This thing is amazing. I love how accessible everything is.
Oh, Nancy!
One person makes me cringe…more than others. One person makes me slap my forehead and ask, “This is the best we have?”. I am of course refering to Nancy Pelosi.
Recently, she claims to have had “no idea” that the C.I.A. was using some harsh interrogation tactics to gain information. She said she there was a meeting and she was breifed on the meeting but not debriefed on the meeting and there was more breifing on a meeting she couldnt make it to…and aparently she was briefed again. It sounds confusing just reading that, but even more confusing when she explained it that way.
The Republican minority leader asked Pelosi to either present evidence that she was mislead or to apologize for misleading the Country. Another representative who is beind Pelosi of course uses this as a tactic of the Republican party is just trying to remove the spotlight from the bush administrations deeds.
Personally, I don’t think Pelosi should make claims without evidence. People are trying to get the minutes of the meetings, but somehow I think they got shredded, because something tells me she knew all along about the tactics and practices. She isn’t too forthcoming on the happenings, and is just kinda using the “Look at my face, I have an honest face. Trust me.” scam. I don’t.
That’s how I see it.
Obama wants increased fuel efficiency, less smog
From the Associated Press, and of course this is nothing new for our nation under President Obama. I find it amazing when he claims he will cut our costs and make life easier when this will raise $1,300 a year for each car owned. Not only that, but the taxes on tobacco, soda, candy, and the like. Everytime I think of Obama’s policies, I think of that community in Hot Fuzz. “Bonum commune communitatis, bonum commune communitatis, bonum commune communitatis.”
I will quote Sam Adams here.
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary,despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”
We should not be under the boot of our government, telling us how to live. I understand the planet is in peril, and “global warming” might be true, but we should not be forced to go along with their beliefs when there are plenty of counter arguments against “global warming”. We are a nation of individuals. Our rights are at stake in our country and we need to start fighting back. Everyday our government is starting to nationalize more and more. Once it comes down to defending the Constitution, get me a gun. I will gladly march on the Capitol to make sure it is upheld.
I digress…read the story below on the increased cost of living in our country. Enjoy.
By KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers Ken Thomas And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers – 2 hrs 40 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined Tuesday the nation’s first comprehensive effort to curb vehicle emissions while cutting dependence on imported oil, calling the plan an historic turning point toward a “clean-energy economy.”
Joined in the White House Rose Garden by leaders of the auto industry, labor, government officials and key national and state political leaders, Obama said the agreement that once would have been “considered impossible” was what he termed a “harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington.”
The two-pronged approach to problems that compound threats to the global environment marks the latest in a series of shifts by the Obama administration away from the policies of his conservative predecessor, former President George W. Bush.
“As a result of this agreement,” Obama said, “we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. And at a time of historic crisis in our auto industry, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century.”
He said the new rules amounted to removing 177 million cars from the roads over the next 6 1/2 years.
In that period, the savings in oil burned to fuel American cars, trucks and buses would amount to last year’s combined U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria.
While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.
While requiring that vehicle carbon dioxide emissions be reduced by about one-third by the target date, the plan requires the auto industry to be building vehicles that average 35.5 miles per gallon.
The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they’ve been seeking and more time to make the changes.
The plan, to be proposed in the Federal Register of pending rules and regulations, must still clear procedural hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers expressed their support for the plan. “We’re all agreeing to work together on a national program,” said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.
Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets.
In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government’s requirements. The states’ regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.
The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.
The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.
But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama’s plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.
__
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Ken Thomas and Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.
Glenn Makes Some Good Points – 1/16/2009
I was online reading a transcript of the Glenn Beck Program and he made some good points about capitalism and why it’s a good economic system. Check it out below.
Glenn Beck: Thank you, Capitalism!
January 15, 2009 – 12:55 ET
GLENN: You know, people will say, “Well, France isn’t that bad. You know, I mean, how bad is it? They don’t have capitalism. They are a socialist state. It’s not that bad.” Well, let me ask you this: What has France brought us besides the Statue of Liberty? What has France brought the world? You got wine, but they started that when? 1500? You have cheese. I can get that from Wisconsin. They have whining. I can get that from California. What do they have? What great innovations have the French brought us? Can you think of anything? That’s not a rhetorical question. That is a serious question. What great innovations have come from France that changed the world? If you look at socialist nations, communist nations, et cetera, et cetera, all they try to do is tread water. They just, “Let’s give everybody a standard of living, let’s just have…” and then so you tread water. Well, I don’t want to tread water. The American dream is that tomorrow can be better than today was. The American dream is not about a house and a car. The American dream is I can live a better life than my parents did. Well, government’s never going to give you that, never going to give you that. Why don’t we believe in that anymore? We don’t believe in that anymore because the government got — the free market system hasn’t been around for a very long time. FDR said we should try using the actual free market system. FDR said this in 1938: “We should use the free market system. It hasn’t been used for a very long time.” Why? What was he talking about? Monopolies, of trains, transportation, communication. Monopolies. FDR was saying it? He must have been high. We hadn’t used the real free market system for a very long time, but still with this hybrid that we’ve been using look what we’ve done. Because capitalism was still the main force. Gang, it’s no longer that way. Things have changed. Socialism very soon will be in the driver seat. Capitalism plays the secondary role. It is planned, a planned economy. Planned economies don’t work. You become France.
Most socialist states don’t just tread water. They don’t end up being France. They end up being North Korea. They end up being Venezuela. And socialist states become fascist states. Capitalists do not become — generally speaking capitalists do not become fascist. They must become socialist or communist first. And then when that fails, then they become fascist. And then after a long period of struggle they become free.
So what has France brought us and what has capitalism brought us? What has socialism brought to people compared to capitalism? I’m just going to go through just a couple of things, just a couple of things to show that while people will say, “Well, you can’t afford that. That’s crazy. That’s expensive. That’s…” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In 1949, this is the beginning of the great period of America. In the 1940s and Fifties, that’s when the industrial might of this country just broke loose. In 1949 a toaster, a toaster was $16.95. It doesn’t seem like a lot now. I mean, toasters now are $19.99. But a toaster in 1949 being almost $17 took you 13 hours of work because your wage, the average hourly manufacturing wage was $1.26. So it took you 13.5 hours to buy a toaster. Today because of capitalism the toaster, the average toaster is $19.99 and it takes the average manufacturer an hour to buy one.
In 1949 the refrigerator, the refrigerator in 1949 took the average worker 178.4 hours to buy, a refrigerator. You are working 22 days, or 4.5 weeks to be able to buy a refrigerator. Today you can get a 9.5 cubic foot refrigerator for $399 on sale, and I bet they will really cut the — I bet you can negotiate now. It will take you 2.4 days to buy that refrigerator. But we’re complaining about prices. We’re complaining about — we have shifted our vision. We have shifted our expectations. We’re no longer looking at it of where we’ve come from. What is France? It seems to me the price of wine has gone up.
If you look at the washer in 1949, it took you 83 hours to buy, 10 1/2 days of work to buy a washing machine. Today it takes you 2.2 days. The price was $104 of a washer in 1949. Today it’s $322. The cost of a VCR in 1981 was $1,389. It took you almost a month to be able to afford a VCR. 187.3 hours of work to buy a VCR. Today it will take you 3 1/2 hours to buy a VCR. What has capitalism done? What has the free market done? In 1981 it took you 71 hours of work to buy a TV set, a 19-inch portable color television, 1981, was $529.88. Nine days to buy a 19-inch television. Today you walk into Sears and get a 20-inch TV for 9 1/2 hours of work. A microwave oven was $469, eight days to buy a microwave oven. Today, 6.5 hours. It was $469.88. It’s now $119.
What has capitalism built? How has capitalism improved people’s lives? Ask yourself, what has Venezuela, what grand invention and how has France changed the face of the world, changed the average person’s life? Can they say “Because of us you can now…” do you remember what it was like? I remember standing as a kid watching my mom and dad. We all stood around as a family: “Watch this, watch this. It will boil water in a cup!” We watched it. It was entertainment. We couldn’t believe it! How has just that one invention changed the lives of women and men alike who come home every night and they don’t want to cook. “We just need to heat this up, we just want to…” how has it saved on energy? Has France done it? Has socialism done it? Has communism done it? Has totalitarianism done it? Only capitalism has done this, and we are actually entertaining the idea that capitalism somehow or another is flawed. You know what? Go back to your fireplace to cook your popcorn in a wire basket. I’ll have mine done in 2 1/2 minutes with capitalism.
Liberals voice concerns about Obama – 12/08/2008
I knew Obama was too good to be true for the left. I knew it was just time until “the politics of division” were played and he has totally dropped some of his promises as he has during his campaign. I looked at it this way. Obama reminds me of a movie with a lot of hype. Great advertising, promises to be the best movie of all time. I know the movie hasn’t been played yet, but it seems empty. It seems shallow. And I know once it comes out, people will realize, hype only goes so far. Just like politicians.
And the cries of “McCain is bush junior!” or “McSame!”. Now its looking like Obama is starting to carry over some of the same policies. How fresh and how new is that. I didn’t know change meant to bring in everyone who has been in Washington for 15 years, who were in Clinton’s cabinet and then carry over Bush’s policies. How is that fresh? Bringing Clinton’s people with Bush’s policies? Doesn’t exactly sound good at all.
Below is the article that promted this. I know I havn’t been posting in a while. Been busy. But now that Obama is coming closer to the position he was elected for, there should be more posts.
Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson
Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.
Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.
Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
“There don’t seem to be any liberals in Obama’s cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama’s policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”
“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn’t seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we’re not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”
This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.
“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn’t be president-elect without labor.”
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
“It’s complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn’t even taken office yet so it’s a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”
That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama — and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.
Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes – even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations – is bad for the economy.”
Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”
Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.
“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don’t yet know what the best approach is going to be.”
On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you’ll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.
The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.
“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”
“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”
Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I’m willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.
Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”
But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
Me and Nick and Erik part 2 – 11/17/2008
James is ready for another battle. I love this stuff. 10:18am – 35 Comments
Nicholas Barlow at 10:56am November 11
What are we battling this time? Bring it bitch!
James Clifford at 10:59am November 11
Haha. How about how excessive spending does not bring out country out of a rescession. Or, how Joe Biden is a smug ahole. Or how McCain is just as smug. Or how plaque is a figment of the dental insdustry to scare us into buying useless appliances and pastes.
Nicholas Barlow at 11:12am November 11
Well we can talk bout how smug McCain is. I mean someone who runs a campaign solely on sarcasm is basically the worst thing that America could possibly have! See McCain is a smug ahole where Biden is simply badass!
James Clifford at 11:13am November 11
I dont know. I sense a ‘im better than you and i know it’ stigma from both mccain and biden.
Nicholas Barlow at 11:14am November 11
Exactly, but one actually is and one isn’t. You seriously can’t discount the fact that Biden is badass to the bone!
James Clifford at 11:36am November 11
i dont think so. i dont think he is that badass. he brings nothing new to the table of politics. you want real change? take a look at what bob barr wanted to do. that is something that has never been done before.
Nicholas Barlow at 11:49am November 11
Too bad that any party other than Republican or Democrat is never going to win in our lifetime. Bob Barr is scary BTW!
James Clifford at 12:22pm November 11
No he isnt. he wants to give our personal liberty back. everything is out choice, not our government or our state, like the founding fathers intended.
Nicholas Barlow at 12:31pm November 11
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry dude, I know that there are individuals like you and me that are able and responsible enough to do so, but we both need to face the fact that it wouldn’t work out. There would be way too much injustice if that were the case. It would be anarchy and you know it.
James Clifford at 12:44pm November 11
really? so you think i should trust obama, and you cant trust america? that falsifies your arguement since america voted for him. so if you cant trust people to make the right choice, then how is obama the right choice? did you know in california, as a parent you dont have the right to homeschool your children? that should NOT be the govenrmnet or the states choice, but yours. in utah, and several other states, it should be the choice of the proprieter of a business to allow or disallow smoking in the establishment, not the choice of the government or state. utah has the strictest laws on alcohol. again, that is my decision to drink and i should not have to jump through some amazing hoops to do so.
Nicholas Barlow at 2:19pm November 11
Oh no I agree that some people are able to make a great choice, and I think that is the half of America that voted for Obama! I worry about the other half who would even be dumb enough to want us run under a totalitarian regime with the (new) McCain/Palin ticket. For the other 2 percent who didn’t even try but just threw thier votes away, they are split and can’t make an actual decision so they choose to throw their’s away!
James Clifford at 2:22pm November 11
and live under a socialist regime of obama/biden. i honestly dont see mccain or palin being totalitarian. at all.
also nick, voting on your principles in never throwing your vote away. i voted for barr because i beleive in the integrity of our constitution. i dont believe obama or mccain understands or stand for the integrity of our constitution.
Nicholas Barlow at 2:27pm November 11
Also James! Hahaha, my name has a capitol “N” and I don’t need a lecture! Why is socialism viewed as communism in the United States yet other countries feel that we are behind the times for not following a more socialist view?
James Clifford at 2:34pm November 11
im not viewing socialism and communism. i understand the difference. there are some european countries leaving socialism because it didnt work. mark and i had a discussion about this recently. i dont believe socialism allows the person to be an individual. i understand we need to stand together as americans, but socialism takes away our ability to make our own decisions. mandates get involved and my ability to choose is nil. personal accountability and personal responsibility will dissipate and the only thing will stand is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Nicholas Barlow at 2:41pm November 11
Socialism is origionally a way for an egalitarian society to be run. I am aware that you have a great knowledge of word definition but let me refresh your memory. Egalitarian- Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people. Where the problem comes along with throwing a word like Socialism out there now is that it has been brandished by people misusing power, something I don’t see Obama doing in the future. Basically now people are simply scared of the word because it has been hardened by the media dude.
James Clifford at 2:45pm November 11
i was being sarcastic because of your totalitarian comment. i understand he wont be total socialist. i wasnt saying that at all. i was responding to your question of why united states isnt subscribing to socialism compared to europe. my issue is there should be political, social and civil equality. i dont agree with economic equality. if someone works their ass off to become successful and wealthy, i dont agree with taking his money away to give to someone who hasnt worked. i believe in personal responsibility.
Nicholas Barlow at 2:50pm November 11
Oh personaly responsability totally. But if it comes to walefare that you are about discuss be careful, I’m pretty sure I’ve got a great grasp on when that should be handed out considering I grew up partly on it and was a social work major. There are times that people are working hard, diserve help and there are times when they don’t diserve it. It is totally situational and dependent on how much they are willing to put forth in order to obtain walefare.
James Clifford at 2:58pm November 11
right, but i lived in a city where welfare was treated as a simple handout. people having kids just to get more foodstamps per month. i worked for a year at the local grocery store, and there were several families that were on food stamps that i honestly dont think they should have been on food stamps. 7 kids and one more on the way, thats some good free money right there. i understand help where its needed, but there are PLENTY of people taking advantage of our system.
Nicholas Barlow at 3:32pm November 11
I also agree that they shouldn’t take advantage of it. However that’s not Obama’s doing because that has already been going on. You see my arguement here right, he can’t be blamed for it and it can’t suddeny be abolished because that would leave lots of dead kids, huge problem. But I agree that it shouldn’t be taken advantage of. These people need some counseling and clearly a job, good thing there are suppose to be a lot more jobs moving into America within the next 10 years, that should help get some people off of walefare indeed.
James Clifford at 3:42pm November 11
im not blaming obama for people abusing the system. again, my answer above was in response to your sarcasm and your point of “Socialism is origionally a way for an egalitarian society to be run.” nothing what i said was directed towards obama, but more of the system itself.
Nicholas Barlow at 3:59pm November 11
That’s what I was saying, I was agreeing with you on that. I was just putting that Obama claimer out there becuase I didn’t want the already flawed system to come back on him.
Erik Karl McComb at 4:48pm November 11
I tend to agree. with nick on this one because, There are a lot of Americans that i don’t think could honestly handle the personal liberties that Bob Barr would be giving back. I mean, my Worst kept secret is that im a big fan of Marijuana, and a good portion of the people i know who do it or have done it, (with the exception of few people i wont list for discretion) are total morons when it comes to personal choice. And its hard to yell at obama for problems we have in america now, because as previously stated, He’s not in office yet. it would be extremely unfair of me to so out financial crisis is his fault, so its equally unfair to blame his party and their leaders for problems we have now. However, once they are in office and have the right and means to change it, i would hope they would. if not, then ill yell at him for it.
Erik Karl McComb at 4:49pm November 11
sorry Nick, i forgot to capitalize your name too.
James Clifford at 4:53pm November 11
well, i stand for the integrity of our constitution that says i have freedom over our government. as much as i think people will be morons, that it their choice to be morons.
Erik Karl McComb at 4:56pm November 11
and to just let them i think would be irresponsible of us. lol. i mean. a few jack ass people could screw a whole country. i do believ that americans should one day get all the personal liberties that they want, but let them have them slowly at fiirst, let it trickle so society can adjust, otherwise, as Nick said, it Would be anarchy. And a vast shortage of herb. 
James Clifford at 4:58pm November 11
no, it wouldnt be anarchy. personal liberty in the sense that as long as you follow the basic laws. dont kill anyone, dont steal, dont lie. im saying, i should be allowed to make decisions without the government intervening. like, if i wanted to homeschool my kids the government shouldnt be allowed to say no. or, if i owned a restaurant the government shouldnt be allowed to tell me it can not be a smoking establishment. these should be my choices.
Erik Karl McComb at 5:00pm November 11
yes but should the goverment, be able to have a basic curriculum for homeschooled kids? and should the smoking establishment be required by law to have warnings posted?
James Clifford at 5:04pm November 11
the issue isnt curriculum. in california it is illegal to homeschool kids regardless of the curriculum. as a homeschooled parent you are already supposed to follow a certain curriculum. that is alright as long as the government doesnt hinder my choices. its the same with the restaurant. a sign posted isnt too much to ask to let people know this restaurant is smoking allowed.
Erik Karl McComb at 5:08pm November 11
Yes but as i was saying, give the liberties, but still have regulations. let the liberties adjust before opening the flood gates, LET the parent homeschool their kids, But make sure the parents arent teaching their children that 2 + 2= Fish. we are arguing the same thing my friend. give them liberties, but with well maintained boundries, and requirements.
James Clifford at 5:10pm November 11
where did i say that there shouldnt be regulations. all i said was there needs to be more ability for the american people to make their own decisions. regulation is the name of the game. as long as what you do does not harm another maliciously. with homeschool you are required by state law to follow a certain curriculum already. that doesnt inhibit your desire to homeschool. it inhibits your ability to be stupid.
Erik Karl McComb at 5:16pm November 11
But stupid lika do da cha cha….
AT LEAST we can agree that there should be regulation. i though you were arguing Let all Americans do all they want when they want. like. Dress up in a giant diaper and walk around the mall shit faced. That is a little rediculous that parents cant make that choice in california. was this of the gov-ernators doing?
and as a smoker i agree…. i wish there were more social places i could smoke besides the porch.
James Clifford at 5:17pm November 11
dude, cmon. when i say do what we wish, i mean to a point.
Erik Karl McComb at 5:19pm November 11
ok ok ok…. lol. Cus i mean if were going back to the way it was when the founding fathers were around. id have tarred and feathered anyone who pissed me off and shot all the people who were crossing my lawn. damn tresspassers.
James Clifford at 5:21pm November 11
dude, sam adams was all for tar and feathering yet john adams saw tar and feathering as barbarism. if you listen to what barr was saying about personal liberty its more of the issue of government in our lives, not following the laws.
Erik Karl McComb at 5:36pm November 11
I was just referencing it as socially acceptable as it was back then. i know john looked down on it. but it was still publicly practiced.
ANYWAY, I dont know. maybe its just me and my inexperience in the world saying, this but i haven’t really known the government to be too much in my life, other than weed, smoking, and the drinking age, i’ve been doing peachy. IE, the government has made a nice little niche of hiding behind laws that effect our liberties, like Weed is illegal. Smoking it isn’t, but having it, or sharing, or selling it is. it would be difficult to find a politician with the scruples who would be able to work through these laws and discern which ones directly effect us in these ways, AND THEN convince the ignorance in american society its a good idea to change these laws. i do hope we get there someday. get to the point where america can trust and believe in an alternative party candidate enough.
A Facebook Debate – 11/11/2008
James is accepting our choice. Let’s hope he can live up to the promises. 10:19am
(here is what i posted my status as that started this whole debacle)
Nicholas Barlow at 11:28am November 10
Or more importantly lets look at what he has done comparitavely to what he said he was going to do thus far! Looks like his track record is 100% we have no reason to think it’s going to plumit!
Erik Karl McComb at 11:29am November 10
EXACTLY. lol
Erik Karl McComb at 11:30am November 10
exactly with James i mean. Nick, that was slightly backwards. lol
Nicholas Barlow at 12:31pm November 10
False!
James Clifford at 12:45pm November 10
Not false. He isnt our president so none of his promises have been fulfilled yet.
James Clifford at 12:45pm November 10
*not our president YET* i dont want to hear crap from anyone based on i didnt add yet.
Nicholas Barlow at 2:27pm November 10
I think it falls under the same premesis that our court system follows of innocent until proven guilty, great leader until proven otherwise!
James Clifford at 2:51pm November 10
i dont think so. i think politicians need to prove themselves by their actions, not their words. talk is cheap.
Jessica Polumbo at 3:00pm November 10
I agree with James. Politicians are dirty and corrupt until they can prove to the people they are not.
Nicholas Barlow at 4:08pm November 10
It’s much harder to prove you’re not corrupt to a group of people who have already pegged you as corrupt solely based on the fact that you are a politician. That is the backwards attitude that Americas have and need to break themselves of.
James Clifford at 4:10pm November 10
so, if mccain was elected would you feel he would need to prove himself, or would you say hes a good guy until he does something bad?
Nicholas Barlow at 4:18pm November 10
Oh I agree with old McCain. But you well know that once he had his pick for VP that he was making a bad bad choice. So one of his first choices pre president were terrible, how do you honeslty think he would have done in the oval office?
James Clifford at 4:25pm November 10
personally, without giving up my support of our new president elect, i dont agree with him at all, and that is also extended to mccain. i believe these men are not the solution to our problems right now in our country.
Nicholas Barlow at 4:32pm November 10
And how would you go about solving the country’s 10 tril in debt?
James Clifford at 4:35pm November 10
Cutting massive spending plans. Lowering the business tax rate to around 20% to allow growth. pull out of iraq. changing the tax plan to either a consumption tax or keep the irs and use a flat tax.
Nicholas Barlow at 4:39pm November 10
Hmm, sounds like you’ve been watching Obama adds.
James Clifford at 4:52pm November 10
no, obama is not in favor of a flat tax at all. the argument against the flat tax is that it favors the wealthy, but i would have to disagree. and obama plans on massive spending which after five years will wrap into $1.4 trillion. i would rather we remove the irs from power and issue a consumption tax. the sales taxes on goods would be raised to around 20%. you would get your whole gross in salary so the system would even itself out. he does say we should pull out of iraq and im in favor of that. he would also raise business tax. if we allow the businesses of america a break in taxes, regardless of their profit margin, then we would see a HUGE boost in our economy. if you think that raising their taxes would boost the econony, we already know that when we raise taxes on businesses they would have to start raising prices on good and eventually laying people off.
Nicholas Barlow at 4:59pm November 10
Um first, he is for pulling troops out of Iraq, that is simply common knowledge. Second, he is for tax breaks for AMERICAN companies. He is not for tax breaks of companies that 1. Have a Manopoly over all of America and 2. Companies which are held in America but outsourced to other places. 1 trillion really? Hmm, I fairly certain that Mr. Bush got us about 10 tril in debt so I’m not worried about the economy possibly getting a bit worse before it gets a lot better. What I was worried about is our economy getting way worse with no light at the end of the tunnel. And now I don’t have to worry about that!
Erik Karl McComb at 5:06pm November 10
The unfortutunate thing about wealth is how rapidly we get used to it. i for one am a living example. when i lived with my dad i had endless cash, and no need to plan my spendings. When a person is given or earned wealth, they will strive to keep it, because they are used to it. if you tax the hell out of rich people and make them fear for their pocketbook, they will lay people off, lessen product quality, and horde their cash, defending it by all means. the answer is not cripple the rich and milk their wallets, its make a solid base, the flat tax for everyone so that americans do have an exactly equal share in this country. As james stated, this is not a plan Obama is endorsing. sadly, the fact of the matter is that rich people are good for the economy. :/
Erik Karl McComb at 5:10pm November 10
Monoplies are and always have been illegal in this country. they dont exist. And the reasons businesses in america outsource is because the taxes on the owners and the businesses that lessen every employees pay to the point where its actually better for the economy to outsource. if they didnt, businesses would fail, stock would struggle, trade would be a sham and even more americans would be out of work.
James Clifford at 5:12pm November 10
i agree with you nick on most of that stuff, but i dont believe that new massive spending plans will get us out of our problems. UCLA released a study that FDR added 7 years to the depression because of his spending plans.
Nicholas Barlow at 7:01pm November 10
Well James, I know that you voted so I have no problem discussing this point with you, however Erik did you vote?
Erik Karl McComb at 8:09pm November 10
nope didnt register in time. and just to clarify. Im NOT complaining nor am i upset that obama won. if i would have been able to vote, i would have voted obama because to me, he was the lesser of two evils. but i do think its time for all his supporters to get over the fact he won and let him actually proove to the american people he can do all he said he would.
Nicholas Barlow at 8:13pm November 10
With a strong base of people that are happy he won there are going to be a lot of people who actully listen to him and follow what he is saying and the ideas that he is proposing. He can’t change America, we need to and the only way we can do that is trough trusting him.
James Clifford at 8:18pm November 10
look, this debate began because i stand behind him but he needs to prove himself to the people by his actions as president. i dont think that its too much to ask.
Erik Karl McComb at 8:22pm November 10
so show us he deserves our trust. blind faith in something by mass amounts of people doesnt make it fool proof. to think that would be folly. we’ve given a lot of power to the democratic party. a power that we have seen abused by the past presidents and parties. it would be ignorant of America to follow this man solely on the promises he made. He needs to show us why we supported him through the race, and why we as a united people should trust him with the fate of our families, lives, and livelyhood
Nicholas Barlow at 8:13am November 11
Honestly it says read more and I’m not even hitting it. Here’s why, you didn’t register dude, you didn’t make your voice heard then so I don’t feel like bantering with you now. Secondly, James and I are done with this conversation.
James Clifford at 9:50am November 11
Even though he didn’t vote, it doesn’t mean his opinions don’t matter. My motto is. if you don’t vote don’t bitch. It’s not, if you didn’t vote your opinions dont matter. Erik isnt bitching about the way the country is going with their choice. He is like me, just needs to prove himself. Nothing wrong with that. As far as our conversation, I did like this debate. We should do this more often.
Nicholas Barlow at 10:53am November 11
Hahaha dude banterinig is freakin awesome! It keeps your brain working. I actually view it as bitching, why wouldn’t I? It is after the opposite what I think! Anywho, thanks gentlemen, meeting adjourned.
FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate – 11/04/2008
Oh, this is good. I knew it was too good to be true. And now we see where the truth is. Spending money does NOT get us out of poverty. FACT. War brought us out of the great depression. FACT. FDR is the savior of the great depression. MYTH. Have we all been indoctrinated with a liberal agenda on this issue? FACT.
FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt’s role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century’s second-most influential figure.
“This is exciting and valuable research,” said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. “The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can’t understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won’t happen again?”
NIRA’s role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
“Historians have assumed that the policies didn’t have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,” Ohanian said. “We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices.”
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA’s labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor’s bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
-UCLA-
LSMS368
BTW I’m Voting For Mccain / Palin – 11/3/2008
Me, I’m voting for Bob Barr, but this guy makes some really REALLY good points against Obama.
