh or generic “fat cats” and/or corporations.”

  Corporations aren’t villains. Corporations aren’t good, either. They are amoral machines designed to produce profit. I couldn’t say a corporation was good or evil anymore I could say a car is good or evil or a gun is good or evil. Look at cars. Can we build out our cars so they are wider than a lane in the road? Why not–isn’t that freedom? Aren’t we at liberty to choose to drive whatever vehicle we want? But then it would be a free for all, accidents, deaths, etc. So I guess we need some good old fashioned big guvmint regulation on roads. In fact, so I don’t have to pay some corporation a hundred bucks a month to drive his roads, we’re going to make those roads owned by the public, and pay taxes to make sure they’re good for travel.

  Corporations are the exact same. Left to their own devices, they will run amok and if you are in the way you will be destroyed. And I mean destroyed financially, spiritually, health, etc. Nothing matters to corporations beyond profits. Anything else is pure corporate propaganda. A big lie. Therefore, they should be regulated so, for example, they don’t form monopolies and charge me whatever price they want for a crappy product I have to have (this is the problem with the health insurance industry–many regions have near monopolies, keeping costs–and profits–high). They should be regulated so, for example, they don’t dump toxic waste in my drinking water and then walk away with no accountability (you think Erin Brokovich is a commie?) They should be regulated so, for example, they don’t gamble in high-risk investments and crash the financial system.

  Wouldn’t you agree? If you do, you’re almost a Democrat, Mike.

  So no, corporations aren’t the villain. But unfettered capitalism is. Why? Because it’s ****ing dangerous, that’s why.

  As for Rush Limbaugh, are you kidding? The guy makes himself the villain. You’ve heard him talk on the radio, right? Here’s a guy who with every breath lies to promote himself and his ideology. Not only that, but everything he spouts is only good for other people but not for himself. Drug addiction? Those jerks should be locked up and throw away the key! But not if Rush himself is a drug addict. Oh no, in that case, watch him weep, and the dittoheads forgive him. How many divorces has that guy had? And I thought adultery was so bad that Clinton shamed the planet Earth and God almost sent us spinning into the sun? Christ, I can’t believe it sometimes, the hypocrisy and BS we Americans have to endure because a bunch of dittoheads want to divorce themselves from reality and then take their mock rage out on the rest of us.

  “Even most recently, last year when gas in the states hit four bucks a gallon, temporarily “hedge fund speculators” were more specifically singled out. Thus, the statement, as I read it: Mr. Soros, how can you be in the camp that makes the hedgefunders the villian when you are one of the biggest hedgefunder persons. I don’t think it is much more than that.”

  Actually, I think you are oversimplifying things. He may contribute to some liberal causes, or he may not. Other than that, there is no “camp.” And even if he did contribute and he is a ruthless speculator, so what? You right wingers all think Hollywood actors are elitist whatevers, right, but you elected one Governor of California, and another President of the United States. Can I scream and point to them every five minutes in disbelief?

  “As far as you not knowing Soros, no problem, but even liberal leaning comedy “Saturday Night Live” has had a “Soros” characature.”

  All I know is he’s considered a gifted investor, he has some weird theory connecting investing to his back pain (or maybe that’s a rumor I heard), and he may or may not contribute to some liberal causes.

  “But you are correct, propagandists always have to put a face on an opponent.”

  I don’t have to. They’re stuck in my face non-stop. Coulter, Gingrich, O’Liar, Hannity, Dobbs, Bachman, Grassley, Palin, Delay, Sanford, Craig-Jesus, I know these *ssholes better than I do my own Party.

• Mike 300 spartans
  11:00 am on August 20th, 2009 40

  Before taking issue with some things you said in your post, (Yeah! my computer is up again!) let me mention your last line has struck me as profound and disturbing. Because I too, seem to know more about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd more than IMO the “good guys” like Jim Demint and Fred Thompson. It seems obvious to me that I’ve fallen into the classic trap of focusing on the negatives of an opponent than looking for and promoting the good on my side. Course my problem there is I perceive a whole lot of bad on both sides.

  As to some of the things in your post. Aah, let me start with agreements- Yes Corporations are neutral and yes it is their “nature” to simply seek profit regardless of damage to others. Much like a bullet, not being good or bad, will travel in a certain direction not veering because someone good or innocent is in its path. Perhaps there is more agreement but enough of that…now disagreements…

• Mike 300 spartans
  11:36 am on August 20th, 2009 41

  I’m not an anarchist. Of course we need laws to keep people and/or corporations from dumping harmful chemicals into our drinking water but is regulation the answer to most problems? Some problems, yes, but most problems, no. Suppose there was no law on the size of a vehicle, there still is tort law, who is going to want to buy a vehicle that can’t fit in a lane? Even if you bought one, you might get tired of all the repairs and lawsuits everytime you run into someone. It wouldn’t be profitable, thus they wouldn’t be made, or if they were made the market would “correct them” right out of business…unless of course the government tampered with the market considering the vehicle too big to fail. I know I shouldn’t be laughing at my own pun, but I am…the vehicle is too BIG to FAIL…hahaha. Sorry, I’m sure it wasn’t that funny, but moving forward.
  I do listen to Rush Limbaugh almost everyday, while I like Mark Levine even more than Rush, Rush isn’t constantly telling lies, yes he has a big ego and he does a lot of self promotion. Yes, I consider him guilty of fear mongering. But if a sports commentator tells you that this coming Sunday team A is going to beat team B, then team B wins, I don’t call that lying, just perhaps faulty analysis or bias. If Rush says the health care bill, if passed, will have us all waiting for months to see our doctor, I put that into “selling fear” I don’t call it lying per se. However, while I haven’t yet been able to get my hands on an actual copy of H.R. 3200 I did read the offical government summary. One line said that it would be completely self sustaining, paid ONLY BY THE PREMIUMS, if I could only believe what they write. I’ll give you a link to that if you’d like, provided my computer keeps working. (There is always a catch)

• Fandb
  1:54 pm on August 20th, 2009 42

  Been away for a few days… Re posts 7 & 22:

  One of President Reagan’s goals from early in his administration was to dramatically improve the U.S.’s situation vs the USSR. In order to accomplish this goal, Ronald Reagan assigned William Casey to find weaknesses in the Soviet economy and to exploit those weaknesses. The USSR’s energy sales were critical to their economy, but they needed U.S. technology to continue developing their energy reserves. They also needed our technology for their military to keep pace with new technology being developed by the U.S. The timing of Reagan’s Presidency also coincided with a great deal of turmoil in Eastern Europe (mainly Poland) and in the Muslim regions in central Asia.

  In order to exploit these weaknesses, Reagan’s administration took a multi-pronged approach. Egypt’s President Sadat was convinced to support the Afghan mujahedin by supplying weapons for their ongoing war with the Soviets. Saudi Arabia was convinced to increase their oil production, this lowered the price of oil and reduced the USSR’s revenues from their oil sales, putting more pressure on their already weak economy. In exchange, the US provided AWACS airplanes to the Saudis.

  The U.S.’s spy network had become so depleted during the Carter years, that the U.S. needed to rely on Israel for some of its intelligence needs. In exchange, the U.S. provided detailed satellite photos of the Iraqi nuclear facility that was being built at the time (which Israel later bombed).

  Through information received from the Israelis (and from the Vatican), the U.S. found out that the Polish government was planning to crack down on the Solidarity movement and its leadership. So the U.S. helped Solidarity by providing communications equipment, which proved very useful when the government declared martial law and tried to destroy the Solidarity movement (a plan that failed). This helped to cement Solidarity’s favorable view of the U.S. and President Reagan.

  Then the U.S. started a massive effort to shift the Cold War toward high tech, knowing the Soviets could not keep up, especially without access to technology from the West, particularly from the U.S. Meanwhile, Reagan was pushing the ultimate high tech – Star Wars or SDI. When implemented, our defensive missile shield would all but eliminate the threat of Russian nuclear weapons. When Reagan and Gorbachev held their nuclear arms limitation talks in Reykjavik, Iceland, Gorbachev tried in vain to convince Reagan to drop Star Wars, and he offered to give in to all U.S. demands in exchange for Reagan’s promise to stop pursuing the SDI technology. (Which Reagan declined to give.) At the time the (liberal) MSM described the summit as a “failure”, but Reagan’s goal was not to sign a treaty, it was to convince Gorbachev that the Cold War was over and the USSR had lost.
  This was the beginning of the end of the USSR. Clearly, it was the Reagan administration that identified and exploited the weaknesses of the USSR, a process which hastened its eventual collapse. While it essentially collapsed under the weight of its own failed economic and political systems, President Reagan’s actions definitely sped up the process.

  While Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech in Berlin may not have had much actual political impact, it did in fact inspire masses of people all over the world, much like Kennedy’s and Lincoln’s speeches inspired millions.

  And lastly, President Reagan’s main reason for doing all that he did to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union… his deep conviction that a nuclear war was not winnable for either side, and one must never be fought.

• bad dog
  3:25 pm on August 20th, 2009 43

  @Mike300: What good is tort law when your opponent can hire a good lawyer and you can’t afford any? In a free market world, there is no court-appointed attorney. That’s a liberal idea. You either represent yourself or you hire somebody. If rich people wanted to modify their vehicles to be bigger than a lane, the market would correct, sure. The people who couldn’t afford to modify their vehicles to be intimidating would buy thinner cars, or stop driving, or die in auto accidents. That would be the market correcting itself.

  Or we could simply have the government own the roads and cheaply keep them running for us.

  If you accept the government should own the roads and be responsible for their upkeep, then you are by today’s right winger definition a socialist.

  Regarding Rush Limbaugh, here’s how I know he’s a propagandist, Mike.

  He ALWAYS mirrors White House talking points.

  He NEVER disagrees with his Party unless the Party is itself split on an issue.

  Righties like to attack Keith Olberman as a liberal because he savages right wing stupidity nightly, but Olberman attacks the Democrats when he disagrees with their policies.

  Does Limbaugh do the same against Republicans?

  Also, why do you accept that he and people like O’Liar look out or the “little guy,” when these people are multimillionaires? Their interests and yours are not the same, friend.

• bad dog
  3:32 pm on August 20th, 2009 44

  @FandB: Interesting historical perspective until Reagan became a superhero.

  SDI by the way is not only a dangerous strategy for our country, it has been a colossal waste of resources. Do Republicans only favor big spending that completely pisses away the public treasury with nothing to show for it? Then have heart attacks when the Democrats want to spend some money to help the middle class?

  When you talk about inspiring the masses around the world, I think you were referring to the Pope, who supported his countrymen in Poland.

  Reagan did not want to “hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union.” He wanted to fight the Cold War. The collapse of the USSR surprised everyone, particularly Reagan in his second term, who was obviously already suffering from Alzheimers.

  And as for a deep conviction that nuclear war was unwinnable, kudos to the President for recognizing reality. I guess you gotta applaud when a Republican President listens to scientists and makes a reality-based decision.

  Thanks for the history rewrite, though. It was very entertaining. Next time, be sure to include the part where Reagan rescues the children from the burning building.

• Mike 300 spartans
  4:45 pm on August 20th, 2009 45

  BD- Like it or not you have been an inspiration to me, I’m still pretty weak at this new concept of trying to emphasis the positive than harp on the negative. It might take some pratice, but hurray for SDI now known as BMDO for continuing to improve ballistic defenses in a world where missle threats from N.Korea and Iran continue to grow.

• bad dog
  6:18 pm on August 20th, 2009 46

  @Mike300: So billions spent on SDI, which doesn’t work, is GOOD, but billions spent on healthcare, which works and would directly benefit millions of people, is BAD. And Iran developing nuclear energy for electricity is BAD, but Pakistan selling nuclear weapon making secrets to unfriendly states is OKAY.

  You’re going to have help me reconcile all of these contradictions! Just like Rush Limbaugh, who sees a Republican eating an apple and blathers about how apple-eating is the height of patriotism, but then sees a Democrat eating an apple and blathers about how apple-eating is the next best thing to outright Satan worship.

• Fandb
  9:30 pm on August 20th, 2009 47

  Bad Dog, I am curious about your comment “Iran developing nuclear energy for electricity” — Do you really belive that? Do you believe that Iran’s intentions are purely to produce energy and they do not intend to produce nuclear weapons?

  Also, your comment “billions spent on healthcare, which works and would directly benefit millions of people” — there is clearly no evidence that this will work, no evidence that it will benefit millions of people, and no evidence that it will not harm a hundred million or more who already have private insurance — your comments are sheer speculation.

• Fandb
  9:39 pm on August 20th, 2009 48

  BD: “SDI by the way is not only a dangerous strategy for our country, it has been a colossal waste of resources.” — Except for the fact that it directly led to the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

  Yes, BD, Pope John Paul II inspired millions, in and out of Poland, for decades. There is no question that Pope John Paul II was a great man and a phenomenal success as Pope, as you indicated. Ronald Reagan also inspired millions of Americans, and millions more around the world. You may not like it, but Reagan was extremely popular, well liked, and was an extremely successful President.

  Your sarcasm was expected. Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t like Ronald Reagan. After all, he was a proponent of those big, scary corporations that you fear so much. Anyway, no re-write of history was needed. The facts speak for themselves.

• Fandb
  9:46 pm on August 20th, 2009 49

  Mike300, re your post #35, just curious… What would be the business purpose for a bank, any bank, to make any kind of loan that the lender did not believe would be paid back?

• Fandb
  10:01 pm on August 20th, 2009 50

  In general, Bad Dog, wikipedia is not a source, it is a joke. Someone posted a link to wikipedia about how great Canadian health care is compared to the U.S., but if you look at the sources, most of the positive information about Canadian health care came from sources directly tied to the Canadian government. Sort of like asking Obama if his health care plan is any good.

• Mike 300 spartans
  11:02 pm on August 20th, 2009 51

  F&B- Excellent question- the answer follows two paths, I’m writing between conversations with clients, might answer kind of broken…

• Mike 300 spartans
  11:12 pm on August 20th, 2009 52

  These low at the front end, heavy at the back end loans aren’t really designed to go to maturity. The borrower theoretically starts with either bad credit and/or low income and over the years of the light end, builds up the ability to refinance later to a more “sensible” loan. The “profit” for giving such silly low payments upfront is suppose to be made with early termination fees, refinance charges ect.

  If the person’s condition doesn’t improve, then of course “theoretically” the property is expected to be worth more than what it started and that person can sell it at a profit and pay off the entire loan.

• Mike 300 spartans
  11:37 pm on August 20th, 2009 53

  At to the mix quasi-government organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac and you get over-confident risk takers or at least ones that feel compelled to keep up with market share with their competitors getting way too loose with lending money. Yes, plenty of blame to go around, we banks did bring a lot of this problem on ourselves.

• bad dog
  12:40 am on August 21st, 2009 54

  @FandB, who says, “Do you really belive that? Do you believe that Iran’s intentions are purely to produce energy and they do not intend to produce nuclear weapons?”

  Let’s deal with the facts. Iran is a sovereign nation that has a right to develop its energy sources. Yes, it is an oil-producing country but many ME states are starting to realize that oil will not last forever. OK, then, but are they using this capability to develop weapons grade material? The latest National Intelligence Estimate says Iran’s military is working on secret projects, but it’s unclear whether these are related to nuclear weapons. The NIE indicated Iran is about 10 years from acquiring a bomb if they were working on nukes.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

  In my view, this is not an imminent threat requiring another war.

  “Also, your comment “billions spent on healthcare, which works and would directly benefit millions of people” — there is clearly no evidence that this will work, no evidence that it will benefit millions of people, and no evidence that it will not harm a hundred million or more who already have private insurance — your comments are sheer speculation.”

  No, they are not sheer speculation. You are right if the Blue Dogs and the Republicans keep fighting reform then the result may be so watered down that it is not effective. But if the result ends up like Medicare and VA, then healthcare will improve. Americans on Medicare rate the quality of their care higher than those using private insurance. In any case, regardless of the outcome, spending a dollar on giving somebody who needs a life-saving treatment is more useful than pissing away a dollar on an SDI system that doesn’t work, and would only dangerously destabilize the balance of power if it did.

  “Except for the fact that it directly led to the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

  Speaking of sheer speculation … Your fanciful rewriting of history is not convincing me. But then again, you’re the guy who thinks America will be adding Bush’s face to Mount Rushmore (but only after we’re all dead), so it doesn’t surprise me that in your mythology Reagan was a genius who single-handedly defeated the USSR.

  “You may not like it, but Reagan was extremely popular, well liked, and was an extremely successful President.”

  He was well liked by some, but not all, just as one could say Bush was liked by some, but not all. As for successful, if you mean trading arms for hostages, or retreating from Lebanon after getting a bunch of Marines killed, or invading Grenada, or destroying the unions, then yeah, I guess he was wildly successful. It’s kind of like saying Bush was an extremely successful president, with the metric being, can you sit on your ass and do nothing except act concerned while a major city is drowned.

  “Your sarcasm was expected. Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t like Ronald Reagan.”

  My IQ is above 100. That might have tipped you off.

  “After all, he was a proponent of those big, scary corporations that you fear so much. Anyway, no re-write of history was needed. The facts speak for themselves.”

  The facts have a way of doing that.

• bad dog
  12:48 am on August 21st, 2009 55

  @FandB, who says, “In general, Bad Dog, wikipedia is not a source, it is a joke.”

  Wikipedia is not a joke. It is what it is and it is useful for publishing basic information. If you disagree with something in a Wikipedia article, then say so and then say why you disagree. Calling it a joke is lazy and, frankly, impresses me so little I will have to go on sourcing it.

  “Someone posted a link to wikipedia about how great Canadian health care is compared to the U.S., but if you look at the sources, most of the positive information about Canadian health care came from sources directly tied to the Canadian government. Sort of like asking Obama if his health care plan is any good.”

  Sometimes what you say is so mind-blowingly ****** I actually sit back in my chair and grunt in total surprise that a grown man with an IQ over 100 would say it. The US does not sit around publishing studies comparing its health system to Canada’s. Canada does these studies as a way to routinely gauge the effectiveness of its system compared to a more privatized system. Unlike the government with a Republican administration, the Canadian government does not waste money on publishing studies supporting some weird ideology held by the party in power. The studies are independent and as trustworthy as you can get. Show me real research–not bogus crap from the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation–that reaches different conclusions, and I might take you seriously. Until then, I’m going to have say you screwed up and mail you another big steaming bag of boiled crow.

  Seriously, man, get your thing together if you want me to take you seriously.

• Fandb
  10:38 am on August 21st, 2009 56

  BD: “get your thing together if you want me to take you seriously” — Frankly, I don’t give a hoot whether you take me seriously or not. I certainly don’t take any of your posts seriously. Sorry.

  You can use all the links to wikipedia that you want, that won’t make it a valid reference source. Ditto YouTube.

  The left wing moonbats need to learn to be willing to admit the good things that President Reagan accomplished. Don’t let your hatred for the man cloud your judgement, it only demonstrates how narrow minded the Party of Hate has become.

  Also, FYI…

  The new czar (aka Minister) of the Canadian healthcare system has stated that the system is in need of total reform. Just a few other tidbits of less biased reporting on Canada’s health care system than we get from BD:

  From Canada’s ‘National Review of Medicine’ :

  VANCOUVER — A shortage of acute care psychiatric beds in BC is creating a crisis for mentally ill patients…

  VANCOUVER — BC residents tired of the long wait times for joint replacement surgeries have another option — care brokers. These brokers arrange surgeries south-of-the-border for residents willing to foot the bill for timely operation…

  From the City Journal ):

  “Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.”

  The truth needs to be told, the Canadian health care system demonstrates all the things Americans are afraid that socialized medicine will bring here – long waiting times, rationed health care, lack of innovation in new drugs and new treatments, etc.

  BD: “The NIE indicated Iran is about 10 years from acquiring a bomb if they were working on nukes.” — the article you cited is over 4 years old. A lot can change in 4 years. Even if that estimate were true, give or take a couple of years as you must do with ‘estimates’, it is possible that Iran will potentially have nukes within 2 or 3 years, even by your own source.

  We know that the number of centrifuges in operation in Iran has increased dramatically over the past few years. The only viable use for enriched uranium is weapons, that is why the terms ‘enriched uranium’ and ‘weapons grade uranium’ are often used interchangeably. The only sensible conclusion is that Iran is attempting to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb. It would follow logically that they intend to use the enriched uranium they make to build a bomb.

  It would be very un-wise to wait until Iran has nuclear capability before we do something about it.

  Good thing we still have a couple hundred thousand troops near Iran’s borders.

  Thank you President Bush.

• Fandb
  10:47 am on August 21st, 2009 57

  PS. Do you want some fries with that crow, bad Dog?

• bad dog
  12:38 pm on August 21st, 2009 58

  @FandB, who says, “Frankly, I don’t give a hoot whether you take me seriously or not. I certainly don’t take any of your posts seriously. Sorry.”

  Now we’re both sorry!

  “You can use all the links to wikipedia that you want, that won’t make it a valid reference source. Ditto YouTube.”

  If you don’t take my posts seriously you won’t mind me laughing at you yet again when you say YouTube is a source. It’s not a source. It’s a host for content. The content is separate from YouTube. I’ll keep trying. I won’t give up on you, FandB. Maybe some day you’ll grasp this simple fact.

  “The left wing moonbats need to learn to be willing to admit the good things that President Reagan accomplished. Don’t let your hatred for the man cloud your judgement, it only demonstrates how narrow minded the Party of Hate has become.”

  Actually, right now I’m in the Party of Boredom. My boredom is clouding my judgment as to whether to continue talking to you.

  Remember, FandB: Talking points are not a source.

  “The new czar (aka Minister) of the Canadian healthcare system has stated that the system is in need of total reform.”

  Yup. We have a Conservative government, and they want to make changes.

  “It would be very un-wise to wait until Iran has nuclear capability before we do something about it.”

  So what do you think we should do, Napoleon?

  “Good thing we still have a couple hundred thousand troops near Iran’s borders. Thank you President Bush.”

  Another war? Not thanks.

  How about we simply use less oil?

  You may be able to justify massive military spending and pointless wars in your neocon mind so you live your fantasy of being Alexander the Great. Me, I’d rather see us use less oil to the point we can tell the entire Middle East to go screw itself.

  Tell me: Which do you think is in our national interest? Spending fifty cents on war to save fifty cents on a gallon of gas for perpetuity–until the oil runs out–or spending on renewable energy to eliminate the need for gas altogether?

• bad dog
  12:40 pm on August 21st, 2009 59

  @FandB, who says, “Do you want some fries with that crow, bad Dog?”

  Jeez, I gotta explain how this works, too? You only get to offer crow when you say something intelligent that proves the other person wrong. I offered you crow in 55 because I proved you had made an idiotic mistake. Since you insisted your mistake is correct–typical of right wing ding dongs–in 56, and I had to recorrect you in 57, here it is

  your own steaming pile

  of crow

  with extra ketchup

  just the way

  you like it.

  

• Fandb
  1:14 pm on August 21st, 2009 60

  BD: “You only get to offer crow when you say something intelligent that proves the other person wrong.” — If that is the case, then you may need to cut back on your crow production, like to zero. I haven’t seen a single post where you have proved anything other than that left wingers such as yourself are moonbats.

  BD: “Which do you think is in our national interest? Spending fifty cents on war to save fifty cents on a gallon of gas for perpetuity–until the oil runs out–or spending on renewable energy to eliminate the need for gas altogether?” — Since I have been awarded two patents related to the design and production of Fuel Cells for both automotive and residential use, I think you can figure out my position. But I’m sure you’ll spin it that I’m just an evil capitalist.

• bad dog
  1:36 pm on August 21st, 2009 61

  @FandB, who says, “Since I have been awarded two patents related to the design and production of Fuel Cells for both automotive and residential use, I think you can figure out my position. But I’m sure you’ll spin it that I’m just an evil capitalist.”

  First, good for you. Second, I’ll only think you’re an evil capitalist if you do something evil.

  Have you done something evil?

• stupidly
  2:26 pm on August 21st, 2009 62

  Folks complaining about how Erbama could’ve won the election and crying about it.

  This is why:
  http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=tom+ridge&ei=UTF-8&fr=flo2&type=bWljX2RlZmF1bHQqdmVyXzIuNS4yKmluc18yMDA5MDYqY3R4X2M%3D

  RightWing Liars eating crow.

• The Buzz » Blog Archive » President Barack Hussein Obama Backpedals on Both Public …
  8:33 am on September 3rd, 2009 63

  [...] Civil libertarian-ish (with the the exception of our far-left brethren) Americans took exception to the Obama Administration’s “Report a healthcare thug to the White House” program, and rightfully (or “leftfully” SO). …Next Page [...]