Government Shutdown

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Boxer and Feinstein have ramped up the Obama reelection campaign efforts in the land of fruits and nuts. Submits pics upon request. Qdaffy gives Obama a warm fuzzy feeling when they kiss and Obama bows.
 
Obamas book made reference to his father who was not an American citizen, but a man in black from Kenya. Kinda like Johnny, but not as much scotch. When pops was tossed from Harvard due to 'certificate' issues, Obama was conceived while dad was realing as a expuled student in 'lulu and learned by the age of 14 cocaine was a way to escape into neverneverand. Basically He learned to lie like every junkie should.

-Neil Young

His name was...I don't know what his name was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKyj1Zy1GR4&feature=related

 


Obama is not practicing "Reagonomics" or "supply side" economics - he is applying Keynesian economics theory, which is nearly the opposite of supply side economics.

Keynesian economics believes that a large GOVERNMENT infusion of spending can in a sense "kick-start" the economy to get it going. It has for the most part been disproven although some economists like those advising our president unfortunately, still believe it is a viable, functional theory. I think we have proven categorically that it doesn't work by wasting nearly a trillion dollars on Obama's Keynesian experiment.

Regan and supply-side theorists want to put money directly into private business hands to spur the economy, mostly by reducing taxes and regulation. This system has been very successful not only in the US but in other countries where it is consistently applied. Though if it is not skillfully applied it diminishes the success factor.
 


I like the fact that Trump has some ideas that are different from the status quo. I think it might be to our advantage to be a little more protective of our economy - look at Japan for example. They have several protectionist measures in place to protect their economy and they do work to an extent (though Japan's economy is not doing well right now due to several factors).

While I do not want Trump for president, I do think that he has some savvy business experience and knows how to make deals that work. I like that he has new ideas to improve our economy. We need people who rattle the cage a little bit.
 
Obama does a good job of commenting on Obama bin Ladin's capture. It is the foundation that George Bush laid that facilitated Bin Ladin's capture/death. Obama had little to do with it. As much as he has blamed George Bush for every problem imaginable, he of course takes no time to give any credit to Bush.
 


First and only Al Queda enemy taken down in nearly two and half years. Obama is good at taking credit, but will not take responsibility for his and his administrations poor approval ratings and outright failed policy. He is quick to place blame on others should his poor judgemnt and lack of rectitide be called into question. First debates this week. First primarys are eight months away. Obama's approval rating has been dismal for the past two years. His explanation for his dismal approval rating, Fox News causes it. He will remain the same old eitist rubbish policy making, undue credit taking sponge He has been since day one.
 
9-12-08bud-f2.jpg




Dubs 'cut and ran' from Afghanistan to his folly in Iraq (leading to a resurgence of the Taliban).

Obama nearly tripled deployments of US troops to Afghanistan, and accelerated UAV attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Any more history you care to revise?
 
While it was true we were thin in troops in Afgan, our allies held serve for a time, and still help to this day.
Concentrating on Iran was Dubyas mission, once it could be turned down, the heat was shifted to Afgah/taliban.
If anyone thinks this wasnt always in the cards, they dont know their history.
 
Afghanistan is Obama's war. He is responsible for the situation and it's his baby. Same with Libya. What happened to his his campaign promise regarding U.S. military involvement in the middle east other than it being just another example of his poor judgement and lack of rectitude. I have friends who voted for Obama because he promised to bring the troops home including their son in six months. They are busy writing their congrressman complaining about Obama's promises. You know who they are voting for in 2012.
 
The structure of what were doing now was set long ago, and no president wants a Korea or a Vietnam on their watch.
Libya is a different matter altogether, but even that and the current middle east/arab scenario was started long ago.
When the people are no longer able to be lied to, when other worlds are introduced to them, via the internet,tv etc, they revolt.
The for soviet union is one example of this. Tho, Chernobyl, high debt and taxation, due to huge military needs, the lack of military pay and the loss of respect in country, such as losing a nuke sub etc etc
Seeing the UAE, the Saudis, it has to have an effect on those in other countries
Iran may try to shut down any non Iranian internet, much like Chinas, but worse, where the great wall is Chinas "firewall" on their internet
These governments are already somewhat shutdown, for the "betterment" of the people, of course
 


This will be a first, I actually agree with Wisecracker's written statement sans the history revision remark and cut and run remark(and the graph). Obama does deserve credit for trying to stabilize Afghanistan and he does deserve credit for getting Bin Ladin on his watch. But clearly the foundation was laid by Bush. You may criticize Bush for many things, but cutting and running would be the least credible. Bush had laid out plans to send more troops to Afghanistan and these were handed down to Obama. Still, I agree that Obama deserves the lion's share of the credit because he is in charge now.

Concerning the pie chart, I doubt seriously that it is accurate. One glaring error would be that tax cuts have contributed nearly half of the 2011 budget deficit. I am not sure if we have ever had tax cuts that large (based on a yearly accounting percentage). I also wonder if that number takes into account the business stimulation in the economy that the Bush tax cuts have produced. Remember also Wisecracker that the Democrat controlled Congress and Obama decided to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for several years and negotiated to keep them in place at the House Republican majority's insistence. Obama could have vetoed the legislation that kept the tax cuts in place. The simple truth is, the tax cuts are not the major problem with the budget.

A second glaring error would be the discretionary spending slice of the pie chart. Obama has increased discretionary spending astronomically with his "stimulus" package. A 5% number cannot be accurate when he spent nearly a trillion dollars on the stimulus in one year.
 


Hmm, didn't Senator Obama (flip-flopper 'nonpareil' for those who passed French 101) also vote against funding the Afghanistan war? He certainly came out vehemently against the Iraq troop surge, as proposed by Gen. Petraeus some 4 years ago:

Obama: Iraq Troop Surge Isn't Working

By Josh Rogers on Friday, July 20, 2007

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Democrat Barack Obama said the nation's choices in Iraq are limited to bad and worse options.
New Hampshire Public Radio's Josh Rogers reports.

Obama told the crowd of more than 500 people that nobody wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq more than he does, but doing so will require voters to pressure Senate Republicans, including New Hampshire Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu, to break with President Bush.

Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
Click to expand...

The trouble with B.O. is that he's learning on the job. By the time he gets to GW Bush's level of understanding & competence, we'll probably be 2 presidents down the road, plus he'll have decided to copy Bush policy line by line - and probably change his name to B.O. Bush 😀.
 
I have discussed how Obama's and the Democrat's draconian lust for government regulation is killing the United States economy, here is a first-hand example:

"(Manchester, NH)The federal government's new "catch share" system has been literally killing off the state's 400-year-old commercial fishing industry, fishermen and state experts told a panel of federal officials yesterday.

The controversial method of allocating who can catch fish has cost the state's only fishing cooperative, located in Seabrook harbor, $750,000 in business, and cut the number of fishermen landing catches by two-thirds. It has killed off fishing jobs and exacted a high price on the lives of the men of the state's fishing fleet — resulting in suicides and divorces.

READ MORE: GlouchesterTimes "

The link for the full story is here: http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1693503301/N-H-fishermen-plead-for-changes-in-regulations

This is a real-time story of how new Democrat / Obama government regulations are killing off a major industry and the aftermath of their "scorched earth" over-regulation has caused a rise in suicides and divorces.

This of course will greatly affect the entire economy in that region because it depends on the fishing industry.

If you think that this example is severe, it is nothing compared to what would happen if "global warming," "cap and trade" carbon credit taxation was enacted. It would literally destroy our economy and result in an obscene landfall of tax income to the government out of the private sector which is already heavily taxed.

For those of you with liberal leanings - seeing is believing. This is an example that cannot be ignored that the Democrat dream of an all powerful government will destroy the nation that we love.
 
So, you are saying let the big guys do whatever they want at he expense of the American peoples' asses'?

When people say regulation is killing the economy is like saying the 10 Commandments are destroying people.
 


Interesting statement and really it is well said. I know that this thread is long because it deals with a very complex subject, but earlier in it I made that point that we do need government regulation of some kind, but it should be limited and surgical. Limited regulation would deal with only those things that are necessary to deal with and it would not necessarily be on the books forever. The problem now is that we have hundreds of thousands of regulations - many of which are not needed and are out-dated. I doubt that we even know comprehensively all of the government regulations.

I think all of us can agree that a pure "laissez-faire" regulation policy does not work and it was the policy of the United States for many decades. History proved that it does not work and some government regulation is needed.

Also keep in mind that the fishing industry being destroyed by these federal regulations in this example is a small business in New Hampshire - not a "big guy" by any definition. These fishermen are being driven out of business and it is all they know. Some of them are killing themselves.

An example of the "big guys" that you are talking about would be the recent banking and loan crisis caused by "derivative" portfolios made up of real estate loans which were marketed inaccurately as A+ risks. Large financial institutions put together huge blocks of home loans and commercial loans, many of them insolvent, and sold them as top rated securities.

In this case the federal response (passed by Democrats) is a vast new set of federal regulations that are spread out like buckshot from a shotgun that hit everything. There are new bank regulations, real estate regulations, mortgage broker regulations, home evaluation regulations, etc. Some of these regulations are well thought out but most of them don't deal with the original problem and they are hurting several industries. This is what I mean when I say that government regulation should be surgical - it should deal with a specific problem.

Currently there are several lawsuits concerning these new regulations and they are hurting several industries. They are also limiting banks restrictively from issuing home loans to credit worthy people. This in turn drags down the economy. This causes less income to the government, which causes shortfalls. The government then responds with deficit spending which is what this thread is really about. Disagreement over government spending is why government shutdowns are being considered.

The Ten Commandments by the way are brilliantly surgical. They each dealt with a necessary function for the Jewish society to function. Many of our nation's laws were based on the model of the 10 Commandments because for any society to function there are certain basic principles that must be adhered to, i.e. not stealing from one another, not murdering one another, not lying to one another, etc.
 


Sorry, I did not get that form your last post.

I have also made it a point that the average American should be the Regulatory Commission for the United states. Reason being is that the people can see trouble and will deal with it, but it is too complex.

Let me start with the Arline Industry.

Before Carter,( and his successor R. Regan), there were 11 major US air carriers. Now, we only have 3 major carriers.( notice I say Major). Anyways. Carter felt that it was the best interest to deregulate the AI to provide lax business for the PAX. This included removing antitrust laws and lower FAA inspections and watchdogs over the carriers. This would, in theory, lower operation expenses and promote competition while the fares would lower due to competition. The end result is what we have...crappy service, breaking planes, bad piloting skills, low/crappy wadges and pilot benefits, bankrupting airlines...the list goes on.

I cannot see how removing regulation to help business when in fact it saves it form itself. Again with the AI. What seems to be lower fares has turned to hidden expenses. They can do whatever the hell they want to the flyer. Also, each airline is dooming itself in the aviation community.
 


Again you make an excellent point - you do your own thinking and that is refreshing. The question then becomes, why has deregulation seemingly degraded the average person's airline experience? This is a complex puzzle, because airlines are not your everyday business.

First, deregulation unquestionably did lower the cost to the consumer through competition. Before deregulation, flying was reserved for the well-off within the continental US and to the wealthy for foreign travel. Today we often see flights across the US for as little as $200.00 and foreign flights (to Europe) for $600.00 because of competition. So lower costs to the consumer were a benefit.

Second, (accepting your numbers) why did 11 major airlines go to 3 after deregulation. Quite simply because eight of the 11 were not prepared to compete well in an open market. Therefore many merged or went bankrupt. Despite the apparent loss of competition, prices still went down. Well-run airlines like Southwest Airlines, continue to make money and expand, despite turbulent economic conditions. Poorly run airlines are driven out of business. This is a necessary function of open market competition. Through this competition, everything is refined to a better state. True you seemingly had many more perks and better customer service in many cases before deregulation, but you paid through the nose for it - three to four times as much in today's dollars.

Third, safety and quality standards were not deregulated - the government is even more involved now than it was before deregulation. I know you mention less FFA oversight - but that is not what has occurred. And so if you question today's safety and quality standards, then you must question the competency of government regulation because deregulation did not change government oversight of these issues.

Fourth, you don't really remember but airlines were much more controlling of passengers before deregulation than now if you factor out the terrorism controls that have been put in place. The extreme "security" policies that we witness today have nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with airline safety (required because of terrorism). Airlines really have never been a haven of high customer service (Southwest Airlines excepted).

BTW, I actually think that the FAA is one government oversight agency that is semi-functional which is saying a lot because many are dysfunctional.

When you consider government oversight / regulation of anything, one must always operate from the basic premise that government does nothing well - I repeat nothing. Time and space limit me from giving dozens of examples. Therefore government oversight of anything is rarely effectual. However, it is necessary to some degree and it does provide some level or protection for the consumer.

I own a construction company and on major projects I have to get government "inspections" for different phases of the project. I consider these to be a nuisance - my quality standards far exceed their inspection standards. While these inspectors do provide a limited standard of quality by enforcing construction codes - they rarely are competent enough to really provide any real quality control for a major project. In fact, when major failures occur in construction, over and over again it is found that government oversight not only did not prevent them, they were oblivious to any problems at all. So if you ever build anything significant - DON'T trust quality control to the government and don't rely on government inspections. They do help, but not much.

In the construction industry, EVERY major company I have ever been involved with provide standards of safety and quality control far in excess of what government required. I say this because I do no equate the building code process to government. Private sector experts have developed building codes through practical real-world experience. And these codes have been collected through organizations like the UBC (now extinct) and IBC - not government.

For example, in Arizona ALL tile installation standards have come from the private sector tile industry itself. These standards are then adopted into formal codes over time by city and state governments and organizations like the IBC. But they came from privately owned tile companies. Competition and liability (yes lawyers - ugh) force construction industries to monitor their own quality and safety control.

Government IS useful in policing unqualified contractors and getting them out of business - however they don't do this very well either. However, one of the legitimate Constitutional powers of government is policing various issues. Private construction companies cannot be expected to police unscrupulous contractors from operating - they don't have that power.


I have a dream (really 🙂 ). I truly believe that government oversight of private sector business could be done in a much more efficient and effective way. I think that we need "think tanks" to explore innovative ways for government to get out of the way when it should and provide necessary (and Constitutional) police protection where it is required.

Most of the time, private-sector business is best served by government getting out of the way and not interfering. Conservatives understand this.

 
I see your point flong, however, while you may see it as a benefit for deregulation, just remember that airlines are loosing more money than under regulation.

Reason they are burning more fuel for less passengers. The PAX does not get full and those 'cheap' tickets are wasted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom