ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Sept 10, 2011 16:56:15 GMT -5
Find a way to make gasoline cheaper by $1 per gallon. THAT will energize the economy. Obama won't make that happen. Remember that he had no problem with 4 dollar gasoline. I guess he wants his Muslim brothers to be raking in the case.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Sept 10, 2011 17:04:02 GMT -5
Will someone please let me know when DJLungrot actually has something intelligent to say? I'm getting tired of all my opponents stooping to either ad hominen attacks or deflections in their sad and ineffective attempts to counter my positions. nice inoculation. i would be happy to discuss it. so, you really think Obama is more invective than Maxine Waters? is he more divisive than Rush Limbaugh? how about that Savage guy- the one that invented a new meaning for Santorum. Obama is more divisive than him? no, ameiko. Obama is one of the LEAST divisive people out there, imo. the problem is that this appeasing cloying crap he has been doing is NOT LEADERSHIP. he is more a follower.....not.....good. but hey, you are entitled to your opinion. even if you can't or won't support it. Not an opinion but a FACT as I have shown but doling out a ton of information which you chose to ignore since it does not fit your wrong views. Seriously, after all that violent and confontational rhetoric that I pointed out, that you can claim that Obama is the LEAST divisive person out there shows that you are a complete and total... oh wait, I can't say what it is that you since the truth and facts are not consider a defense against supposed CoC violations. The sad thing is that people like you can vote. Ok, trying to be nice here, please tell me and the rest of the class HOW Obama is the least divisive when he is: Mr. "We Won" Mr. "Elections have consequences" Mr. "Boot on the throat of BP" Mr. "Get in your neighbor's face" Mr. "Bring a gun to a knife fight", "Kicks some ass", "Get in the back of the bus", "It's all Bush's and the GOP's fault", etc... As well as demonizing bankers, slandering doctors as hacking off limbs to get a higher reimbursement, whining about people clinging to "their God and guns", chastising America that we eat too much and use too much energy, after acknowledging that he knows nothing about the situation in Harvard, he still condemns the white cop over the black professor, claims that his opponents will mention not only his funny name but, "hey, he's black!" And FAR FAR MORE! So, please, enlighten us how he is the LEAST DIVISIVE PERSON OUT THERE!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2011 19:43:21 GMT -5
So, please, enlighten us how he is the LEAST DIVISIVE PERSON OUT THERE!!! so, do you always rely on straw man arguments, or just usually? i never said he is THE LEAST. i either said he was "among the least" or "one of the least". i don't even have to look it up, because i rarely, IF EVER, talk in absolutes. i think that Obama has at least attempted to bridge the divide on a number of subjects that i honestly can't even REMEMBER presidents tackling since the civil rights era. if he didn't get it perfect on issues of race and religion, it was at least well intentioned, and at times eloquent. i also believe, sincerely, that he has attempted to work with the GOP minority when they were a minority. i think that was a serious mistake, personally, as they had no intention of working with him- and he was absolutely wrong to think that his interest in doing so, alone, would win them over. now i will go back and review your post for specific examples. i just had to address your concluding remark, first.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2011 19:58:26 GMT -5
Not an opinion but a FACT as I have shown but doling out a ton of information which you chose to ignore since it does not fit your wrong views. my views are shaped by what i read and how i think, ameiko. that includes the bulletin boards, as i typically will not even discuss issues that i am not still "debating" internally. but they are no more wrong or right than yours. and to simply hold your nose and dismiss them as being from a thoughtless, biased and impenetrable is not only unfair, it is totally false.Seriously, after all that violent and confontational rhetoric that I pointed out, that you can claim that Obama is the LEAST divisive person out there shows that you are a complete and total... there you go again- making shit up. i never said he was "the least" divisive. oh wait, I can't say what it is that you since the truth and facts are not consider a defense against supposed CoC violations. i can't figure out what this means in English. no comment at this time.The sad thing is that people like you can vote. the sad thing is that people (exactly) like you can type.Ok, trying to be nice here, please tell me and the rest of the class HOW Obama is the least divisive when he is: you keep repeating that canard. but i will take these on, anyway.Mr. "We Won" the last time i checked, winning is not violent. i can win this argument without hurting you. i can win at cards without hurting my son. i can win at bingo without hurting anyone.Mr. "Elections have consequences" again, everything has consequences. how is that violent rhetoric? how is that divisive? it is just a simple fact.Mr. "Boot on the throat of BP" ok, this is tough. he also said he would kick some ass. that was tough too. but it was no tougher than what Bush said about AQ. and it was in perfect accord with the way most Americans were feeling. was it "good" to merely echo American anger? no. it was not good. it is far better to appeal to calm and to appeal to reason. but only great leaders do that. not average ones. Mr. "Get in your neighbor's face" i have no context for this quote.Mr. "Bring a gun to a knife fight i read about this one last night. there is a difference between a political speech to your own party, and a speech in the national interests. i am perfectly capable of separating those two things. i think most people are. what you say to your team at halftime is quite different than what you say to your opponents after the game.
in addition, there are two ways of interpreting this remark, even within context. if you bring a gun to a knife fight, there is a very good chance the knife fight might never happen.", "Kicks some ass", "Get in the back of the bus", "It's all Bush's and the GOP's fault", etc... i already addressed most of this grab bag. your last paragraph requires a separate post.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2011 20:23:21 GMT -5
As well as demonizing bankers, i have no sympathy for bankers, as a class. sorry. slandering doctors as hacking off limbs to get a higher reimbursement, i have a hard time believing he said this. whining about people clinging to "their God and guns", that was taken out of context. i have listened to the quote, and i don't think he was being divisive. but it was very poorly put. once again, this was a democratic event, and he was talking about people he had trouble connecting with during the election. the fact that he further alienated them with this comment was unfortunate for him, and for that constituency.chastising America that we eat too much and use too much energy, both of which are true.after acknowledging that he knows nothing about the situation in Harvard, he still condemns the white cop over the black professor, i don't know enough about this to comment. my take is that he probably didn't either, and should have kept his mouth shut.claims that his opponents will mention not only his funny name but, "hey, he's black!" he also makes fun of his name and refers to the fact that he is black. again, both of these are facts. if pointing out the truth is divisive, he has my support in doing it.anyway, ameiko, i am less interested in the "divisive" claim than the "violent rhetoric" one. i am sure that half of what the president says will be perceived as divisive by someone. but i think that is kind of trivializing the meaning of divisive. the "violent rhetoric" claim has a lot more meat and import to it, and, if it can be made, speaks more against him than any other claim here.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Sept 10, 2011 20:24:32 GMT -5
ameriko, maybe this will help:
dj said:
Sounds good. Let's go with that.
dj said: and apparently this is not an absolute:
I would say it this way:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2011 20:30:19 GMT -5
ameriko, maybe this will help: dj said: Sounds good. Let's go with that. dj said: and apparently this is not an absolute: i said seldom, if ever. if you pick through this board enough, i am sure you can find numerous exceptions. after all, my post count is over 2500, now. ameiko, on the other hand, not only made an absolute claim that started this whole discussion- one which you apparently have no problem with- but then claimed that i made one as a counterpoint- which is totally false. but then again, he never claimed to be one to avoid absolutes.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 10, 2011 20:41:14 GMT -5
Obama cannot conceal his discriminatory hate of Business. He proposes favors to small business as his way of helping the 'little people', and based on his premise that small business provides the jobs. And then he jumps into his rant about punishing Big Business (oil?), punishing CEOs, Big Business is sitting on profits, etc. It is only partly true that small business provides all the 'new' jobs - in a time of economic expansion, it is the big companies that hire millions of people to fill 'old' jobs.
A pro-business leader would realize that all Business (small & big) is Business, the same rules apply to both. And Business has full treasuries, over a trillion, and they would love to put that capital to work to build more product and earn more money, that's what Business does.
To do that, Business needs a defined tax code that can support a 5 yr-plan, relief from the US-specific headwind (obamacare, DoddFrank regs, unions, etc) that makes it impossible to compete with global labor, AND consumers, someone to sell product to. If the leadership would provide those conditions and then get out of the way, Business would expand factories, buy new equipment, hire new workers, and sell product competitively both domestically and globally. (we compete with chinese labor by automating). But today - what CEO in his right mind would commit $5B or $25B of company funds to build a new US factory and fill it with workers? (actually, Boeing tried it, they built a new 1100 worker plant in SC - Obama shut it down.)
An anti-business Pres can't bring himself to setup a business-friendly environment - so we will probably have to wait until Nov 2012 to see any of this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2011 20:52:37 GMT -5
Obama cannot conceal his discriminatory hate of Business. He proposes favors to small business as his way of helping the 'little people', and based on his premise that small business provides the jobs. And then he jumps into his rant about punishing Big Business (oil?), punishing CEOs, Big Business is sitting on profits, etc. It is only partly true that small business provides all the 'new' jobs - in a time of economic expansion, it is the big companies that hire millions of people to fill 'old' jobs. A pro-business leader would realize that all Business (small & big) is Business, the same rules apply to both. And Business has full treasuries, over a trillion, and they would love to put that capital to work to build more product and earn more money, that's what Business does. To do that, Business needs a defined tax code that can support a 5 yr-plan, relief from the US-specific headwind (obamacare, DoddFrank regs, unions, etc) that makes it impossible to compete with global labor, AND consumers, someone to sell product to. If the leadership would provide those conditions and then get out of the way, Business would expand factories, buy new equipment, hire new workers, and sell product competitively both domestically and globally. (we compete with chinese labor by automating). But today - what CEO in his right mind would commit $5B or $25B of company funds to build a new US factory and fill it with workers? (actually, Boeing tried it, they built a new 1100 worker plant in SC - Obama shut it down.) An anti-business Pres can't bring himself to setup a business-friendly environment - so we will probably have to wait until Nov 2012 to see any of this. i don't think he hates business, phil. but he is a populist, and populists tend to go the way the wind blows. that means that his rhetoric is often as a advocate for the little guy. but if you look at his actions, there is very little of that advocacy. get my meaning?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Sept 11, 2011 9:29:57 GMT -5
Obama cannot conceal his discriminatory hate of Business. He proposes favors to small business as his way of helping the 'little people', and based on his premise that small business provides the jobs. And then he jumps into his rant about punishing Big Business (oil?), punishing CEOs, Big Business is sitting on profits, etc. It is only partly true that small business provides all the 'new' jobs - in a time of economic expansion, it is the big companies that hire millions of people to fill 'old' jobs. A pro-business leader would realize that all Business (small & big) is Business, the same rules apply to both. And Business has full treasuries, over a trillion, and they would love to put that capital to work to build more product and earn more money, that's what Business does. To do that, Business needs a defined tax code that can support a 5 yr-plan, relief from the US-specific headwind (obamacare, DoddFrank regs, unions, etc) that makes it impossible to compete with global labor, AND consumers, someone to sell product to. If the leadership would provide those conditions and then get out of the way, Business would expand factories, buy new equipment, hire new workers, and sell product competitively both domestically and globally. (we compete with chinese labor by automating). But today - what CEO in his right mind would commit $5B or $25B of company funds to build a new US factory and fill it with workers? (actually, Boeing tried it, they built a new 1100 worker plant in SC - Obama shut it down.) An anti-business Pres can't bring himself to setup a business-friendly environment - so we will probably have to wait until Nov 2012 to see any of this. i don't think he hates business, phil. but he is a populist, and populists tend to go the way the wind blows. that means that his rhetoric is often as a advocate for the little guy. but if you look at his actions, there is very little of that advocacy. get my meaning? Very we articulated dj.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Sept 11, 2011 9:45:20 GMT -5
don't think he hates business, phil. but he is a populist, and populists tend to go the way the wind blows. that means that his rhetoric is often as a advocate for the little guy. but if you look at his actions, there is very little of that advocacy. get my meaning?
A populist? I would argue that Obama is more of a socialist than a populist thus his disdain for business .
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Sept 11, 2011 10:17:57 GMT -5
Obama couldn't care less about "business". Obama is concerned abut getting re-elected.
He will drag out presenting his "plan" to the congress at least until he sees how he is being received by his audiences. As president of ALL the people, why does he only go to "some" places to stump his "plan"? Maybe there is an accident behind his visits to the places with audiences he can capitalize on, but I doubt it. For instance, he "could" stump on the grounds of the Boeing plant in Seattle, but will he go there? He "could" stump at any number of dead places where oil or coal production was once king, but will he?
Where has he stumped so far? Detroit. Detroit is a ghost town because unions killed the golden goose and left a welfare state. Nobody is starving in Detroit because welfare sees that they don't starve. Detroit is in his pocket.
Yes, he is a populist, , , , but ONLY to certain people, a minority of the total, , , , but he learned as a community organizer how to whip that populist persona to move people to back him. But let's face it, most of the people who he really counts on to vote for him are people who very few others would invite in for a meal.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Sept 11, 2011 10:35:57 GMT -5
so, do you always rely on straw man arguments, or just usually?
Look up what a strawman arguement is before making that accusation. You will clearly see that I did no such thing.
i never said he is THE LEAST.
Fine, but you did say that he is among the least divisive which I shown to be patently false through many, many examples and you can find more if you have the courage and work ethic to do a simple google search.
i think that Obama has at least attempted to bridge the divide on a number of subjects that i honestly can't even REMEMBER presidents tackling since the civil rights era. if he didn't get it perfect on issues of race and religion, it was at least well intentioned, and at times eloquent.
Nonsense. He has continually race baited and used race as a weapon to demonize his foes, such as the Tea Party which is most certainly NOT a racist organization but one that is sick of a too large government.
All Presidents have addressed race or religion at one point or another. For example, Bush peddled the "Muslim is the religion of peace" nonsense. It's just that most of us recognize that this is one of the least racist nations on the planet, where opportunity is abudant. It's only the race pimps like Sharpton, Jessie, Rev Wright, and Obama who keep trying to drag us down.
i also believe, sincerely, that he has attempted to work with the GOP minority when they were a minority.
No he did not. Do some research and you will see that the GOP was frequently barred from contributing to legislation, especially his Obamacare which Obama crammed down an America that said, "we don't want this!" Yeah, not too divisive.
Anyway, I'm not going to stop. You are clearly never going to be convinced despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence out there that iinclude:
1. his repeated violent, confrontational, and divisive rhetoric. 2. his tolerance of this from others as when he refused to call out Hoffa for his call to violence when Obama came up to the stage right after Hoffa. So much for his calls for civility. 3. The same with Maxine Waters calling for the GOP to go to hell, a Democrat calling the Tea Party terrorists in Biden's presence, or:
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.
4. He has no problem with the violent tactics of unions as seen in Wisconsin where a family was driven from their home and a GOP State Senator was attacked.
5. He is friends with unrepetentent terrorists and racist preachers who want God to damn America.
Again, he is among the LEAST DIVISIVE?
Just wow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 10:51:55 GMT -5
don't think he hates business, phil. but he is a populist, and populists tend to go the way the wind blows. that means that his rhetoric is often as a advocate for the little guy. but if you look at his actions, there is very little of that advocacy. get my meaning? A populist? I would argue that Obama is more of a socialist than a populist thus his disdain for business . again, he might adopt the language of a socialist, but i see very little in his actions to indicate it. he seems far more like a moderate republican to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 10:57:52 GMT -5
so, do you always rely on straw man arguments, or just usually?Look up what a strawman arguement is before making that accusation. You will clearly see that I did no such thing. i never said he is THE LEAST.Fine, but you did say that he is among the least divisive which I shown to be patently false through many, many examples and you can find more if you have the courage and work ethic to do a simple google search. i did a google search, ameiko. it linked me to a news report on FOX. i watched the news report. and just like you, the person making the accusation provided no material evidence whatsoever that Obama has used "violent rhetoric". telling me to "go to google" while failing to back up the claim says far more about your work ethic than mine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 10:59:29 GMT -5
All Presidents have addressed race or religion at one point or another. For example, Bush peddled the "Muslim is the religion of peace" nonsense. throwing down a stupid one liner is not engaging in a discussion. in fact, it is a way of stonewalling the issue, and NOT engaging in discussion. the speech to which i referred was over an hour long. it was among the most thoughtful things i have ever heard a president (or presidential candidate) utter. if he could do economics and leadership nearly so well, we would not be in half the trouble we are in today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 11:02:07 GMT -5
i also believe, sincerely, that he has attempted to work with the GOP minority when they were a minority. No he did not. Do some research and you will see that the GOP was frequently barred from contributing to legislation, especially his Obamacare which Obama crammed down an America that said, "we don't want this!" Yeah, not too divisive. no, ameiko. you made the claim he was divisive. YOU do the research, and post it here. i am not your research assistant. but for the record, i actually watched how the ACA unfolded, and i disagree with your perspective fervently.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 11:07:16 GMT -5
Again, he is among the LEAST DIVISIVE? Just wow. i don't see too many other people here that have a problem with the claim, ameiko. i have given you my justification for it. if you don't buy it at this point, i am comfortable with that fact. if you can round up some others that share your perspective that OBAMA IS THE MOST DIVISIVE PERSON OUT THERE (like, more divisive than OBL, Maxine Waters, etc) be my guest.....otherwise, i think that i am beating my head against a brick wall. i appreciate the civility of the discussion, and how you have managed to avoid implying that i am an ignorant, deluded, left wing idiot, btw.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 11, 2011 11:56:40 GMT -5
chastising America that we eat too much and use too much energy ----------------------- The US has 5% of the global population, yet sucks up 25% of the earth's resources. Not to mention it is the most obese country in the industrialised world, and for the first time ever, children will NOT outlive their parents due to morbid obesity. Are you saying this is a GOOD thing, and shouldn't be addressed?
|
|
Firefly
Established Member
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 5:11:52 GMT -5
Posts: 263
|
Post by Firefly on Sept 11, 2011 12:12:26 GMT -5
I haven't read most of this thread but I have issue with the title of this thread, he is the president of this country and calling him "Mr. Obama" is disrespectful. Just saying...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 4:27:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 12:15:35 GMT -5
The US has 5% of the global population, yet sucks up 25% of the earth's resources. The U.S. also produces 25% of the world's GDP.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 11, 2011 12:17:02 GMT -5
I haven't read most of this thread but I have issue with the title of this thread, he is the president of this country and calling him "Mr. Obama" is disrespectful. Just saying... Mr. Obama is probably the LEAST disrespectful thing he's been called on this board, Nadiya.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Sept 11, 2011 12:26:05 GMT -5
I haven't read most of this thread but I have issue with the title of this thread, he is the president of this country and calling him "Mr. Obama" is disrespectful. Just saying... nadiya, thanks you for posting it's always good to see new names in P&M. This issue has been an ongoing issue for some since Mr. Obama was elected. www.witn.com/blogs/notesfromthenewsroom/39861842.htmlPresident Obama's title is interchangeable, he can be Mr.Obama, Mr. President or President Obama in writing and all 3 forms of address are proper and resepectful, to remove the title is when disdain is meant. I hope this can help clear up the idea of what is respectful here is an article from npr on the use of titles for the President. minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2010/01/obama_vs_president_obama.shtmlwhich is sumed up at the end quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Sept 11, 2011 12:41:26 GMT -5
Yea but just a word of caution if you refer to California's Junior Senator Barbara Boxer as "Ma'am" she gets upset Ms Boxer insists on being called Senator Boxer because she worked hard for that title and she feels she has earned it. Calling the President ..Mr President, Sir, or Mr Obama is done probably a few thousands times a day so let's not get too carried away with so much Poltical Correctness when it is NOT necessary.. And I also don't understand how anyone can say that Obama is NOT a socialist when his economic policies ie Obamacare, Student Loans, and etc. have been labeled as socialism by several noted economist and poltical thinkers. Mark Zandi a noted economist has written several articles on this issue if anyone wants to read his writings about Obama As for the assertion that Obama is pushing through policies that redistribute income from rich to poor, to some extent that is happening, says economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. But probably of more significance than arguing about Obama being a socialist or not here is Mark Zandi's analysis of Obama's Jobs Bill: President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession. The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point. The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases. Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning bipartisan support. www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=224641&src=mark-zandi
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Sept 11, 2011 13:40:51 GMT -5
RDT, Did I read in your link that the much touted "paid for" part of the plan is off a few bucks and will actually cost us an additional 447 Billion? Please tell me I read it wrong.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 11, 2011 14:14:30 GMT -5
If Obama wanted to put people to work, he should make the US energy independent. About 90% of our carbon, CO2 gases, particulates, etc, come from fossil fueled power plants and fossil fueled cars.
We could do away with this by using batt powered cars and charging them with nuclear reactors. We should fund a manhattan-project program to develop a long-range car batt, good for 600 or 700 miles, a full day's drive.
Getting rid of the many train-loads of coal that we burn DAILY and getting rid of several million gas-burning cars would give us air over our cities that is cleaner than it was in the 1850s.
We have 104 reactors in the US that provide over 20% of our power. We learned two important things in Japan - (1) build the reactors 5 miles away from oceans so that tsunamis won't swamp them, and (2) our 40 yr old reactor technology survives world class earth quakes, the highest recorded. Time to build 200 new ones.
Unfortunately, our gov is pumping our money into 'feel good' green ideas such as solar that are not scientifically feasible. We need to use engineering, not emotion to plan energy sources.
And if you want to see visual environmental pollution, look at Palm Springs - 10,000 ugly windmills covering the landscape as far as the eye can see. A single small reactor, out of sight behind the mountain, could provide more power than the entire turbine field - and it works both day & night, with & w/o wind.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Sept 11, 2011 15:51:46 GMT -5
RDT, Did I read in your link that the much touted "paid for" part of the plan is off a few bucks and will actually cost us an additional 447 Billion? Please tell me I read it wrongNot sure Henry but isn't Obama relying on the Super Committee to provide the spending cuts to pay for his Jobs Bill Proposal, or maybe we will learn more when the White House releases the details to back up Obama's proposal... ?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Sept 11, 2011 16:51:45 GMT -5
RDT, Did I read in your link that the much touted "paid for" part of the plan is off a few bucks and will actually cost us an additional 447 Billion? Please tell me I read it wrongNot sure Henry but isn't Obama relying on the Super Committee to provide the spending cuts to pay for his Jobs Bill Proposal, or maybe we will learn more when the White House releases the details to back up Obama's proposal... ? I think he is relying on someone else to make the spending cuts or tax hikes, so he say:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2011 21:10:14 GMT -5
there is no way the US is ever going to be "energy independent", imo. if Obama were to try to REDUCE our dependency, however, i agree that would be a good move.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Sept 11, 2011 22:33:46 GMT -5
there is no way the US is ever going to be "energy independent", imo. if Obama were to try to REDUCE our dependency, however, i agree that would be a good move. There was some consideration by Obama to suspend all Federal Taxes for gasoline for a few months to help the economy but not sure what happened to that proposal...probably got tossed in the trash...
|
|