PDA

View Full Version : Obama/Clooney Fundraiser Nets Nearly 15 Million......



MMC
05-11-2012, 06:22 AM
LOS ANGELES (AP) — George Clooney played the suave host, chef Wolfgang Puck whipped up something for dinner, and President Barack Obama and about 150 of his Hollywood set donors enjoyed a few laughs at Clooney's good humored expense.

The event, held under a stretched transparent tent outside Clooney's sprawling tudor-styled canyon home, raised nearly $15 million, a record for a single fundraiser.

The guests paid $40,000 to attend, accounting for about $6 million of the evening's financial haul for Obama's campaign and the Democratic Party. The remainder came from a raffle for small dollar donors. Two winners — both women — got to take part in the dinner and, even though Clooney was the host, they brought their husbands.

Puck's dinner menu included an artichoke salad followed by roasted duckling "Peking style" with tiny buns, a duo of lamb and beef cheek with potatoes and Brussels sprouts, and sweet corn tortelloni.


For Obama, the A-list party was not only a financial hit, it gave the president the kind of Hollywood buzz a Republican seldom gets. But the glitzy event, with its glamour and wealth, also has its risks and it set up a stark contrast with Obama's mission on Friday to highlight the plight of struggling homeowners in Nevada.

Among those at the dinner were such actors and performers as Robert Downey Jr., Barbra Streisand and her husband James Brolin, Jack Black, Salma Hayek and Tobey Maguire, who shared a table with Clooney and Clooney's girlfriend Stacey Kiebler.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-jokes-clooney-stars-gala-fundraiser-050818816.html

40k to attend a dinner.....oh yeah, Obama really is out for the Middle Class and standing up for the 99%. Party Party and some more partying. He was just out West at another fundraiser where he didnt do so well. So George of the Jungle, decided he would make sure Obama got some help.

Plus George threw out some more money at the White House Correspondants Dinner where he was Time Magazines Guest and able to sit up front near Obama for that ritzy event with the Media's Alleged Stars. Course guest for the After-after dinner party too.

The first thing he tells the Progressives of Hollywood is his key moment from yesterday. Yet do you think sitting around and talking shop with these people brings him closer to what the average working man is thinking and going thru? Clooney has an agenda with Darfur. He is rich, 1%er, has a cause, needs tax shelters for the accumulation of his wealth. It is the same with many of the Others.

Think Tinsel-Town Entertainers have their hands on the HeartBeat of America? When have they ever? Anyone think that most of the support from the base of the Progressives and Liberals would understand the plight of the American people? Understand the Economy? Think they care about all the Charities they give to?

The last thing a President of this country should be doing. Is listening to a bunch of pampered-azz Entertainers and what they think and feel should be going on with the country. Or anywhere else in the World for that matter. Wanna help out Entertainers.....start here at home in the US. Thats not to say some don't. But most......thats most. Don't! They Are more concerned for issues that are related to helping others in Foreign Countries.

Well, I say.....Ask not what your Country can do for you. But what you, can do for your Country! Something you Progresives and liberals want to keep forgetting about while pushing for that global citizen of the world thingy. Stand up For Being an American. Fuck the NWO.....when you turn on that box and you see Star-Date Logs from the Federation. Then your azz can worry about being a Citizen of the World.

Alias
05-11-2012, 08:58 AM
Obama said the magic words and the spigot opened. Amazing.

Alias
05-11-2012, 08:59 AM
The 1% comes through for Obama.

spunkloaf
05-11-2012, 09:01 AM
The 1% comes through for Obama.

LOL

Yeah, like....1% of the 1%.

You're trying to make it look like Rupert Murdoch endorsed Obama.

Alias
05-11-2012, 09:04 AM
LOL

Yeah, like....1% of the 1%.

You're trying to make it look like Rupert Murdoch endorsed Obama.

Are you telling me all those big Hollywood names are not part of the 1%? LOL. You guys need to think things through before you go painting people with a big brush.

dsolo802
05-11-2012, 09:07 AM
Are you telling me all those big Hollywood names are not part of the 1%? LOL. You guys need to think things through before you go painting people with a big brush.

If he was truly against the 1% then it would be surprising that they support him. Warren Buffet probably is in the 1% too. Buffet supports him too >>>>100% percent.

Alias
05-11-2012, 09:29 AM
If he was truly against the 1% then it would be surprising that they support him. Warren Buffet probably is in the 1% too. Buffet supports him too >>>>100% percent.

Obama isn't "truly" anything, that's the point. The left will twist and turn their propaganda at will.

MMC
05-11-2012, 10:41 AM
Yeah, Gates and silicon valley to. Then Lady Rothchilds. Although those two aren't like Buffet and thinking they should pay more. Moreover none of those in Tinsel Town have a clue as to the working mans plight.

dsolo802
05-11-2012, 06:41 PM
Obama isn't "truly" anything, that's the point. The left will twist and turn their propaganda at will.People can't have it both ways. If it's known he is not against the 1% - let's stop the rhetoric that says he looks to punish people for their success.

If you know he is not against the 1%, let's stop pretending there is something inconsistent or strange in his asking people of the 1% to support his policies.

Buffet supports Obama and those policies 100%. And so do the Hollywood rich. They see they will pay more in taxes but are willing to support that because they think it is both fair to them and right for the country.

Now, nothing prevents a man from looking at the progressive tax system we have lived with for decades and calling that punishment - but we should all howl at the pretense that this is the result of the evil Kenyan's secret designs to dismantle the free market.

spunkloaf
05-11-2012, 07:26 PM
Obama isn't "truly" anything, that's the point. The left will twist and turn their propaganda at will.

You say we like him and we can't explain why, yet you hate him and you can't explain why.

spunkloaf
05-11-2012, 07:28 PM
People can't have it both ways. If it's known he is not against the 1% - let's stop the rhetoric that says he looks to punish people for their success.

If you know he is not against the 1%, let's stop pretending there is something inconsistent or strange in his asking people of the 1% to support his policies.

Buffet supports Obama and those policies 100%. And so do the Hollywood rich. They see they will pay more in taxes but are willing to support that because they think it is both fair to them and right for the country.

Now, nothing prevents a man from looking at the progressive tax system we have lived with for decades and calling that punishment - but we should all howl at the pretense that this is the result of the evil Kenyan's secret designs to dismantle the free market.

Don't dignify his bullshit with a response, he doesn't deserve it. He's not going to see it your way. He's only going to point and laugh and call it stupid, like a 5th grader.

dsolo802
05-11-2012, 07:32 PM
Don't dignify his bullshit with a response, he doesn't deserve it. He's not going to see it your way. He's only going to point and laugh and call it stupid, like a 5th grader.It's worth while to me to treat everyone with respect - even when other people take me for a fool.

How are you doing today, SL?

MMC
05-11-2012, 07:34 PM
If it is known that he preaches one thing and then lives another way then how can his message even be considered. If he is willing to say anything and or do anything just to retain power so he can live high on the hog and not create solutions for this country and is only pandering to the staus quo. Then why shouldn't his actions come under criticsm?

Again listening to those that don't have a clue as to what it is to be the average common man. That know nothing about the economy or economics helps us how?

dsolo802
05-11-2012, 07:49 PM
If it is known that he preaches one thing and then lives another way then how can his message even be considered. How, please tell me, does he preach one thing, and live another? Just a couple of simple straightforward examples would be appreciated.

You don't need to be blue collar, to look out for their interests.

The fact that he looks to collect money from those who have a lot of it, shows only that he is sane.


If he is willing to say anything and or do anything just to retain powerI don't accept your premise. He is a politician, there is that. But he is hated for ObamaCare not because he promised it, but because he promised and delivered it. Where is the hypocrisy?


so he can live high on the hog and not create solutions for this country Again, he delivered the solutions he said he would. Those who elected him on account of his promises would say he did create solutions for this country.


and is only pandering to the staus quo.He is obliged to make good on his promises, and if he is smart he will look after his base. This is politics 101 and he would be taken to task by ALL if he failed to do these things. There is no politician, Republican or Democratic, who can safely ignore this fact of how politics works. Why do you assume that Obama is different in kind from any other politician in this regard? I truly do not under it.


Then why shouldn't his actions come under criticsm?IF he promised one thing, and did something quite different, he certainly should come under criticism. Some on the left thought he would be far left. They were extremely disappointed that he turned out to be as moderate in his governing as his campaign promises made him seem to be.

Conservatives continue to portray him as radical left, someone looking to take down the free market, etc. - and there is simply no reality to these claims. None that I have heard. To me, people are complaining because he turned out to be - a politician.


Again listening to those that don't have a clue as to what it is to be the average common man. That know nothing about the economy or economics helps us how?Many very intelligent macro economists would disagree with your assessment of our President.

MMC
05-11-2012, 08:16 PM
Yes and Many would disagree with you on the issue of Obamacare. Another reason that it is in the court and is about to overturned. Then with his own admittance to not having the numbers adds up. Also Shows us now that Obmamcare will costs us more than He orignally Claimed. Which like we already pointed out. If he wanted to balanced the budget and take care of our deficit. Then that would have been the first order of buisness. When he had the house and the Senate. Also his politics of towing the line in Illinois was always noted.

Yes he would do the same as any other politicans in looking for money from the rich. So bringing up the basics of Politics 101 is neither here nor there. Playing one group of rich people off against another is also a different game of sorts within politics. Is it not? Especially when it comes to power.

He also delivered the message of changing Washington and not sending back the same failed leaders did he not? To Change the way Washington does buisness. See any Change in Washington from the Way they do buisness?

Mister D
05-11-2012, 09:41 PM
Perhaps the income of these Hollywood celebs leaves them feeling uncertain or even ashamed of themselves.

dsolo802
05-11-2012, 10:26 PM
Yes and Many would disagree with you on the issue of Obamacare.Assuming you believe that those who disagree are as smart as though who agree, what we have here are intelligent people disagreeing - not the outrage people want to make of it.


Another reason that it is in the court and is about to overturned. Not wise to count chickens - unless you run a chicken coop.


Then with his own admittance to not having the numbers adds up. Also Shows us now that Obmamcare will costs us more than He orignally Claimed.He played by the same playbook as all Presidents do. Or do you think the CBO is an arm of the DNC? :)

By a number of different measures, ObamaCare is already a success. It would certainly be a greater success if the Parties worked together as the people have a right to expect that they will do.


Which like we already pointed out. If he wanted to balanced the budget and take care of our deficit. Then that would have been the first order of buisness.By all accounts, the inadequacy of our pre-ObamaCare system was not only hurting business, but was the leading cause of personal bankruptcy:
"Over the last 30 years, medical costs increased significantly faster than other necessities. Thirty years ago, medical costs were on par with housing, food and energy. But while the costs of those basic items grew at about the same rate, the cost of health care quickly outpaced its peers. In some decades, the Consumer Price Index for medical care grew at double the rate of other essential items. Today, the CPI of medical care is 75% higher than the second fastest growing item. As these costs rose, so did the number of Americans filing bankruptcy (http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/). Among filers, more than 60 percent cited medical debt as the main cause of their bankruptcy." http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/filing-bankruptcy-statistics/health-care-bankruptcy.html


Fixing health care is and will be a major help in this country's effort to reduce its debt.


When he had the house and the Senate. I've already addressed this canard several times. I will give a few keywords here: Blue dogs and filibuster.


Also his politics of towing the line in Illinois was always noted.You will have to say more. I don't know what you mean.


Yes he would do the same as any other politicans in looking for money from the rich. So bringing up the basics of Politics 101 is neither here nor there. Bringing up his dining with Clooney and friends is neither here nor there. That was my point.


Playing one group of rich people off against another is also a different game of sorts within politics. Is it not? No, that's not it at all. Neither Obama, nor Democrats in general, nor mainstream Republicans believe that taxation is a punishment. It is the price of admission for living in a functional nation. It is GOP rhetoric to characterize adjusting tax brackets and rates of taxation as playing one group against another.


Especially when it comes to power.

He also delivered the message of changing WashingtonIt is not Obama who claims to have super powers. Again, that was and likely will be the campaign rhetoric of the loyal opposition. He said he would reach out to change the tone in Washington. Apparently he thought the GOP would not try to turn his promise to deliver Health Care into his Waterloo. In any case, it is still true that it takes two to tango. He tried. And I give him that.


and not sending back the same failed leaders did he not? To Change the way Washington does buisness. See any Change in Washington from the Way they do buisness?Anybody who thinks the head of one political party can transform the leadership of an opposition Party sworn to make him a one-term President, apparently does believe in magic.

John Sebastian would be proud!

roadmaster
05-11-2012, 11:13 PM
Obama's voting record spoke for himself before the elections. Most didn't seen to care except he is half white.

Voting records tell a lot about a person.

MMC
05-12-2012, 07:34 AM
[QUOTE=dsolo802;73744]Assuming you believe that those who disagree are as smart as though who agree, what we have here are intelligent people disagreeing - not the outrage people want to make of it.

Not wise to count chickens - unless you run a chicken coop.

He played by the same playbook as all Presidents do. Or do you think the CBO is an arm of the DNC? :)

By a number of different measures, ObamaCare is already a success. It would certainly be a greater success if the Parties worked together as the people have a right to expect that they will do......snip~

I know this is what you would say. But you forget Dsolo Obama came out with the admittance after the CBO discovered the discretion. Moreover healthcare costs have gone up. Plus your forget the four year waiting period to implement the law and the numbers that are affected by this time span as the law waits to take affect.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 10:41 AM
Assuming you believe that those who disagree are as smart as though who agree, what we have here are intelligent people disagreeing - not the outrage people want to make of it.

Not wise to count chickens - unless you run a chicken coop.

He played by the same playbook as all Presidents do. Or do you think the CBO is an arm of the DNC? :)

By a number of different measures, ObamaCare is already a success. It would certainly be a greater success if the Parties worked together as the people have a right to expect that they will do......snip~

[quote=mmc]I know this is what you would say
. But you forget Dsolo Obama came out with the admittance after the CBO discovered the discretion. Can you say a little more what you mean by this: What did the CBO discover? I saw where CBO has now recalibrated their estimation, but is still predicting significant savings - EVEN in event there are greater reductions in employment based insurance than predicted. Here are the relevant key findings from the CBO web site:

CBO and JCT’s Key Findings

CBO and JCT continue to expect that the ACA will lead to a small reduction in employment-based health insurance. That projection arises from the agencies’ modeling of the many changes in opportunities and incentives facing employers and employees under the ACA, and it is consistent with the findings of other analysts who have carefully modeled the nation’s health insurance system.
Significant changes in some of the key assumptions underlying the estimates lead to somewhat higher or lower projections of the change in employment-based health insurance and the budgetary impact of the ACA. However, differences in the projected change in employment-based health insurance tend to have limited effects on the projected budgetary impact of the law because changes in the availability and take-up of such insurance affect the federal budget through several channels that are partly offsetting. Indeed, one scenario examined here shows that larger reductions in employment-based health insurance than expected by CBO and JCT might lower rather than raise the cost of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.
In CBO and JCT’s judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090

Moreover healthcare costs have gone up.Obama promised that he would "bend the curve" of health care costs, not keep them forever at then prevailing levels. "Bend the cost curve" means slow the rise in health care costs. According to the CBO that will be a promise kept.

If we want to achieve greater cost savings, we'll need to put pressure on the parties to work together, for example, to spur actual competition among private health care insurers by eliminating the anti-trust exemption their industry currently enjoys, providing much greater incentives for preventive care than currently exist and reforming prevailing malpractice law to eliminate all incentives for unnecessary, costly cover-your-ass procedures.

The parties should work together on this.

Alias
05-12-2012, 10:48 AM
People can't have it both ways. If it's known he is not against the 1% - let's stop the rhetoric that says he looks to punish people for their success.

If you know he is not against the 1%, let's stop pretending there is something inconsistent or strange in his asking people of the 1% to support his policies.

Buffet supports Obama and those policies 100%. And so do the Hollywood rich. They see they will pay more in taxes but are willing to support that because they think it is both fair to them and right for the country.

Now, nothing prevents a man from looking at the progressive tax system we have lived with for decades and calling that punishment - but we should all howl at the pretense that this is the result of the evil Kenyan's secret designs to dismantle the free market.

Obama is the one who wants it both ways. He wants to demonize the 1% to get the votes of the 99%, but then he wants the money from the 1% to fund his campaign. Simple stuff here. The tools and useful idiots can't see it.

Peter1469
05-12-2012, 11:23 AM
[QUOTE=MMC;73775]

Can you say a little more what you mean by this: What did the CBO discover? I saw where CBO has now recalibrated their estimation, but is still predicting significant savings - EVEN in event there are greater reductions in employment based insurance than predicted. Here are the relevant key findings from the CBO web site:

CBO and JCT’s Key Findings

CBO and JCT continue to expect that the ACA will lead to a small reduction in employment-based health insurance. That projection arises from the agencies’ modeling of the many changes in opportunities and incentives facing employers and employees under the ACA, and it is consistent with the findings of other analysts who have carefully modeled the nation’s health insurance system.
Significant changes in some of the key assumptions underlying the estimates lead to somewhat higher or lower projections of the change in employment-based health insurance and the budgetary impact of the ACA. However, differences in the projected change in employment-based health insurance tend to have limited effects on the projected budgetary impact of the law because changes in the availability and take-up of such insurance affect the federal budget through several channels that are partly offsetting. Indeed, one scenario examined here shows that larger reductions in employment-based health insurance than expected by CBO and JCT might lower rather than raise the cost of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.
In CBO and JCT’s judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090
Obama promised that he would "bend the curve" of health care costs, not keep them forever at then prevailing levels. "Bend the cost curve" means slow the rise in health care costs. According to the CBO that will be a promise kept.

If we want to achieve greater cost savings, we'll need to put pressure on the parties to work together, for example, to spur actual competition among private health care insurers by eliminating the anti-trust exemption their industry currently enjoys, providing much greater incentives for preventive care than currently exist and reforming prevailing malpractice law to eliminate all incentives for unnecessary, costly cover-your-ass procedures.

The parties should work together on this.

The parties can't work on it together. The dems have no intention of controlling costs (and many of the Repubs). They want to provide Cadillac coverage to every single America regardless of the cost. There is no negotiating with that. We need to vote in enough Tea Party(ies) members to simply steam roll the spending fetishist. Tell them to go play tennis or golf while the adults save the Republic.

Alias
05-12-2012, 11:26 AM
The Tea Party hasn't been sleeping, it's been steeping.

spunkloaf
05-12-2012, 12:52 PM
I'd support the tea party if they weren't a bunch of assholes, and if Fox News wasn't their mascot.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 01:00 PM
The parties can't work on it together. The dems have no intention of controlling costs (and many of the Repubs).If Coburn renewed his call for meaningful malpractice reform, what is the evidence that Obama, who has already said he supports it, would renege?

Obama has said he supports incentives for preventive care - the least costly form of effective health care - and away from chronic care - by far and away the most costly. Why shouldn't we give this a shot?


They want to provide Cadillac coverage to every single America regardless of the cost.There are fundamentalist yahoos in every party. With this the Dems are no exception. But the broader "they" you mention, do not want Cadillac coverage for every American.


We need to vote in enough Tea Party(ies) members to simply steam roll the spending fetishist. Tell them to go play tennis or golf while the adults save the Republic.The Tea Party has more than it's share of fundamentalists. Am I wrong to think they - and the total intransigence it represents - led to the Nation's first ever credit downgrade?

Alias
05-12-2012, 01:05 PM
If Coburn renewed his call for meaningful malpractice reform, what is the evidence that Obama, who has already said he supports it, would renege?

Obama has said he supports incentives for preventive care - the least costly form of effective health care - and away from chronic care - by far and away the most costly. Why shouldn't we give this a shot?

There are fundamentalist yahoos in every party. With this the Dems are no exception. But the broader "they" you mention, do not want Cadillac coverage for every American.

The Tea Party has more than it's share of fundamentalists. Am I wrong to think they caused it - and the total intransigence it represents - led to the Nation's first ever credit downgrade?

Yes, you are wrong to think the Tea Party caused our credit downgrade. Obama and his congress spent the money, not the Tea Party.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 01:14 PM
Yes, you are wrong to think the Tea Party caused our credit downgrade. Obama and his congress spent the money, not the Tea Party.
Not according to the credit agency that did the downgrade. They pointed to the inadequacy of the budget reduction plan agreed to by the parties - Obama wanted more deficit reduction, and Boner walked away.

But more than that S & P pointed to the inability or unwillingness of the parties to work with each other:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,stability, and predictability of American policymaking and politicalinstitutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economicchallenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned anegative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging thegulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes uspessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to beable to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscalconsolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon.
​From the S& P site.

The ideologues are screwing the pooch - badly.

ramone
05-12-2012, 01:18 PM
The Tea Party has more than it's share of fundamentalists. Am I wrong to think they caused it - and the total intransigence it represents - led to the Nation's first ever credit downgrade?

And once again you flop, do you seriously believe that the Tea Party caused the downgrade in credit? Maybe reflect to the time that Obama had control of both House and Senate and still never came up with a balanced budget. Instead they spent 5 trillion in our tax money on worthless green schemes that turned out to be just that. Kickbacks to companies who donated to his campaign. Notice there is still no budget after almost 4 years. Why?

Add to that the other bailouts and crap, hell you could have given every American enough money to pay for about any medical cost in the form of a check in the mail. Makes more sense to me than this crap.

My friend the other day told me some off the wall thought. He said:
"if every 5,6,or 7 years take the money we give to foreign countries and split it among the people of the republic. Each family gets their part. It would boost the economy and most likely make instant rich people. Requirement being that you have a job and retain that job, also you must vote in every election. While far fetched, it makes sense in a strange sort of way.

In the end your tea part theory is way off base.

Alias
05-12-2012, 01:31 PM
Not according to the credit agency that did the downgrade. They pointed to the inadequacy of the budget reduction plan agreed to by the parties - Obama wanted more deficit reduction, and Boner walked away.

But more than that S & P pointed to the inability or unwillingness of the parties to work with each other:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,stability, and predictability of American policymaking and politicalinstitutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economicchallenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned anegative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging thegulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes uspessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to beable to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscalconsolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon.
​From the S& P site.

The ideologues are screwing the pooch - badly.

Obama and his congress spent the money that caused the downgrade. The Tea Party are people who meet in parks and wave flags. No re-writing history around here.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 01:42 PM
My friend the other day told me some off the wall thought. He said: "if every 5,6,or 7 years take the money we give to foreign countries and split it among the people of the republic. Each family gets their part. It would boost the economy and most likely make instant rich people. Requirement being that you have a job and retain that job, also you must vote in every election. While far fetched, it makes sense in a strange sort of way.

So do away with foreign aid, have our military hightail it back here to the states, recall most of our State Department officials - run skeleton crews in the larger embassies/consulates...what happens next, or rather, what're the consequences for those actions in the long run?

Who fills that void? China? Russia? India? Mexico or Canada? The E.U.?

I agree it's far fetched - I disagree with it making sense.

ramone
05-12-2012, 01:55 PM
So do away with foreign aid, have our military hightail it back here to the states, recall most of our State Department officials - run skeleton crews in the larger embassies/consulates...what happens next, or rather, what're the consequences for those actions in the long run?

Who fills that void? China? Russia? India? Mexico or Canada? The E.U.?

I agree it's far fetched - I disagree with it making sense.

So we should fight everybody's wars, rebuild their countries, and train the Authoritarian successors who will take over? All in the name of Democracy? Where has that gotten us?

Yep, bring all troops home. Quit with the supporting of foreign countries, let them kill each other. How effective has this reform the ME been so far? You think the sands are anymore receptive of Democracy now than they were 10 years ago? Bring back all dignitaries and troops, why put them there to be beheaded or held for ransom. Do you see anybody else defending the frigging world? Show me a gain we have made by invading some foreign country at any time and we can discuss that.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 01:58 PM
So we should fight everybody's wars, rebuild their countries, and train the Authoritarian successors who will take over? All in the name of Democracy? Where has that gotten us?

Now where did I post we should do all that?


Yep, bring all troops home. Quit with the supporting of foreign countries, let them kill each other. How effective has this reform the ME been so far? You think the sands are anymore receptive of Democracy now than they were 10 years ago? Bring back all dignitaries and troops, why put them there to be beheaded or held for ransom. Do you see anybody else defending the frigging world? Show me a gain we have made by invading some foreign country at any time and we can discuss that.

That still doesn't answer my question - who fills that void? It'll have consequences that'll definitely have an impact on our future - so it's relevant.

ramone
05-12-2012, 02:04 PM
Now where did I post we should do all that?



That still doesn't answer my question - who fills that void? It'll have consequences that'll definitely have an impact on our future - so it's relevant.

What void needs to be filled? Honestly, there are multiple resources here that could be used. We should not be dependent on any country and we don't have to be. As for the void, and if you are speaking of self defense of our republic then put the money into R&R for self defense. Why give money away in a form of a loan to China when we owe them so much already? I don't generally give money to people I owe money to already. If I do I take it off my debt to them.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 02:17 PM
What void needs to be filled? Honestly, there are multiple resources here that could be used. We should not be dependent on any country and we don't have to be. As for the void, and if you are speaking of self defense of our republic then put the money into R&R for self defense. Why give money away in a form of a loan to China when we owe them so much already? I don't generally give money to people I owe money to already. If I do I take it off my debt to them.

The void of global superpower? If not us, then who? It's gonna get filled one way or the other - surely you can't be so naive that everything would be just fantastic if and when we close up shop abroad and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves?

ramone
05-12-2012, 02:23 PM
The void of global superpower? If not us, then who? It's gonna get filled one way or the other - surely you can't be so naive that everything would be just fantastic if and when we close up shop abroad and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves?

So why do we need a super global power? Isn't this what the UN is trying to do, take over every countries policies and make it some sort of collective? So I assume you believe in the socialism of the world and there should be one ruling faction, just how do you think that will work out?

Please explain your position concerning global domination and why you want to be part of it. Sounds like something out of Batman and Robin or something.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 02:36 PM
So why do we need a super global power? Isn't this what the UN is trying to do, take over every countries policies and make it some sort of collective? So I assume you believe in the socialism of the world and there should be one ruling faction, just how do you think that will work out?

It doesn't matter why just that that void will be filled.

You shouldn't assume anyone else's political or economic ideologies (take this instance for example - you being wrong in your assumptions and all), whatever mine are - they're not relevant to the discussion - they'd be about as irrelevant as a glory hole in Rosie O'Donnell's bathroom as far as the flow of the discussion is going...notice how I didn't ask you about any labels I need to attach to your posts or posting habits?


Please explain your position concerning global domination and why you want to be part of it. Sounds like something out of Batman and Robin or something.

My position, sure - better us than China, better us - than India, better us than the alternative...

I posted global superpower - you're posting global domination, what do you think the differences are between a superpower and a dominator? lol, global dominator (?), that's why it sounds like something out of Batman and Robin.

ramone
05-12-2012, 02:52 PM
It doesn't matter why just that that void will be filled.

Y..notice how I didn't ask you about any labels I need to attach to your posts or posting habits?



My position, sure - better us than China, better us - than India, better us than the alternative...

I posted global superpower - you're posting global domination, what do you think the differences are between a superpower and a dominator? lol, global dominator (?), that's why it sounds like something out of Batman and Robin.


You're the one who brought up the void, aren't you?
What void are you speaking of and why should we fill it with our money and the deaths of our children? We are not doing any good anywhere and we are getting our children who volunteered to defend the US killed, by the way. They did not swear to defend the world, i took the oath and remember it.

So where does it end, with the UN taking over and telling us what we can and can't do. It's almost at that point now.

So you don't think that a global super power dominates? Really? It's the same thing and your thinking is out of a comic book.

Do you stick your nose into your next door neighbor's business? Why do you want to get into other countries business too?

As for posting habits, you can get into mine all you want. :)

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 03:07 PM
You're the one who brought up the void, aren't you?

I did, a void of who'd replace us as the lone global superpower.


What void are you speaking of and why should we fill it with our money and the deaths of our children?

Surely you don't think everyone would just let us go about our day after we'd told them to go fuck themselves after we'd put up a "We're Closed" sign?


We are not doing any good anywhere we are getting our children who volunteered to defend the US by the way.

Well, they like me or even you, volunteered.


They did not swear to defend the world, i took the oath and remember it.

I took two oaths - both of 'em had a lot do with following the orders of those above me.


So where does it end, with the UN taking over and telling us what we can and can't do. It's almost at that point now.
End what, if that void gets filled by communist China? Probably not well for us or our way of life.


So you don't think that a global super power dominates? Really? It's the same thing and your thinking is out of a comic book.

I didn't say it didn't, I did say there's a difference though or rather I asked you what the difference was between 'em - not for a lack of effort but we're not dominating the entire globe right now...


Do you stick your nose into your next door neighbor's business? Why do you want to get into other countries business too?

If it affects me or mine - you betcha. Same reason...


As for posting habits, you can get into mine all you want. :)

I didn't, try and show the same restraint is all I'm saying - more so it's not relevant nor does it add but instead takes away from the discussion - it'd be moot.

Or ask at a later date or make a thread about what're some of the other poster's political and or economical ideologies - then I'll be fine discussing my political or economical ideologies...

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 04:59 PM
And once again you flop, do you seriously believe that the Tea Party caused the downgrade in credit? Just because we disagree does not mean I flop. Where have i ever taken a position in favor of the Tea Party?

I understand the anger, I can't make head or tale out of their "policy".


Maybe reflect to the time that Obama had control of both House and Senate and still never came up with a balanced budget. Many macro-economists agree with you that austerity is needed, but are insistent that austerity should NOT be imposed until more jobs have returned. That is what i believe. Sarkozy is out right now and Merkel is under pressure precisely because the austerity only approach threatens to blow up the EU.


Instead they spent 5 trillion in our tax money on worthless green schemesYour facts are simply dead wrong. What percentage of spending under Obama do you really think went to "green schemed"? 5 trillion?? C'mon! With all due respect, Ramone, that's not even believable hyper-partisan hyperbole


that turned out to be just that. Kickbacks to companies who donated to his campaign. Notice there is still no budget after almost 4 years. Why? http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-13/politics/politics_obama-congress-budget_1_trillion-budget-spending-cuts-federal-budget?_s=PM:POLITICS


Add to that the other bailouts and crap, hell you could have given every American enough money to pay for about any medical cost in the form of a check in the mail. Makes more sense to me than this crap.

My friend the other day told me some off the wall thought. He said:
"if every 5,6,or 7 years take the money we give to foreign countries and split it among the people of the republic. Each family gets their part. It would boost the economy and most likely make instant rich people. Requirement being that you have a job and retain that job, also you must vote in every election. While far fetched, it makes sense in a strange sort of way. I'm for your plan.


In the end your tea part theory is way off base.Not according to S & P, the folks who did the downgrading. You don't believe them?

ramone
05-12-2012, 05:28 PM
I did, a void of who'd replace us as the lone global superpower.



Surely you don't think everyone would just let us go about our day after we'd told them to go fuck themselves after we'd put up a "We're Closed" sign?



Well, they like me or even you, volunteered.



I took two oaths - both of 'em had a lot do with following the orders of those above me.


End what, if that void gets filled by communist China? Probably not well for us or our way of life.



I didn't say it didn't, I did say there's a difference though or rather I asked you what the difference was between 'em - not for a lack of effort but we're not dominating the entire globe right now...



If it affects me or mine - you betcha. Same reason...



I didn't, try and show the same restraint is all I'm saying - more so it's not relevant nor does it add but instead takes away from the discussion - it'd be moot.

Or ask at a later date or make a thread about what're some of the other poster's political and or economical ideologies - then I'll be fine discussing my political or economical ideologies...

So actually you have no response. I'll move on to dsolo now, at least he has a response that is somewhat reasonable. I need to read it and go from there.

ramone
05-12-2012, 05:43 PM
Just because we disagree does not mean I flop. Where have i ever taken a position in favor of the Tea Party?

I understand the anger, I can't make head or tale out of their "policy".

Many macro-economists agree with you that austerity is needed, but are insistent that austerity should NOT be imposed until more jobs have returned. That is what i believe. Sarkozy is out right now and Merkel is under pressure precisely because the austerity only approach threatens to blow up the EU.

Your facts are simply dead wrong. What percentage of spending under Obama do you really think went to "green schemed"? 5 trillion?? C'mon! With all due respect, Ramone, that's not even believable hyper-partisan hyperbole

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-13/politics/politics_obama-congress-budget_1_trillion-budget-spending-cuts-federal-budget?_s=PM:POLITICS

I'm for your plan.

Not according to S & P, the folks who did the downgrading. You don't believe them?

So we agree on a few points, that's good. Now I agree not all the 5 trillion wen to green crap, it did to to crap however, show one good program that had some type benefit from it.

The Tea party is for less government intervention and following the actual meaning of the constitution which is that states rights prevail. What part of that do you not understand? I'm sure there are a couple people here who can enlighten you on that.

S&P really? Trust somebody who controls the pulse of the world with their judgement. NO I don't trust them and why do they have the power to downgrade or upgrade any country? Who decided that they are in charge of our economy and the worlds in fact. Who is S&P for that matter and what stake do they have in this thing and what do they stand to gain from it. I'm quite sure the are not in it for the mention in the papers. It's all money..........so here we, are defend S&P or anyone else you want.

Peter1469
05-12-2012, 07:17 PM
Just because we disagree does not mean I flop. Where have i ever taken a position in favor of the Tea Party?

I understand the anger, I can't make head or tale out of their "policy".

Many macro-economists agree with you that austerity is needed, but are insistent that austerity should NOT be imposed until more jobs have returned. That is what i believe. Sarkozy is out right now and Merkel is under pressure precisely because the austerity only approach threatens to blow up the EU.

Your facts are simply dead wrong. What percentage of spending under Obama do you really think went to "green schemed"? 5 trillion?? C'mon! With all due respect, Ramone, that's not even believable hyper-partisan hyperbole

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-13/politics/politics_obama-congress-budget_1_trillion-budget-spending-cuts-federal-budget?_s=PM:POLITICS

I'm for your plan.

Not according to S & P, the folks who did the downgrading. You don't believe them?




Just because we disagree does not mean I flop. Where have i ever taken a position in favor of the Tea Party?

I understand the anger, I can't make head or tale out of their "policy". Their policy is to follow the Constitution given to us by our Founders. Limited government and all that.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-12-2012, 07:42 PM
So actually you have no response. I'll move on to dsolo now, at least he has a response that is somewhat reasonable. I need to read it and go from there.

You mean you don't have an answer...lallygagging side stepping aside - instead of answering anything your tactic was to answer a question with a question then assume someone else's economic ideology incorrectly as if that would reinforce nothing at all...

Good job.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 07:51 PM
Their policy is to follow the Constitution given to us by our Founders. Limited government and all that.Pete, to assume that is NOT everyone's plan is creating the problem. No one is attributing any good faith to any one, all are insisting that only they are true patriots, and with what do we end up? A polarized, weakened nation, and gridlock - benefiting, wait for it, the monied interests that everyone agrees is corrupting both public and private sectors.

Peter1469
05-12-2012, 08:16 PM
Pete, to assume that is NOT everyone's plan is creating the problem. No one is attributing any good faith to any one, all are insisting that only they are true patriots, and with what do we end up? A polarized, weakened nation, and gridlock - benefiting, wait for it, the monied interests that everyone agrees is corrupting both public and private sectors.

It clearly is not most people's plan. How else would you explain our federal government spending over $1.3T per year for the last three years over tax revenues? If our Congress had even the slightest concept of the Constitution, federal spending would be a very small fraction of what it is today. No sir: our leaders know exactly what they are doing, and it is contrary to Constitutional authority.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 08:45 PM
It clearly is not most people's plan. How else would you explain our federal government spending over $1.3T per year for the last three years over tax revenues? If our Congress had even the slightest concept of the Constitution, federal spending would be a very small fraction of what it is today. No sir: our leaders know exactly what they are doing, and it is contrary to Constitutional authority.Pete, in our chats with each other, we've both acknowledged that the view of the Constitution that you, and the Tea Party hold to be the correct view is not the view of the Supreme Court. In other words, it is not the law of the land.

From that vantage point, only those Dems, Republicans and other citizens who actually credit the Founders' decision to entrust cases and controversies to the Supreme Court, and to make Federal Law supreme, can claim to be our Constitution's greatest protector.

Do I say this to condemn you and the Tea Party? No. My only reason for so saying is this: Both "sides" either attribute good faith to each other and move to pragmatic compromises, or the nation as such will inevitably have a great fall. Those, I believe are the plain and undisputed facts.

Very well-respected macro economists believe that in the rare situation in which we now find ourselves, in this blue moon of fiscal seasons, there needs to be a mix of well-timed stimulus and austerity. Because this does not happen every day, nobody knows for certain what will happen with any approach. Nobody should be feeling very cocky and certain of the rightness of their position. To assume the President and the experts he favors wish to destroy this nation, is irrational and unwarranted in the extreme. Don't drink the partisan kool-aid! If the downgrading of our national credit standing by S & P shows anything, it shows a failure of our whoring parties to cooperate with each other in itself can hasten this country's downfall.

Peter1469
05-12-2012, 09:09 PM
Pete, in our chats with each other, we've both acknowledged that the view of the Constitution that you, and the Tea Party hold to be the correct view is not the view of the Supreme Court. In other words, it is not the law of the land.

From that vantage point, only those Dems, Republicans and other citizens who actually credit the Founders' decision to entrust cases and controversies to the Supreme Court, and to make Federal Law supreme, can claim to be our Constitution's greatest protector.

Do I say this to condemn you and the Tea Party? No. My only reason for so saying is this: Both "sides" either attribute good faith to each other and move to pragmatic compromises, or the nation as such will inevitably have a great fall. Those, I believe are the plain and undisputed facts.

Very well-respected macro economists believe that in the rare situation in which we now find ourselves, in this blue moon of fiscal seasons, there needs to be a mix of well-timed stimulus and austerity. Because this does not happen every day, nobody knows for certain what will happen with any approach. Nobody should be feeling very cocky and certain of the rightness of their position. To assume the President and the experts he favors wish to destroy this nation, is irrational and unwarranted in the extreme. Don't drink the partisan kool-aid! If the downgrading of our national credit standing by S & P shows anything, it shows a failure of our whoring parties to cooperate with each other in itself can hasten this country's downfall.





Very well-respected macro economists believe that in the rare situation in which we now find ourselves, in this blue moon of fiscal seasons, there needs to be a mix of well-timed stimulus and austerity.

But we don't agree that stimulus = tax increases. Tax cuts have stimulated the economy in the past.

dsolo802
05-12-2012, 10:42 PM
But we don't agree that stimulus = tax increases. Tax cuts have stimulated the economy in the past.If stimulus works, there will be more revenue - coupled with austerity equals less debt.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy on the consumption side but won't help with job creation unless there is demand. I'm pretty sure because of corruption of market forces demand has been "artificially" depressed.

In any case, I'd like for someone to explain to me why we don't provide a tax break based on actual job creation - looking backward, you know, at actual job creation. As opposed to providing a tax break on the theory that a job will be created in the future.

Could you take a crack at helping me to understand why we can't approach it that way?

Peter1469
05-12-2012, 11:38 PM
If stimulus works, there will be more revenue - coupled with austerity equals less debt.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy on the consumption side but won't help with job creation unless there is demand. I'm pretty sure because of corruption of market forces demand has been "artificially" depressed.

In any case, I'd like for someone to explain to me why we don't provide a tax break based on action job creation - looking backward, you know, at actual job creation. As opposed to providing a tax break on the theory that a job will be created in the future.

Could you take a crack at helping me to understand why we can't approach it that way?
I agree with your idea on tax breaks for job creation.

dsolo802
05-13-2012, 12:05 AM
I agree with your idea on tax breaks for job creation.It is certainly worth a try. If this break, and like breaks, do not actually kick in unless the supposed benefit actually materializes, I just don't see any down side. It seems to me that is one approach for which there could be very broad and deep bi-partisan support.

dsolo802
05-13-2012, 12:11 AM
What about forgiveness of student loan debt in exchange for participation in a nation-wide apprenticeship / guild program.

This is still kind of half-baked notion, but i'm imagining a program by which graduating college students attempting to get real world experience in their chosen field could effectively work as interns in the private sector. Domestic business would get the services of smart college students "for a song", students could effectively work off their debt and gain valuable real-world experience, and our nation would not be suffering the loss of a generation, which now is increasingly looking to China for their first market place experience.

Peter1469
05-13-2012, 08:04 AM
What about forgiveness of student loan debt in exchange for participation in a nation-wide apprenticeship / guild program.

This is still kind of half-baked notion, but i'm imagining a program by which graduating college students attempting to get real world experience in their chosen field could effectively work as interns in the private sector. Domestic business would get the services of smart college students "for a song", students could effectively work off their debt and gain valuable real-world experience, and our nation would not be suffering the loss of a generation, which now is increasingly looking to China for their first market place experience.

It is a good idea. There is a similar program in the law field that you may have heard of. If you take certain public interest law jobs you can get some student loan relief. Being a prosecutor or defense attorney in the JAG Corps counted so I got $5K of my law school debt forgiven. It is a way of getting people into lots of hard to fill positions. Doctors do it as well, to encourage people to work in rural areas that don't have enough docs.

ramone
05-13-2012, 12:56 PM
What about forgiveness of student loan debt in exchange for participation in a nation-wide apprenticeship / guild program.

This is still kind of half-baked notion, but i'm imagining a program by which graduating college students attempting to get real world experience in their chosen field could effectively work as interns in the private sector. Domestic business would get the services of smart college students "for a song", students could effectively work off their debt and gain valuable real-world experience, and our nation would not be suffering the loss of a generation, which now is increasingly looking to China for their first market place experience.

I'll agree with Peter and say that it is a good idea and would benefit everyone. Remember Doc Hollywood, good movie and that's what he did. My problem is that the academic standards are falling here and the dumbing down of the system with such things as "Everyone gets a blue ribbon" contests do not provide for any type competition. The smart kids may not be there for long and I'm looking for the world to look like that other movie "Idiocracy". I'm worried about our future generations and how the can and will cope with rejection after all this pc, you are all the same crap. I'm getting off track here so, I'll agree with your point and move on.