|
10774. Wombat - 3/7/2013 8:06:59 PM Jen,
When you have Republican activists threatening primary challenges to the few Republican legislators who are considering compromising with the Obama administration, it is not difficult to figure out who is the former and who is the latter.
The author of your piece--unsurprisingly--omits the fact that the Clinton administration deregulated the financial sector with the pressure and encouragement of the financial sector itself. The results of free-er market capitalism, which the author plainly favors, were disastrous, as even you should admit. 10775. Jenerator - 3/7/2013 9:44:59 PM Wombat,
The commander in chief of our country is threatening us every week! The blatant lies coming from him regarding the sequester (to start) are more radical than Republican activists. Seriously, it's become the Demagoguing Party!
And as for the piece above, I can't argue that we're still in a recession.
Obama's spending is absolutely out of control, and that for me, MUST be acknowledged and dealt with.
The Republicans need get back to the party principles. Government spending needs to be controlled regardless of political affiliation. 10776. Wombat - 3/7/2013 10:24:35 PM Jen,
I don't see how you can fault the President for holding the Republican Congress to what they agreed to, and then explaining what the consequences will be. The sequester was supposed to be so awful that both sides would have to agree to a more constructive plan to reduce spending and raise revenue.
It was also in response to the Republicans refusing to meet the country's obligations by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, an unprecedented action that actually harmed the economy by reducing the US's bond rating.
You need to recognize that there are members of the Republican Party who are ideologically opposed to the social programs introduced by Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and augmented by their successors (of both parties). If the Republicans were truly interested in addressing these problems, they could be addressed. President Obama has repeatedly shown by his words and deeds that he will accept cuts to social programs, as long as they are accompanied by increased revenue.
Instead we are stuck with one side listening (and some no doubt actually agreeing with them) to idiots who want everyone's benefits cut but their own. "Keep the government out of my Medicare." Until that element is neutralized, there will not be a comprehensive agreement. They might take the Republican Party down with them, which may be a good thing at this point. Unfortunately, the country also has to suffer. 10777. Wombat - 3/7/2013 10:30:36 PM It's almost too bad the Republicans didn't follow through with their idea of giving the President the authority to implement the sequester as he saw fit. Obama wouldn't have done done it, but it would have been a useful exercise to have the weight of the sequester fall on the "red" states, who say that the Federal government is too large. Ironically, most of them receive more from the Federal government than they put in. 10778. judithathome - 3/7/2013 10:57:55 PM And we have no idea how the sequester will go...it's just a week in and these cuts have yet to register...get back to us after a couple of months.
And it might surprise you, Jen, to know that Obama has reduced the national debt...not run it up to dizzying heights.
A fact like that escapes notice in all the sound and fury coming from the right. 10779. thoughtful - 3/8/2013 12:12:30 AM Jen, re bush tax cuts and the deficits, there's a reason why the bush tax cuts had to expire...it was due to the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule allows the senate to block a piece of legislation that substantially increases the deficit beyond 10 years. So going into this, they knew that the deficit increases from the bush tax cuts would be substantial. And the only way they could get it to pass was to avoid the byrd rule and make it expire before the 10 years was up. It was not a mystery when it was passed that it was a budget buster, and it still isn't. And that was without the cost of the wars. And that was after bush passed the budget busting medicare rx entitlement.
If you want objective analysis on the budget, look to the congressional budget office. Their stuff is available on line. 10780. bhelpuri - 3/8/2013 2:53:44 PM Wombat,
1)It is undeniable that Lula and Chavez shared a set of aims and impulses, which the former was able to pursue with much greater success...have you read Lula's farewell to his 'compadre'?
2) I agree that Chavez failed much more than he succeeded, and tilted buffoonishly at countless windmills thus wasting time and energy and money (though the Bolivar memorial is only an inconsequentially tiny drop in this ocean). But he also led and embodied a potentially decisive historical shift away from business as usual in Venezuela - with many appreciable positive aspects embedded - and I find it hard to understand why Yanquis of all political stripes are denying this so very vociferously. Kindly address the points in this quite balanced piece, for example.
3) You're patently unfair - while resisting all available evidence - to damn Chavez as an opportunist beyond ideology. That's simply not true (as both pieces I've linked agree).
And it is similarly untrue that the current crop of "populist leaders in Latin America" - who I allegedly have a soft spot for - is indistinguishable from the caudillos of the past, who personalized rule and left no viable institutions in their wake. That seems more nervous Yanqui whistling in the dark, as history and the immediate neighborhood churns away from their control.
Of course time will tell on this one, but to the extent it already has - you're clearly and comprehensively wrong!
10781. bhelpuri - 3/8/2013 3:01:40 PM Obama may not be the Messiah that Jenerator has been looking for (but he probably resembles the historical Jesus much more than any of her preferred pics), but this dude has certainly played American politics amazingly well since re-election. From this distance, it seems his main opponents have basically self-destructed in plain sight, reduced to delay, sabotage and destruction at the fringes, while the main juggernaut rolls ahead quite effortlessly. Can anyone sane imagine any Republican taking over at the next election? I think we're looking at a full generation of Democrat dominance of the Presidency... 10782. Jenerator - 3/8/2013 6:56:53 PM Word on the street is that they're grooming Ted Cruz.
I'd take him over Rick Perry! 10783. judithathome - 3/8/2013 7:09:47 PM Well, Jen, you may get part of your wish...there are a few Democratic senators retiring and I expect the Republicans will take over the senate in 2014.
So just bide your time...if you think things are bad now, just wait until the lunatics take over the Senate. Of course, that won't bother you at all because you're still young but my advice to you is: make sure you are saving for retirement and have very good health insurance.
I seriously doubt you'll be seeing a President Cruz (or Rubio) anytime soon....and I can guarantee there will never be a President Perry.
10784. Wombat - 3/11/2013 12:59:04 AM You won't be seeing President Cruz at all. He is by birth a Canadian. 10785. Wombat - 3/11/2013 1:48:15 AM Bhel,
The ideological spectacles you are viewing all of this through have been overtaken by events. At this point, very few significant political actors in the United States particularly care about what goes on in Latin America, as long as immigration remains somewhat under control, and the flow of drugs doesn't become too broad a stream.
The United States was happy to trade with Brazil under the Socialist Lula, and Venezuela under the buffoon-ish Chavez (they didn't have a problem with it either).
Lula's op-ed was a funeral oration: was he going to openly damn Chavez in Venezuela? The criticisms that made it into his op-ed are significant enough, however diplomatically stated.
Likewise the other piece. It's not really necessary to respond to the author's points (you did read the piece, didn't you?) He praises Chavez for effectively doing the same thing that his predecessors did, only with a different class of Venezuelans than before. Ok fine, but the author doesn't really describe a concrete benefit from this. Same with Latin American unity. It would probably be a good thing, but it has been an elusive goal for almost two centuries, and I can think of a few countries that would be unwilling to participate under the aegis of Chavez-inspired initiative. By contrast, the author's criticisms of Chavez are discouragingly concrete; Venezuela's problems, which he did little to address and more to exacerbate, will be there long after the histrionics and flowery tributes are forgotten.
Another thing that you don't seem to think much about is Cuba, and what will happen after Castro dies (assuming he gets around to it at some point). I doubt that the Miami wet-dream of a triumphant return of the exiles--and the white terror that will restore everything to the way it was before--will happen. I don't doubt that the regime--absent its "maximum lider"--will devolve into something less than the totalitarian system that it is today. At some point, it will emerge from credible sources that Cuba under Castro was far from the Socialist paradise that all Castro's South American fan-boys believed it to be (assuming they actually did, and weren't defending him out of a sense of solidarity in the face of Yanqui criticism). The Cubans themselves might discover that they have been in some peculiar 1960's time-warp and wonder why countries that were far less "progressive" than Cuba have comparatively vibrant economies and societies. They will not be happy about this, and the regime will have to figure out a way to deal with it. 10786. thoughtful - 3/11/2013 1:37:00 PM Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so I'm sure he'll be considered eligible, esp by the birthers!
You'd think they'd learn by now that when you point a finger at someone else, you've got 3 fingers pointed at yourself! 10787. Wombat - 3/11/2013 3:28:07 PM Kenya, Canada, much of a muchness. After all, they were both British colonies! 10788. judithathome - 3/11/2013 6:56:44 PM He is by birth a Canadian
Does that make him an iceback?
Yes, I know that was tacky but the birthers seem to have problems with people not born here. Unless, as Thoughtful says, they make allowances for those they like. 10789. thoughtful - 3/12/2013 1:35:01 PM IOKIYAR...it's OK if you're a republican 10790. alistairconnor - 3/14/2013 12:42:06 PM 
The Vatican owns apartments just upstairs from Italy's biggest gay sauna. When this news became public, the sauna announced that "this in no way constitutes an endorsement on our part of the Catholic lifestyle".
10791. thoughtful - 3/19/2013 12:12:07 AM This Ohio rape case is stunning...I haven't been following it at all, but since the verdict, it's come up on another forum....what the heck is the judge doing saying the lesson from this case is for parents to teach children about what to post on the internet and social media??? Wouldn't you rather have perps post their crimes? If they hadn't, this case would've never been prosecuted.
And what they did to that gal was disgusting. Include a comment by one guy, not yet prosecuted, saying that maybe she's dead as she didn't react at all when they violated her! She was unconscious for who knows how long and they didn't even know if she was dead and they did nothing!!!
If this isn't proof that it ain't all about guns and a lot about a society that has a need to teach empathy, compassion and how to deal with anger, I don't know what is... 10792. Wombat - 3/19/2013 1:18:11 AM The advent of the Internet and all its communication and social media sites has certainly increased the size of Darwin's waiting room! 10793. arkymalarky - 3/19/2013 1:32:05 AM The law takes practical steps To protect society and reduce risk. This case is an example of actual progress with prosecution And a shift in attitudes toward exploitation of women. That kind of behavior at one time would not have resulted in any action. When I was in high school and college It was called pulling a train. And no, I never had direct experience with it, But Heard of several instances after-the-fact. Whether or not there should be Limits on Gun ownership is a completely separate issue from whether we can mitigate the cruelties evident in human nature As we become more educated and civilized.
You seem to be awfully prone to be shocked At human behavior not to see Any need for regulations on access they have to Instruments that can do damage.
|
