GDP growth is down to an annualized rate of just 1.5% for 2Q2012.
Quote from: jake on July 27, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
GDP growth is down to an annualized rate of just 1.5% for 2Q2012.
Increasing taxes on the obscenely rich (i.e. Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousandaires) will spur growth; if the "Pubs" object (because, as we all know, they only care about the aforementioned, obscenely rich) then we'll raise taxes on everyone!
After all, "...if you've got a business, you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen..."
Corporations are people.
Myth Romney declares them as dependents on his income taxes !
Corporations and people.
Berate Obummer declares them as subservient to government in his tyrannical tirades!
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
Quote from: jake on July 30, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: jake on July 30, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?
Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: jake on July 30, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?
Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!
Ah, so tax cuts aren't stimulus. There needs to be some extra stimulus (more tax cuts?) to get the economy humming. Got it.
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.
How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: jake on July 30, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?
Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!
So you think the government should guarantee you a bigger raise?
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.
How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...
I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?
Trib columnist Gail MarksJarvis on the increase in the GDP:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-biz-0729-gail-20120729,0,2037275.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-biz-0729-gail-20120729,0,2037275.column)
GDP ekes out growth
Just enough to ease concerns about recession
Gail MarksJarvis
July 29, 2012
Celebrate mediocrity.
That's what investors did last week as the gross domestic product numbers released Friday showed just enough growth in the second quarter to calm people worried about recession.
The economy has been growing at a 1.5 percent rate — a pretty disconcerting number. But given that investors feared even slower growth, the GDP report spurred stock buying and lifted the Dow Jones industrial average.
Now the Dow is up 7 percent for the year. And despite numerous panic attacks about Europe, China and the U.S. since spring, the Standard & Poor's 500 has clawed its way to an impressive 10 percent gain.
Last week began with another fearful period about a financial meltdown in Spain. But fear eased midweek as European Central Bank President Mario Draghi promised that the ECB would do "whatever it takes to preserve the euro." Spanish bond yields starting showing less distress, and stocks in Europe and the U.S. climbed with relief.
Yet, it wasn't simply a new round of promises from Europe that lifted the pressure. Encouragement came from earnings announcements, too, especially those from Boeing and Caterpillar, both based in Illinois. Boeing raised its forecast for deliveries at a time when many large U.S. companies have maneuvered profit increases but struggled to increase sales amid recession in Europe and a slowdown in China.
Caterpillar, the world's giant producer of construction and mining equipment, provided the message investors have been eager to hear: Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman said in a statement that the current environment doesn't feel like 2008, and he is not anticipating a recession this year.
That's particularly compelling given the fact that in 2007, Caterpillar was one of the first large companies to warn about a recession threat. Caterpillar acknowledged some weakness now but said that China and Europe were working on their problems and that Caterpillar's profits should be better than previously thought.
Still, there is no question that Europe is sinking deeper into recession, and the impact is spreading. The United Kingdom reported a 0.7 percent contraction in its GDP last week, and IHS Global Insight economist Paul Edelstein called it a "nasty surprise — far deeper than anyone expected." He was also disappointed, he said, that the $1 trillion in financing provided European banks is not prompting banks to lend to businesses.
IHS expects Wednesday's U.S. ISM manufacturing index to show slight improvement over the previous month, but still a contraction in industrial activity. Construction activity is expected to reflect a pickup in single and multifamily building.
Meanwhile, consumers have cut back once again on spending — especially on large purchases like cars. Even Starbucks disappointed investors Friday with lower expectations and acknowledged that selling to consumers in the U.S. and Europe is difficult.
Investors will be watching for insight into causes — beyond weak job growth — as data on personal income and personal consumption is released Tuesday and the unemployment rate is reported Friday. Economists expect unemployment to remain at 8.2 percent.
Ted,
Are you really happy with a GDP growth rate of a mere 1.5%?
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: jake on July 30, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 29, 2012, 05:31:31 PM
Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?
The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.
Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.
How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?
With Obama trying to renew the
vast majority of the so called "Bush" tax cuts (on a dollar basis), I am amazed that not a single Dem on this board took up the cause to defend them.
...maybe it has something to do with the label. Now if Mark called them the Obama tax cuts, which they are now, the Dems would come out of their holes to talk about how much they help. ;)
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 03:54:53 AM
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.
How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...
I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?
That environment was created by a significant reduction in spending (welfare reform and the peace dividend reduction in military spending) and the go-go, growth 90's, which had masses of $$$ flowing into the treasury because the economy was booming. IMO, raising taxes in that environment is a far different proposition than raising them now.
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 07:11:01 AM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 03:54:53 AM
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.
How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...
I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?
That environment was created by a significant reduction in spending (welfare reform and the peace dividend reduction in military spending) and the go-go, growth 90's, which had masses of $$$ flowing into the treasury because the economy was booming. IMO, raising taxes in that environment is a far different proposition than raising them now.
But the taxes were higher then! How could the economy be "booming" when taxes were higher than they are now?
Sounds like you're advocating for reduced military spending and higher taxes to improve the economy; we may not be so different after all.
U.S. GDP has increased by an annual average of 2.1% over the last 12 months. And, given we now live in a global economy, the U.S. is in a lot better shape than Europe is right now. Europe is dragging down the rest of the world.
"...and the go-go, growth 90's,"
Being in the tech industry, and working for big Mich Ave firms during the "go-go 90s", I firmly believe that what we are seeing now, in terms of unemployment, is a result of companies adopting computer technologies.
During the 90s many companies were born and flourished that brought other companies into the digital age. Once the technologies were in place, with everything from cabling to instruction, companies that once had, say an accounting department of 12 people, now only need two ... to do more work.
Add to that the fact that hiring temp or contract employees is the new norm, and well ... welcome to the new millenium.
The jobs that were lost in late 2008 are not coming back, ever.
Corporate investment, corporate profit and CEO pay are all at the highest levels *ever* in the United States:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/09/opinion/09edsallimg/09edsallimg-popup.jpg)
So if companies are investing more in their businesses and making more money than ever before, where are all the jobs?
As I've said before, the days of working for a company for 30 years, earning a pension and a gold watch are over. My wife was with the same company for 20 years. Early this year, they fired half (HALF!) of the staff, and then immediately set about replacing those positions with temps and contrators. But its not all down, if you can deal with it.
She's now a self-employed contractor, making much more money that she ever could have as a vested employee, and enjoying it. She's travelling, seeing new people and new work-places all the time ... but it's more work, and takes a lot of hustle.
Younger people with children are at a serious disadvantage in the new economy.
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 08:23:08 AM
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 07:11:01 AM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 03:54:53 AM
Quote from: eno on July 30, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 30, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?
Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.
How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...
I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?
That environment was created by a significant reduction in spending (welfare reform and the peace dividend reduction in military spending) and the go-go, growth 90's, which had masses of $$$ flowing into the treasury because the economy was booming. IMO, raising taxes in that environment is a far different proposition than raising them now.
But the taxes were higher then! How could the economy be "booming" when taxes were higher than they are now?
Sounds like you're advocating for reduced military spending and higher taxes to improve the economy; we may not be so different after all.
The boom came after the 1997 tax-cuts (including a reduction in the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%); growth, however, was slow after the 1993 tax increases.
As for military spending, the peace-dividend (accomplished through the leadership of Reagan and Bush I, over the howls of Liberals) was a real shot in the arm. I would favor some cuts in military spending now, especially wasteful spending such as maintaining troops in Germany. Obama's man: Leon Panetta, however, would not. Another dividend which lead to a surplus was the end of big government as we know it; Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by Gingrich and Co., but to his credit, eventually did the right thing.
So, here is a good formula: lower marginal tax-rates, lower capital gains taxes, lower or eliminate corporate tax rate, and add real cuts in government spending. Finally, as this leads to growth, use increased tax revenues to pay down debt.
I've posted this many times before; Obama does not view taxes primarily as a source of revenue for government, nor as a way to pay down debt, and eliminate deficits (otherwise he would be proposing cuts in marginal rates, not increases). For Obama (and Democrats) taxes are a way to implement "fairness" (i.e. reduce the freedom of individuals, increase the power of the state, and "spread the wealth") at the expense of the economy. Here, again, is the proof:
Obama Taxes are for fairness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqkOrA4tEs#)
Explain "real cuts in government spending," please. How much would the government save if it took the military out of Germany? Enough to matter? Where else would you cut?
I don't know; maybe the CBO could score it.
Do you think we could agree that reducing or eliminating the 50,000+ troops in Germany would save money? As for domestic and/or entitlement spending, do you think we could agree that merely reducing the automatic increase in yearly government spending or eliminating the automatic, yearly increases (and baseline budgeting) would help?
You're not suggesting that continued, yearly, automatic spending increases are preferable to even nominal reductions in spending because such reductions arguably wouldn't be "enough to matter" are you?
Do you believe government is not yet spending enough?
eno
P.S. You didn't tell us what you think would be a "fair share" of taxes (as a percentage of income) on those earning $250,000.00 +; 40%, 50%, 100%? You clearly believe that reducing taxes is neither good for the economy nor fair, so how much should they be raised?
A disappointing but not surprising response from eno. Conservatives are forever demanding budget cuts, but never say where they'd like to cut. (Except NPR and the NEA, which now receive so few federal dollars that eliminating them entirely wouldn't make a dent.)
These cuts that conservatives insist on have to come from somewhere. From whence, then, shall they come?
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 02:57:21 PM
A disappointing but not surprising response from eno. Conservatives are forever demanding budget cuts, but never say where they'd like to cut. (Except NPR and the NEA, which now receive so few federal dollars that eliminating them entirely wouldn't make a dent.)
These cuts that conservatives insist on have to come from somewhere. From whence, then, shall they come?
Mark, read my post more carefully; if you're still having difficulty with it, perhaps on your next foray to Berwyn, you can have someone explain to you terms such as "entitlement spending" and "baseline budgeting" and "reducing" or "eliminating" the rate of "automatic, annual increases in spending."
Once (if) you figure it out, you won't have to ask "which" programs I would cut; you might realize that nothing needs to be cut other than the rate of annual increases in spending on all government programs; just that would be a huge step in the right direction!
So government employees shouldn't get raises? Not even cost of living increases? But I thought government needed to run more like a business!
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 01:31:35 PM
So, here is a good formula: lower marginal tax-rates, lower capital gains taxes, lower or eliminate corporate tax rate, and add real cuts in government spending. Finally, as this leads to growth, use increased tax revenues to pay down debt.
You're a bloody
Royalist, mawkishly clinging to Bush's failed policies !
Are you unaware of the distribution of wealth in this country ?
This foolishness of yours is nothing more than
socio-economic-affirmative-action...
for the rich.
The rich don't need more help.
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 05:31:51 PM
So government employees shouldn't get raises? Not even cost of living increases? But I thought government needed to run more like a business!
Businesses don't give raises as a matter of course, nor do they give cost of living raises as a matter of course; why should government necessarily give raises? In the private sector, people endure pay-cuts, loss or reduction of benefits, or even lay-offs; why should things be different for government employees?
Even if government does give a raise or does increase spending on a program, why can't you abide the concept that merely reducing that raise or that increase in spending from say 5% to 4% or 3% or 2% annually still constitutes a real raise and a real increase in spending, but also a reduction in the rate of increase and a thus, a reduction in projected spending? Is this really such a difficult concept?
Quote from: buzz on July 31, 2012, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 01:31:35 PM
So, here is a good formula: lower marginal tax-rates, lower capital gains taxes, lower or eliminate corporate tax rate, and add real cuts in government spending. Finally, as this leads to growth, use increased tax revenues to pay down debt.
You're a bloody Royalist, mawkishly clinging to Bush's failed policies !
Are you unaware of the distribution of wealth in this country ?
This foolishness of yours is nothing more than socio-economic-affirmative-action... for the rich.
The rich don't need more help.
Buzz:
Now, you've hurt my feelings...really!
eno
P.S. Bush ("W") spent like a drunken sailor; he didn't even know how to use his veto pen!
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 05:31:51 PM
So government employees shouldn't get raises? Not even cost of living increases? But I thought government needed to run more like a business!
Businesses don't give raises as a matter of course, nor do they give cost of living raises as a matter of course; why should government necessarily give raises? In the private sector, people endure pay-cuts, loss or reduction of benefits, or even lay-offs; why should things be different for government employees?
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! You want some layoffs! Let's get some of those overpaid government workers off the rolls!
Which agency do you recommend we start cutting? You mentioned firing American soldiers in Germany. (Lazy! Do-nothing!) Who else?
Yes— that's all part of the tea party plan to boost the economy by firing thousands o people and giving the money to the people who already have more than they know what to do with...
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Now, you've hurt my feelings...really!
Tell it to Sweeney.
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 02:57:21 PM
These cuts that conservatives insist on have to come from somewhere. From whence, then, shall they come?
Eliminate all Rx entitlements ! Those people are just too poor to be sick. What's wrong with them ?
Quote from: eno on July 31, 2012, 01:31:35 PM
The boom came after the 1997 tax-cuts (including a reduction in the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%); growth, however, was slow after the 1993 tax increases.
Not true. The boom started in 1995. It was in 1996 that the federal government had its first surplus.
And, the tax increase took effect in 1994, not 1993.
Quote from: buzz on July 31, 2012, 11:32:29 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on July 31, 2012, 02:57:21 PM
These cuts that conservatives insist on have to come from somewhere. From whence, then, shall they come?
Eliminate all Rx entitlements ! Those people are just too poor to be sick. What's wrong with them ?
No! No !! you've got it wrong...
Impose the "entitlements"! And then, let Dr. Obama and his Kolective, central planners decide what is best for you.
Those people are just too old or poor (if you look at things like Barack & Michelle Obama) to get care, no matter what your personal physician says!
"..
At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." -
Barack ObamaObama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo#)
"
We can let doctors know this isn't going to help?"
Quote from: eno on August 01, 2012, 09:44:24 PM
No! No !! you've got it wrong...
no eno, I've got it right.
You need to understand palliative care.
Quote from: buzz on August 02, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
Quote from: eno on August 01, 2012, 09:44:24 PM
No! No !! you've got it wrong...
no eno, I've got it right.
You need to understand palliative care.
+100
10
Quote from: buzz on August 02, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
Quote from: eno on August 01, 2012, 09:44:24 PM
No! No !! you've got it wrong...
no eno, I've got it right.
You need to understand palliative care.
Under Obamacare, you, I, Lumis, our doctors, our understanding of palliative care or pacemakers will be completely irrelevant!
Watch the clip again (I say this rhetorically to those out there with an open mind, the ability to comprehend, and not to Buzz, who is probably devoid of reason as he follows idiocy over the cliff).
The lady's mother received a pacemaker, which allowed her to live (with an excellent quality of life) for 6 years. The decision was one made between the patient, her family and her doctor; but, Demorticians like Obama, who have no appreciation for individuality, "joy" (what's that?), quality of life, would impose a government solution, one-size-fits-all on the patient, the doctor, the family. After all, you heard this fool Obama say he knows better than the doctor, the patient, the family (which is the hallmark of Liberalism: fools knowing more than you or I, and imposing their foolishness on you and me); arrogance and ignorance, a deadly combination...
Again, here's what the Fool-in-Chief said (to the patient, her doctor, re: her quality of life):
"..At least
we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
But the doctor said it
would help, and it
did help!!!
Mom won't need palliative care instead of a pacemaker, because without the pacemaker (which Doc Charlatan Obama would categorically deny to her) mom will be in the grave!
Can anyone imagine a culture with ghouls like Obama, and zombies such as Buzz, and Lumis over-riding your doctor's course of treatment? Well, it's here! The Kollective is beginning to trump the individual...
Reverend Wright appears to have been prescient re: "AmeriKKKa".
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
OPS:
I find no difficulty understanding President Obama; I should have been more clear in my explanation.
The premise of the video I posted was abundantly clear: a 99 year-old lady's doctor agreed to prescribe her a pacemaker which allowed her to live well (good quality of life) for another 6 years; no government intervention, no Obama/Sebelius/ Bureaucrat over-riding the decision!
Obama's response was abundantly clear as well:
"
..At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
My position on the stated premise/response: Obama is a dangerous, frightening, ignorant, "government trumps individuality and freedom" collectivist.
I apologize for my initial lack of clarity and cogency. What comes off as hyperbole is genuine, heart-felt fright and repulsion of President Obama's philosophy and policies re: healthcare.
eno
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
OPS:
I find no difficulty understanding President Obama; I should have been more clear in my explanation.
The premise of the video I posted was abundantly clear: a 99 year-old lady's doctor agreed to prescribe her a pacemaker which allowed her to live well (good quality of life) for another 6 years; no government intervention, no Obama/Sebelius/ Bureaucrat over-riding the decision!
Obama's response was abundantly clear as well:
"..At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
My position on the stated premise/response: Obama is a dangerous, frightening, ignorant, "government trumps individuality and freedom" collectivist.
I apologize for my initial lack of clarity and cogency. What comes off as hyperbole is genuine, heart-felt fright and repulsion of President Obama's philosophy and policies re: healthcare.
eno
How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office?
The question's for anybody.
Incidentally, OPS, Buzz, Lumis:
How would substituting palliative care for a pacemaker benefit the 99 year-old mother of the lady in the video? Speaking of "coherence" recall that Dr. Obama did not suggest "palliative care" instead of the pace-maker, but rather a "pain-killer".
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 01:32:36 PM
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
OPS:
I find no difficulty understanding President Obama; I should have been more clear in my explanation.
The premise of the video I posted was abundantly clear: a 99 year-old lady's doctor agreed to prescribe her a pacemaker which allowed her to live well (good quality of life) for another 6 years; no government intervention, no Obama/Sebelius/ Bureaucrat over-riding the decision!
Obama's response was abundantly clear as well:
"..At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
My position on the stated premise/response: Obama is a dangerous, frightening, ignorant, "government trumps individuality and freedom" collectivist.
I apologize for my initial lack of clarity and cogency. What comes off as hyperbole is genuine, heart-felt fright and repulsion of President Obama's philosophy and policies re: healthcare.
eno
How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office?
The question's for anybody.
Let's just start here:
Anybody and everybody who owned GM Bonds in 2009 had their personal freedoms restricted (though what Obama did to bond-holders' property rights was to abrogate them, not merely restrict them).
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 02:02:00 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 01:32:36 PM
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
OPS:
I find no difficulty understanding President Obama; I should have been more clear in my explanation.
The premise of the video I posted was abundantly clear: a 99 year-old lady's doctor agreed to prescribe her a pacemaker which allowed her to live well (good quality of life) for another 6 years; no government intervention, no Obama/Sebelius/ Bureaucrat over-riding the decision!
Obama's response was abundantly clear as well:
"..At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
My position on the stated premise/response: Obama is a dangerous, frightening, ignorant, "government trumps individuality and freedom" collectivist.
I apologize for my initial lack of clarity and cogency. What comes off as hyperbole is genuine, heart-felt fright and repulsion of President Obama's philosophy and policies re: healthcare.
eno
How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office?
The question's for anybody.
Let's just start here:
Anybody and everybody who owned GM Bonds in 2009 had their personal freedoms restricted (though what Obama did to bond-holders' property rights was to abrogate them, not merely restrict them).
Interesting. What can these bondholders no longer do that they were once free to do?
I did not want to suggest that your question was a typical, Liberal shell-game, but I did smell it coming. I am still willing to play with you, but let's get the parameters and our definitions straight...
Simple question: property rights are a personal freedom; agree or disagree?
eno
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
Simple question: property rights are a personal freedom; agree or disagree?
eno
zoning and building codes.
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
I did not want to suggest that your question was a typical, Liberal shell-game, but I did smell it coming. I am still willing to play with you, but let's get the parameters and our definitions straight...
Simple question: property rights are a personal freedom; agree or disagree?
eno
Let's say for the sake of argument that personal freedoms are whatever eno says they are.
Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president?
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
OPS:
I find no difficulty understanding President Obama; I should have been more clear in my explanation.
The premise of the video I posted was abundantly clear: a 99 year-old lady's doctor agreed to prescribe her a pacemaker which allowed her to live well (good quality of life) for another 6 years; no government intervention, no Obama/Sebelius/ Bureaucrat over-riding the decision!
Obama's response was abundantly clear as well:
"..At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, this [the pacemaker mom's doctor prescribed for her] isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain-killer." - Barack Obama
My position on the stated premise/response: Obama is a dangerous, frightening, ignorant, "government trumps individuality and freedom" collectivist.
I apologize for my initial lack of clarity and cogency. What comes off as hyperbole is genuine, heart-felt fright and repulsion of President Obama's philosophy and policies re: healthcare.
eno
So he was speaking of this specific lady? Or did you find one heart tugging story and attached it to comments made in a completely different context?
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:38:36 PM
Incidentally, OPS, Buzz, Lumis:
How would substituting palliative care for a pacemaker benefit the 99 year-old mother of the lady in the video? Speaking of "coherence" recall that Dr. Obama did not suggest "palliative care" instead of the pace-maker, but rather a "pain-killer".
Oh, and how is what Obama said ANY different than when an insurance company denies coverage for a treatment???
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
Fuentesitis?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 01:38:36 PM
Incidentally, OPS, Buzz, Lumis:
How would substituting palliative care for a pacemaker benefit the 99 year-old mother of the lady in the video? Speaking of "coherence" recall that Dr. Obama did not suggest "palliative care" instead of the pace-maker, but rather a "pain-killer".
Oh, and how is what Obama said ANY different than when an insurance company denies coverage for a treatment???
Here is the entire video (context and all); as in his Roanoke "you didn't build that" speech, the more you listen to Obama, in context, the worse it gets, despite his B.S. double-speak.
Obama to Jane Sturm take a pill (long version in context) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw#)
As for government dicking you around vs. the private-sector dicking you around, there are HUGE differences, which should be obvious.
First, I reject the premise that if something is imperfect or broken in the private-sector, government should step in or take over; this is especially true because much of the problems with health insurance are the direct result of government regulations imposed over the past several decades.
Secondly, even with government's history of hyper-regulation of the health-insurance market, the consumer still has both choices and recourse now, whereas with government health-care, he will eventually have absolutely no choice and very limited recourse; it is almost impossible to sue the sovereign. Aside from choice and recourse, the hassle of dealing with the fed (or any governmental entity) is infinitely worse than dealing with an insurer!!
I could go on...
Quote from: Mark R. on August 03, 2012, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 03, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
Eno,
You used to present coherent arguments.
What happened?
Fuentesitis?
I suspect it's Pied Piperitis
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2366638601_d0f67a5887.jpg)
It makes anything but Left-Wing propaganda incoherent.
"We're pretty optimistic about the rest of this year and into 2013. There's a shift in the way companies hire. They want to use talent on an on-demand basis, when they need them for projects. I would predict that (temp penetration) number to cross 2 percent and break a record, maybe by the end of the year."
- - Joanie Ruge, chief employment analyst at the U.S. unit of Randstad Holding NV, the world's second-biggest staffing company by revenue
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/09/opinion/09edsallimg/09edsallimg-popup.jpg)
More corporate profit, and more investment than ever before ... with fewer human resources.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-number-of-temps-on-the-job-the-highest-in-5-years-20120803,0,4647596.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-number-of-temps-on-the-job-the-highest-in-5-years-20120803,0,4647596.story)
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
I did not want to suggest that your question was a typical, Liberal shell-game, but I did smell it coming. I am still willing to play with you, but let's get the parameters and our definitions straight...
Simple question: property rights are a personal freedom; agree or disagree?
eno
Let's say for the sake of argument that personal freedoms are whatever eno says they are.
Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president?
You don't believe in individual property rights, do you?
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: eno on August 03, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
I did not want to suggest that your question was a typical, Liberal shell-game, but I did smell it coming. I am still willing to play with you, but let's get the parameters and our definitions straight...
Simple question: property rights are a personal freedom; agree or disagree?
eno
Let's say for the sake of argument that personal freedoms are whatever eno says they are.
Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president?
You don't believe in individual property rights, do you?
Again: Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president? Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 06:46:40 PMAgain: Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president? Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
The freedom to make a guaranteed profit at no risk. :o
What would have happened to these bond holders if GM had gone belly up and the government had not intervened? Would they have been better off if GM had gone belly up?
I posted the reference to the Pied Piper in jest, but given OPS's perspective on private health-insurance, and Ted's regarding bonds, it is more accurate than I had intended. By such logic, Obama should be made king, and government should control all of our affairs.
Obama and big government saving us from ourselves? What need is there for freedoms (personal or other) in the soft warmth of the cocoon we've allowed our masters to spin around us?
eno
P.S. The only "profit at no risk" which exists in this country is the money government takes with a club in its right hand from Peter, to give with its left hand to Paul; it is there that the effects of the sinister trade-off of freedom for perceived economic security are most obvious: decline, dependence, then dehumanization.
Healthcare is broken. We can fix it with the Affordable Care Act if we ignore the failed policies of the past. Lack of regulation screwed us big time in mortgage/real estate. Lack of regulation, self-regulation, they don't work for financial institutions. It's the same one note samba from the obstructionist Republicans. It doesn't trickle down.
Now, Rmoney has a budget that even his former financial pundits call crap. It creates a huge deficit but what does it manage to cut ? Human Services ? Entitlements ?
I'm tired of the Republican mantra. Their failed policies don't work. They cower in fear of the boardroom and the broker, all the while protecting the top earners. The Affordable Care Act will standardize insurance offerings across the country. The ACA will help. Gov't intervention is necessary.
Quote from: Ted on August 04, 2012, 06:45:33 AM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 03, 2012, 06:46:40 PMAgain: Which personal freedoms did these bondholders once have that they now lack because Barack Obama is president? Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
The freedom to make a guaranteed profit at no risk. :o
Just as the Magna Carta put it!
Quote from: buzz on August 04, 2012, 08:18:49 AM
Healthcare is broken. We can fix it with the Affordable Care Act if we ignore the failed policies of the past. Lack of regulation screwed us big time in mortgage/real estate. Lack of regulation, self-regulation, they don't work for financial institutions. It's the same one note samba from the obstructionist Republicans. It doesn't trickle down.
Now, Rmoney has a budget that even his former financial pundits call crap. It creates a huge deficit but what does it manage to cut ? Human Services ? Entitlements ?
I'm tired of the Republican mantra. Their failed policies don't work. They cower in fear of the boardroom and the broker, all the while protecting the top earners. The Affordable Care Act will standardize insurance offerings across the country. The ACA will help. Gov't intervention is necessary.
I agree with the highlighted statement to the degree that you might be referring to the U.S. government (which I'm sure you are not).
It was the rejection by Democrats of increased regulation of government sponsored entities: Fannie/Freddie (which were so heavily mis-leveraged in our housing market, and engaged in accounting fraud) which contributed to the insolvency of those programs and triggered both the bubble in housing prices, and the ensuing burst, which in turn triggered the recession...
The huge problems we are now experiencing are due in large part to too much government intervention in the housing market (and mortgage loans) and too little regulation of government! Obama and the Democrats haven't learned the lesson or stopped; they keep pushing homeowner bail-out programs (the cause of the initial crisis, and the reason why the housing recovery is still so weak) while pointing their crooked fingers at the banks.
It's brilliant populist politics, but horseshit economic policy.
So you want more regulation Eno?
Seriously, you are just throwing crap out here.
A few banks had funny business going on with their mortgages. Look at Countrywide/Bank of America, Wells Fargo...easy to research.
Quote from: Ted on August 04, 2012, 06:45:33 AM
The freedom to make a guaranteed profit at no risk. :o
What would have happened to these bond holders if GM had gone belly up and the government had not intervened? Would they have been better off if GM had gone belly up?
Pray tell, Ted, how ANY holder of ANY security investment instrument, is
guaranteed profit, much less at no risk?
Please explain how ANY investment may be claimed to carry "no risk"?
berwynson
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 04, 2012, 04:02:53 PM
So you want more regulation Eno?
Seriously, you are just throwing crap out here.
A few banks had funny business going on with their mortgages. Look at Countrywide/Bank of America, Wells Fargo...easy to research.
OPS:
What strikes me as "crap" is your blind assumption that people in government (doling out goodies paid for with other people's money) are somehow by virtue of the (D) after their name immune from the same temptations and misdeeds: greed, fraud, recklessness, criminality as people in the private sector.
Everybody had funny business going on with mortgages; none more than the elected and/or retired pigs feeding at the government trough while cloaking their greed and malfeasance behind exhortations of compassion and accusations of racism!
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on August 04, 2012, 04:02:53 PM
So you want more regulation Eno?
Seriously, you are just throwing crap out here.
A few banks had funny business going on with their mortgages. Look at Countrywide/Bank of America, Wells Fargo...easy to research.
OPS:
Countrywide? Mozilo? As I recall, there were several elected pigs, from both sides of the aisle, lining their greedy pockets.
Quote from: eno on August 04, 2012, 10:21:48 AM
Quote from: buzz on August 04, 2012, 08:18:49 AM
Healthcare is broken. We can fix it with the Affordable Care Act if we ignore the failed policies of the past. Lack of regulation screwed us big time in mortgage/real estate. Lack of regulation, self-regulation, they don't work for financial institutions. It's the same one note samba from the obstructionist Republicans. It doesn't trickle down.
Now, Rmoney has a budget that even his former financial pundits call crap. It creates a huge deficit but what does it manage to cut ? Human Services ? Entitlements ?
I'm tired of the Republican mantra. Their failed policies don't work. They cower in fear of the boardroom and the broker, all the while protecting the top earners. The Affordable Care Act will standardize insurance offerings across the country. The ACA will help. Gov't intervention is necessary.
I agree with the highlighted statement to the degree that you might be referring to the U.S. government (which I'm sure you are not).
It was the rejection by Democrats of increased regulation of government sponsored entities: Fannie/Freddie (which were so heavily mis-leveraged in our housing market, and engaged in accounting fraud) which contributed to the insolvency of those programs and triggered both the bubble in housing prices, and the ensuing burst, which in turn triggered the recession...
The huge problems we are now experiencing are due in large part to too much government intervention in the housing market (and mortgage loans) and too little regulation of government! Obama and the Democrats haven't learned the lesson or stopped; they keep pushing homeowner bail-out programs (the cause of the initial crisis, and the reason why the housing recovery is still so weak) while pointing their crooked fingers at the banks.
It's brilliant populist politics, but horseshit economic policy.
Oeno,
Here's an idea: why don't you run for Congress? You seem to know
everything about
everything! I'm sure you'd agree. You could serve as our nation's first true, non-gasbag politician. I can see it now: "Oeno goes to Washington!" You could singlehandedly fix our healthcare system, the economy, the judicial system, the executive branch, everything! You know what's best for everyone. AND, here's the big bonus: since you wouldn't be caught dead suckling at the federal teat, we would save a crapload of money because you'd do it for free! I
know you would because you're that kind of guy. You're the caring, compassionate type who recognizes the role of societal cooperation. I know that sounds kind of "liberal" and therefore "bad" but I think in your first speech to the nation you could put on that white straw hat I always picture you in and stand on the steps of the capitol and go on and on and on and on, all without a teleprompter! That would win points with the doubters and the haters. The point is this Oeno, your genius is wasted here in Berwyn. Save me from the liberal menace. Run for Congress...Come on! I'll be the first to sign your petition...
Very truly yours,
Mr. Daniel Lumis
Quote from: Mr. Daniel Lumis on August 04, 2012, 05:43:48 PM
Oeno,
Here's an idea: why don't you run for Congress? You seem to know everything about everything! I'm sure you'd agree. You could serve as our nation's first true, non-gasbag politician. I can see it now: "Oeno goes to Washington!" You could singlehandedly fix our healthcare system, the economy, the judicial system, the executive branch, everything! You know what's best for everyone. AND, here's the big bonus: since you wouldn't be caught dead suckling at the federal teat, we would save a crapload of money because you'd do it for free! I know you would because you're that kind of guy. You're the caring, compassionate type who recognizes the role of societal cooperation. I know that sounds kind of "liberal" and therefore "bad" but I think in your first speech to the nation you could put on that white straw hat I always picture you in and stand on the steps of the capitol and go on and on and on and on, all without a teleprompter! That would win points with the doubters and the haters. The point is this Oeno, your genius is wasted here in Berwyn. Save me from the liberal menace. Run for Congress...Come on! I'll be the first to sign your petition...
Very truly yours,
Mr. Daniel Lumis
Mr. Danial Loomis: Veiled hatred.
berwynson
Mr. Lumis:
Believe me when I tell you, I'd look stupid in a straw hat making speeches; I'm too short and I'd look like a mushroom. Ask some of the people on the board who have met me.
I'm not running for anything. I don't know everything, nor even that much, just what I believe.
I do enjoy debating people with opposing beliefs (esp. on national politics and foreign policy).
You want "genius"? Vote for more "Hope and Change".
eno's not your man!
P.S. "Gasbag"? I say "passionate" bordering on "incoherent".
Quote from: eno on August 04, 2012, 07:53:59 AM
... Ted's regarding bonds...
So, Eno, do you believe that bonds in a private company comes with absolultely no risk?
Seriously? What if GM had gone under?
Quote from: eno on August 04, 2012, 07:53:59 AM
P.S. The only "profit at no risk" which exists in this country is the money government takes with a club in its right hand from Peter, to give with its left hand to Paul; it is there that the effects of the sinister trade-off of freedom for perceived economic security are most obvious: decline, dependence, then dehumanization.
Yeah, coming from someone who paid only $137 in 1986 in property taxes on a mutl-unit while I paid over $1,000 on a single family 2 bedroom home in 1986, that makes sense.
To Eno, the government is a bad bad thing
except when it gives you an unbelievably low property tax while everyone around you is paying 10 times as much.
I guess those extraordinarily low property taxes really de-humanized you, right Eno?
:D ;D :D ;D :D
Quote from: berwynson on August 04, 2012, 04:14:52 PM
Pray tell, Ted, how ANY holder of ANY security investment instrument, is guaranteed profit, much less at no risk?
Please explain how ANY investment may be claimed to carry "no risk"?
berwynson
Dude, I was being facetious.
I still eagerly await eno's (or anyone's) explanation of how Americans' personal freedoms have been restricted by the president.
I gave you one (property rights).
You don't believe that individual property rights are a personal freedom, so I await your definition of what "personal freedoms" are.
Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
eno
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
I gave you one (property rights).
You don't believe that individual property rights are a personal freedom, so I await your definition of what "personal freedoms" are.
Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
eno
You didn't tell me you believed that property rights were a personal freedom; you grumpily asked me if I thought they were.
In any event, how have the bondholders' property rights been violated, exactly?
That you respond to these requests so sluggishly, so angrily, suggests to me that you're not convinced yourself that President Obama has squelched anybody's personal freedoms. But perhaps you'll turn around and start posting more sensibly.
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
I gave you one (property rights).
You don't believe that individual property rights are a personal freedom, so I await your definition of what "personal freedoms" are.
Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
eno
You didn't tell me you believed that property rights were a personal freedom; you grumpily asked me if I thought they were.
In any event, how have the bondholders' property rights been violated, exactly?
@ about 1:32 p.m. (yesterday) markberwyn asked: "
How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office? The question's for anybody"?
@ about 2:02 p.m. (yesterday) eno answered: "
Let's just start here:Anybody and everybody who owned GM Bonds in 2009 had their personal freedoms restricted (though what Obama did to bond-holders' property rights was to abrogate them, not merely restrict them)."
How did Obama violate the property rights of bond-holders? Please Google it; also check 11 U.S.C. and 13 U.S.C. which govern bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the lawful treatment and order of preference of
and among: secured and unsecured creditors, shareholders, etc.). Short answer is Obama screwed G.M. bond-holders to favor his union cronies, his campaign contributors, his political supporters. Obama has brought Banana Republic leadership (The Chicago Way, if you prefer) to the White House.
I'm channeling Ted here: "The
Thugocracy still exists. It has never gone away and it will continue to exist so long as
Obama is president and uses his authority and power unlawfully to steal from one group to give it to others who support him."
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 04:41:15 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
I gave you one (property rights).
You don't believe that individual property rights are a personal freedom, so I await your definition of what "personal freedoms" are.
Can you name them, perhaps in a bulleted list?
eno
You didn't tell me you believed that property rights were a personal freedom; you grumpily asked me if I thought they were.
In any event, how have the bondholders' property rights been violated, exactly?
@ about 1:32 p.m. (yesterday) markberwyn asked: "How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office? The question's for anybody"?
@ about 2:02 p.m. (yesterday) eno answered: "Let's just start here:Anybody and everybody who owned GM Bonds in 2009 had their personal freedoms restricted (though what Obama did to bond-holders' property rights was to abrogate them, not merely restrict them)."
How did Obama violate the property rights of bond-holders? Please Google it; also check 11 U.S.C. and 13 U.S.C. which govern bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the lawful treatment and order of preference of and among: secured and unsecured creditors, shareholders, etc.). Short answer is Obama screwed G.M. bond-holders to favor his union cronies, his campaign contributors, his political supporters. Obama has brought Banana Republic leadership (The Chicago Way, if you prefer) to the White House.
I'm channeling Ted here: "The Thugocracy still exists. It has never gone away and it will continue to exist so long as Obama is president and uses his authority and power unlawfully to steal from one group to give it to others who support him."
What were the bondholders once free to do that they can no longer do?
...possess the property which Obama stole from them and turned over to his cronies.
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
...possess the property which Obama stole from them and turned over to his cronies.
To the extent that these people are still allowed to own property, I don't see how this is a "personal freedoms" issue. Seems to me you're overstating things, taking your use of "cronies" and general knee-jerk contempt for the President into consideration.
I'd be more careful about claiming "personal freedoms" are being violated. That is a very, very serious charge.
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
...possess the property which Obama stole from them and turned over to his cronies.
To the extent that these people are still allowed to own property, I don't see how this is a "personal freedoms" issue. Seems to me you're overstating things, taking your use of "cronies" and general knee-jerk contempt for the President into consideration.
I'd be more careful about claiming "personal freedoms" are being violated. That is a very, very serious charge.
I appreciate this rare expression of candor by you; I suspected that you do not believe that private property is a "personal freedom".
How careful should I be when answering specific questions you pose? More careful because Obama is president? Why should I be more careful? What will happen to me, other than being banished from this board?
You put the question of "personal freedoms" on the table; you obviously have a peculiar definition of the term, so why not tell us what it is instead of playing your usual games?
Merriam Webster defines "
personal freedom" as follows: "
freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal%20freedom (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal%20freedom)
Since you do not consider "security of private property" or "freedom of opinion and its expression" personal freedoms, what do you mean by "personal freedoms"?
I'm still waiting for your reply!
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 05:25:19 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
...possess the property which Obama stole from them and turned over to his cronies.
To the extent that these people are still allowed to own property, I don't see how this is a "personal freedoms" issue. Seems to me you're overstating things, taking your use of "cronies" and general knee-jerk contempt for the President into consideration.
I'd be more careful about claiming "personal freedoms" are being violated. That is a very, very serious charge.
I appreciate this rare expression of candor by you; I suspected that you do not believe that private property is a "personal freedom".
I didn't argue that. My point is that the situation you're keening about doesn't rise to the level of violation of personal freedom. There is nothing these people were once able to do that they cannot do now.
And besides: If the president has really and truly, as you say, unleashed a Great Terribleness upon the land in which Americans' "personal freedoms" are being violated willy-nilly, you should be able to unleash a long and persuasive list of these violations, instead of sadly clinging to a subset of corporate stockholders who are complaining that they got a bad deal when GM got restructured.
Quote from: berwynson on August 04, 2012, 06:01:43 PM
Quote from: Mr. Daniel Lumis on August 04, 2012, 05:43:48 PM
Oeno,
Here's an idea: why don't you run for Congress? You seem to know everything about everything! I'm sure you'd agree. You could serve as our nation's first true, non-gasbag politician. I can see it now: "Oeno goes to Washington!" You could singlehandedly fix our healthcare system, the economy, the judicial system, the executive branch, everything! You know what's best for everyone. AND, here's the big bonus: since you wouldn't be caught dead suckling at the federal teat, we would save a crapload of money because you'd do it for free! I know you would because you're that kind of guy. You're the caring, compassionate type who recognizes the role of societal cooperation. I know that sounds kind of "liberal" and therefore "bad" but I think in your first speech to the nation you could put on that white straw hat I always picture you in and stand on the steps of the capitol and go on and on and on and on, all without a teleprompter! That would win points with the doubters and the haters. The point is this Oeno, your genius is wasted here in Berwyn. Save me from the liberal menace. Run for Congress...Come on! I'll be the first to sign your petition...
Very truly yours,
Mr. Daniel Lumis
Mr. Danial Loomis: Veiled hatred.
berwynson
Hatred no. Frustration and disappointment, yes.
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 05:33:52 PM
And besides: If the president has really and truly, as you say, unleashed a Great Terribleness upon the land in which Americans' "personal freedoms" are being violated willy-nilly, you should be able to unleash a long and persuasive list of these violations, instead of sadly clinging to a subset of corporate stockholders who are complaining that they got a bad deal when GM got restructured.
I'm not keening;
You raised the question of President Obama and "personal freedoms" out of the blue!
You asked for anyone to provide an example of how he has "
restricted" personal freedoms; quote markberwyn:
"
How have your personal freedoms been restricted since the president took office...?"
I gave you an example and you rejected it because suddenly the "restriction" of a personal freedom was insufficient, and did not constitute the "violation" of a personal freedom, since the president only "restricted" but didn't go so far as to repeal entirely the right to own property; quote markberwyn:
"...
To the extent that these people are still allowed to own property, I don't see how this is a "personal freedoms issue..."
What's your agenda?
eno
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: markberwyn on August 05, 2012, 06:01:09 PM
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
What's your agenda?
Debullshitification.
Then, physician, heal thyself!
So I think we're settled here. The president has made some investors unhappy. This is part of the risk of being an investor for some; for others, this is a violation of personal freedoms.
Maybe there's something about the right to choose your own haircut in the Constitution.
Is "life" a personal freedom? How about liberty?
If, as markberwyn contends, a U.S. president can take soemone's property without due process of law (i.e. a court proceeding), can the president deprive an American citizen of his liberty or his life without a trial?
Would such action by a president constitute restricting one's personal freedom? If you execute an American citizen without a trial, he can't live again can he?
Let's take it a step further, especially for those angels of truth, consistency, and objectivity whose agenda is "debullshitification". Assume the following facts: a candidate for president (we'll call him...Barack Obama) argued that detaining a person (citizen or not) without a trial was unlawful and immoral. Let's further assume that at his inauguration address, President Obama dedicated some of his speech to restoring America's morality in that regard. Finally, let's assume that President Obama not only continued these "immoral" detention policies, but also began executing people (including American citizens) without a trial.
Restriction of a personal right? Violation? Obama's position before the election; bullshit? How about his actions after his inauguration; bullshit?
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
Is "life" a personal freedom? How about liberty?
If, as markberwyn contends, a U.S. president can take soemone's property without due process of law (i.e. a court proceeding), can the president deprive an American citizen of his liberty or his life without a trial?
Would such action by a president constitute restricting one's personal freedom? If you execute an American citizen without a trial, he can't live again can he?
Let's take it a step further, especially for those angels of truth, consistency, and objectivity whose agenda is "debullshitification". Assume the following facts: a candidate for president (we'll call him...Barack Obama) argued that detaining a person (citizen or not) without a trial was unlawful and immoral. Let's further assume that at his inauguration address, President Obama dedicated some of his speech to restoring America's morality in that regard. Finally, let's assume that President Obama not only continued these "immoral" detention policies, but also began executing people (including American citizens) without a trial.
Restriction of a personal right? Violation? Obama's position before the election; bullshit? How about his actions after his inauguration; bullshit?
Thread's over, eno.
Some questions for the Obama Haters - Do you think this country would have been better off letting GM fail and go under? Or worse off?
Would the GM bond holders have been better off or worse off?
Is this country better off or worse off in preventing banks from failing?
If a bank fails, is the country seizing the bank considered an act of "taking personal property?" If so, should we just allow people lose their money (like in the Great Depression) just willy nilly due to the bank they chose?
Quote from: eno on August 05, 2012, 04:41:15 PM
I'm channeling Ted here: "The Thugocracy still exists. It has never gone away and it will continue to exist ...
Why are you knocking the thugocracy? After all, they gave you that sweetheart deal on your property taxes in 1986. ;)
Ted:
Tax was $193 (not $137).
It was for single family home at 3517 S. Damen. My dad inherited his father's home when he passed, and the bill was sent to my Berwyn home; my son found it in the garage a few months back with our Berwyn address on it, and I assumed it was for my 3-flat here because the only address on it is the Berwyn address.
I've plugged in the pin number and it registers to Chicago; also on the face of the bill it lists the "town" as "76001 South Chicago. Breakdown of taxes:
7.67 Chgo School Finance Authority
18.40 Chicago Park District
70.69 Board of Education
53.44 City of Chicago
3.97 City of Chicago
9.87 Chicago Community College District 508
11.89 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of Greater Chgo
1.93 Forest Preserve District of Cook County
9.43 County of Cook
6.63 Cook County Health Facilities
____________________________
193.79 TOTAL TAX
eno
P.S. Why the personal attack against me?
Quote from: Ted on August 06, 2012, 06:40:00 AM
Some questions for the Obama Haters - Do you think this country would have been better off letting GM fail and go under? Or worse off?
Would the GM bond holders have been better off or worse off?
Is this country better off or worse off in preventing banks from failing?
If a bank fails, is the country seizing the bank considered an act of "taking personal property?" If so, should we just allow people lose their money (like in the Great Depression) just willy nilly due to the bank they chose?
Ted:
Do you know anything about how Bankruptcy works? Explain by what authority a president (even one for whom you abandon all reason and common sense, and support slavishly) can put himself above the laws he is sworn to faithfully execute? How do you know that if GM filed for Bankruptcy, they would have failed and gone under? Kindly provide some evidence of that...
As for banks, are you just throwing out your regular B.S., or did you just happen to forget about the federal laws we already have which protect people's money? Ever heard of FDIC?
Quote from: eno on August 06, 2012, 08:10:12 AM
P.S. Why the personal attack against me?
There was no personal attack. I just didn't understand why your property taxes were so low in Berwyn on a 2- or 3- flat while I was paying over $1,000 on a small single family home.
Thanks for explaining.
Yours Truly,
The "infantile", "deceptive" Ted
:) :) :)
Quote from: eno on August 06, 2012, 08:20:43 AM
As for banks, are you just throwing out your regular B.S., or did you just happen to forget about the federal laws we already have which protect people's money? Ever heard of FDIC?
Yes, I do know about FDIC. Why does it exist? Shouldn't the free market apply when it comes to money in a bank, just like everything else you believe the free market should apply to?
As for GM, how can YOU be so sure it would not have gone under? Then where would the bond holders be?
Ted:
You reduce everything to the absurd; I don't believe that the free market should do everything. Why do you believe the government should do everything?
There you go again moving the goal-post and twisting people's words; you're the one who allowed for no options, and proclaimed:
"Do you think this country would have been better off letting GM fail and go under?"
How do you know that GM might not have restructured and reorganized, instead? You didn't allow for that possibility; why?
Also, you haven't answered by what authority the president was lawfully able to avoid the very laws that provide for this situation; is the president above the law?
Quote from: POT on August 06, 2012, 08:43:09 AM
KETTLE:
You reduce everything to the absurd . . . . . . .
There you go again moving the goal-post and twisting people's words .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Bwaaahahaha!
Quote from: eno on August 06, 2012, 08:10:12 AM
Tax was $193 (not $137).... It was for single family home at 3517 S. Damen.
Even for Chicago, that's pretty low property taxes for 1986.
Your father must have been getting the senior exemption for taxes to be that low in 1986.
Eno, are you happy that the big, bad government gave your Dad a senior exemption on his property taxes?
Quote from: Ted on August 05, 2012, 08:32:50 AM
Quote from: berwynson on August 04, 2012, 04:14:52 PM
Pray tell, Ted, how ANY holder of ANY security investment instrument, is guaranteed profit, much less at no risk?
Please explain how ANY investment may be claimed to carry "no risk"?
berwynson
Dude, I was being facetious.
Ah, so! Thank you for clarifying. I tend to take everything at face value, and leave little variance for "grey area".
berwynson
Quote from: jake on July 27, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
GDP growth is down to an annualized rate of just 1.5% for 2Q2012.
GDP in the EuroZone has been re-adjusted to a negative 0.2%.
The U.S. is still doing better than Europe and Europe's economic woes are dragging down the U.S. recovery.