Conservatives attack Obama on donations to Haiti.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Aballister, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    This is an excerpt taken from Rush Limbaugh's sit on thursday:

    "Justin of Raleigh, North Carolina: "Why does Obama say if you want to donate some money, you could go to whitehouse.gov to direct you how to do so? If I wanted to donate to the Red Cross, why do I have to go to the White House page to donate?"

    Limbaugh: "Exactly. Would you trust the money's gonna go to Haiti?"

    Justin: "No."

    Rush: "But would you trust that your name's gonna end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?"


    Justin: "Absolutely!"

    Limbaugh: "Absolutely!"

    This is ludacrous, a quick check to the White House website shows that the link is for the Red Cross website and was put there to discourage scams that would result from the tragedy.

    Here is a letter from Roger Ebert to Rush Limbaugh

    Another comment from Rush Limbaugh a day earlier, a sound bite from the show went viral, in which he said Obama would exploit the situation to please his "black followers -- both the light-skinned and the dark-skinned ones."

    I think that the only person exploiting the disaster is Rush himself, he used these people's misfortune to make cheap political points and Ad Hominem attacks. Can't these guys drop the bullshit for a few minutes and reflect on the fact that 50,000 people lost their lives? I know it's hard to feel bad for a black person, especially for a conservative, but they sould really give it a try.
     
  2. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    I find it repugnant that you would use the situation in Haiti to forward your anti-conservative agenda. Have some class why don't ya?
     
  3. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    Meh, these forums were getting too quiet.

    But it's a bit of a vicious cycle we have here. I criticize Rush for exploiting the situation to make a few cheap shots, you criticize me for pushing an anti-conservative agenda while I criticize someone who has an anti-liberal agenda, I criticize you back for using my criticism of someone using the situation to criticize liberals, and on....

    Point is... Rush is an asshole, donate whatever you can, bring the life back to these forums, and have a good weekend. Better, have a repugnant weekend.
     
  4. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Ha! True dat Hey those Haitians hate the great evil Democracy.

    I wonder how much assistance Cuba and Venezuela are sending? :confused:

    I bet some Democrat will suggest communist dictatorship as the answer. How much you want to bet?
     
  5. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
  6. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    They might use a different term like: nationalist leader, social reform, or perhaps assertive presidency.

    But one thing I need to clarify; communism never really was an economic system. The word got tossed around a lot in the 50's and became almost a curse word. Communism is more of a social term than an economic one. In communist societies there is no wage for workers and the resources are redistributed among the people.

    An example would be those hippie settlements in the 70's, also known as "rainbows". A bunch of people would get together on a farm and share chores such as: feeding the cattles, tending to the crops, cleaning the farmhouse or homestead, fetching firewood, and etc. In return they would share food, clothes, and probably beds too. Never earning a wage as payment for the chores.

    On a bigger scale like a country, there never really was pure communism like that. What you had in Russia under Stallin, or China under Mao was socialism. Workers still earned a wage, no matter how little it was, and there was still wealthy people; mostly working for the government.

    In other words, there is only three different economic systems: socialism, mixed, and capitalism. There is no pure system either, everybody is in a mixed system. The US are very close to pure capitalism, but there are still government funded programs like the army, the FBI, homeland security, the FDA, and etc. Some goods can only be provided by a government, hence no such thing as pure capitalism. Canada is also capitalist, but we tend to hang more halfway between the right and the center, we could say that Canada is 3/4 capitalist. England and France are dead in the center, half capitalist and half socialist. While Israel is very socialistic, almost as bad as China. One could wonder why the US supports such a socialist country.

    Anyway...

    Knowledge is power, Joe.
     
  7. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    The teachers union, United Auto Workers, Postal Workers.... anywhere you see people under qualified and overpaid you see the governments Socialist hand being played.

    At the expense of the hard working private sector who carry the extra load.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2010
  8. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    Police officers, firefighters, and soldiers; are they also underqualified socialist puppets?

    Face it, not everything can be provided by free market alone.

    I consider myself a capitalist, I don't buy into the social and religious views of the conservative party and I don't believe into the tons of social programs imposed by the left. But I do believe in the "invisible hand of the free-market". But you have to remain realistic and understand that not everything can be privately owned. Can you imagine a privately owned army?

    My professor in economics is originally from Nigeria, he possess one of the most brilliant minds in the country in terms of understanding economics. He also votes conservative. He said that in Nigeria there are neighborhoods too poor to support a bank, but people still need an account in order to save money or to invest it. So the government subsidized banks to establish themselves in the poor neighborhoods. If left to the free-market, these places wouldn't be able to support a bank, and it would mean fewer people can earn money, save money, and invest money. Even though it cost the government money to subsidize the banks, the upside is more people paying taxes, more people spending money, and more people investing.

    Some goods can only be provided by a government, and there is nothing wrong with that, to a degree.
     
  9. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Sure there are shades of gray in everything.

    How much assistance to the Haitians will be coming from Haiti's next door neighbor Cuba?

    Venezuela?
     
  10. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
    Average pay $30,000 over private sector


    By Dennis Cauchon
    USA TODAY

    The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

    Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

    Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

    The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

    When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

    The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

    "There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.

    Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

    USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.

    The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

    Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

    •Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

    •New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

    •Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
     
  11. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    And while the government workers are raking in the money sucked out of middle class America's wallet.

    The blue states will be asking for bailouts also you know the ones who voted for Obama?

    NEW YORK (Fortune) -- California is hurtling into the budgetary abyss -- and it's not alone.

    Across the nation, state tax collections in the first three quarters of 2009 posted their steepest decline in at least 46 years, according to a report this month from the public policy research arm of the State University of New York.

    At least 30 states raised taxes in their most recently completed fiscal year -- which ended in most cases in mid-2009. Even more cut services. All told, states raised $117 billion to fill last year's budget gaps, the Pew Center on the States estimates.

    Yet despite all those new taxes and deep cutbacks, pressure on state finances continues to build. Economists warn that without a new round of federal stimulus spending, states could face another round of layoffs that could kneecap an already shaky economic recovery.

    "We could see a real ripple effect if the states don't take a balanced approach" by balancing cutbacks with tax raises and other new revenue, said Jon Shure, deputy director of the state fiscal project at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

    State and local governments have cut 132,000 jobs since August 2008, the center says. Fiscal problems appear most acute in California, whose general obligation bonds were downgraded this week after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency.

    The state has already said it will increase tuition by a third in the University of California system, among other cash-raising moves. At one point, it was projected to spend nearly 50% more than it stands to garner in revenue in this fiscal year, by one count. California has asked for federal help and warned it could run out of cash in March.

    And California's not the only state facing an almost unfathomable shortfall. Like California, Arizona and Illinois face budget gaps above 40% of projected general fund spending, according to Pew data.

    Arizona put its state office buildings on sale this week in a bid to raise $700 million. The University of Illinois furloughed some workers this week after the state failed to come up with $436 million in expected funds. Budget officers in those two states describe their outlooks for fiscal 2010 as "dire," according to a National Conference of State Legislatures report.

    Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey and New York face gaps of at least 30% of their planned general fund spending by the end of this fiscal year. A dozen more states face a fiscal 2010 budget gap of between 20% and 29%.

    "California is playing out on the biggest stage, but there are states around the nation facing problems of equal or greater magnitude," said Corina Eckl, who runs the fiscal affairs program at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "We are seeing some frightening situations."

    Big shortfalls scare legislators because states by law must balance their budgets every year. After revenue and spending rose steadily in the middle of this decade, bolstered by a housing bubble that boosted employment and fed a stream of property transfer fees, state funding went into freefall when the recession started at the end of 2007.

    Given the depth of the recession, few states are expecting an uptick in employment or consumer spending that would translate into bigger tax collections anytime soon. Nine states are forecasting they won't return to their peak revenue years of 2007 or 2008 until at least 2014.

    Adding to the pressure, job losses spur demand for the services states devote the lion's share of their budgets to: education and Medicaid, which provides healthcare for low-income people.

    "The needs grow as states' ability to meet those needs declines," said economist Andrew Reschovsky, a professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

    So far, the worst cuts have been avoided with the help of billions of dollars of federal stimulus money -- including $135 billion for education and Medicaid.

    But the flow of those funds will start to slow down in the second half of 2010 and will stop altogether at year-end, unless Congress appropriates more money for state assistance.

    States have used $53.6 billion in Medicaid funding through Jan. 8, according to government data. If Congress doesn't extend the Medicaid funding beyond the end of the year, "states are looking at a stimulus cliff," said Robert B. Ward, deputy director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York at Albany.

    The only way to make up those shortfalls is through more new taxes, cutbacks and borrowings.

    Local and state governments have had little problem borrowing in the bond market, where analysts expect issuance of $400 billion or more this year. California has had to pay higher-than-average interest rates to sell its debt, but there seems to be little fear of a default, given the state's giant economy and its relatively small $64 billion worth of general obligation bonds outstanding.

    But borrowing is no help in fixing so-called structural deficits, in which spending exceeds revenue over a prolonged stretch. And so far there has been little sign legislators are willing to make the obligatory tough choices, particularly issuing more or higher taxes.

    Many of the so-called fixes for current state deficits are mere Band-Aids that push the problem forward rather than address it, observers said.

    "It's surprising that political leaders don't seem to be taking seriously the magnitude of the problems," said Reschovsky. "You would hope it wouldn't come to this, but it might take schools closing and programs being eliminated to create a sense of urgency." To top of page
     
  12. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    Too lazy to read the whole thing... Are you possessed by the spirit of Kathaksung?
     
  13. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    The latter part of the post seems to be calling for higher taxes. Not a very sound thing to do in a deficit; when you tax people, they tend to spend less.

    The problems facing the US are results from a mix of bad decisions, not just from liberals. Poor choices were made all across the board, in the private sector as well as the public. One thing is sure is that there are no easy answer, at this point, anything you do will have a negative backlash.

    I say they should have let the banks go to hell to prevent over-spending, but my professor disagrees, I can't remember the exact reasons but he did make a strong point. No matter how much we pretend to know, the actual complexity of the system is astounding, I've been in school in that shit for years and I can only grasp the tip of the iceberg.
     
  14. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Government workers make avg 30k more per job and are half as productive. Spending money we do not have to grow government while effectively buying votes is otherwise throwing tax dollars away that would otherwise be spent and enter the economy. Obama's making all the wrong moves. That being said I believe their will be a market rally if Brown wins the Mass Debate vote. The media will talk this up very positive trying to build consumer (sheeple) confidence. Consumer confidence is a BIG part of the equation. If sales go up in February business may be confident enough to hire more workers.

    Mass Senate vote.
     
  15. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    Consumer confidence or consumer sovereignty, is the driving force behind a healthy free-market inclined economy. Building a hype to incite hiring wouldn't be a good tactic without the actual means to back-up the hiring. Nothing worse than being hired just to get laid-off a few months later.

    At this point you have to tighten the government's purse, slash some costs (everybody likes arts but do you really have to spend money on "art & cultural awareness?), eliminate a few programs and divert the money into the real estate sector, and don't forget to pray to whatever you worship.

    The reason why the banks went ass over head is because of the mortgage loans that couldn't be backed up by the real estate anymore. If you lend someone $150,000 and take a house worth $200,000 as collateral, you have a safe risk, but if the house's worth declines to $75,000, you're pretty much incur a significant loss. Imagine that with millions of dollars at stake.

    I say inject money back into the real estate, give people tax credits on renovations and betterments in order to raise the value or the equity. By tax credits I mean giving people a certain percentage back based on the expenses incured in bettering their houses. It's a little spending, but it will breathe some life back into the market.

    I don't pretend to know everything but that's the tactic used in Canada right now, and it kept the real estate market afloat. You have to aggresively pursue that path, without the real estate everything goes kaput; especially the banks.

    It's one heck of a clusterfuck.
     
  16. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Holy freakin $hit

    We are on the same page!
     
  17. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    I bought my home in Dallas after looking for just over a year in 2005. 2400 sqft on a small lot with a pool and privacy fence, two car garage, three bedrooms two baths built late 80's for 170k.

    I can leave my house and be checking my baggage in at either air port within 30 minutes easy. (DFW or Love Field) I'm 15 minutes from the best night life Dallas has to offer.

    Texas homes are not in nearly so much of a hurt locker because they were not over valued in the first place.

    Oh and check out those polls.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html
     
  18. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    Who's Brown?
     
  19. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Ted Kennedy died he was a liberal god in one of the most liberal states in the union. He was a champion of Socialized medicine and the liberals have tried to cash in on his death.

    There is an election taking place to fill his seat and in arguably the most liberal state in the country replacing one of the most liberal Senators we have known we actually have a Conservative ahead by 9 points last I looked.

    That is why the market will rally on the good news of a Conservative take over I actually thing though that the Liberals want an endless battle of welfare state vs Conservatism. It gives them a pipe dream to run on and forever lays blame on evil Republicans for not allowing utopia to happen.

    VIDEO: Rep. Weiner: Health Care 'Dead' If Scott Brown Wins...

    VIDEO: Barney Frank calls for changing rules of senate...


    'ONE WAY OR THE OTHER'...


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2fNwttq23s

    VIDEO: Jon Stewart Anguishes Over Coakley-Brown Race
     
  20. Aballister

    Aballister New Member

    Messages:
    595
    I watched the Jon Stewart clip, very funny. I also bothered to read the comments left by other people under the video and everyone seems to agree that Stewart comes off being an honest lib, he's not afraid to tell the truth. By that I mean that libs have had majority since 2006, a presidency, and they still find a way to step on their own dick at every turn. He's the first to admit it and to hammer them for it.

    But I still don't know why I should care about Brown.
     

Share This Page