Obamanomics: Bad for the economy...

[luluc 6]

So you can see better than most how wrong it is for Congress to go after those AIG bonuses.....because if they can go after them, they can go after yours..

yes i can -

i'm not sure about corporate bankruptcy (maybe cc can chime in) but i don't believe employee compensation can be included in restructuring the debt of 'said company'.

i understand that the "who" gets their money first is:

bank

unsecured creditors

share holders

many times, these "bonuses" are elevated due to a lower comission or salary plan taken. i know i worked it that way. because we pay our taxes qtrly, that nut was earmarked for what portion uncle sam wanted out of us that qtr.

i have no "smart" answer or one for that matter - that makes sense on how to handle the bail out situation.....and really i've yet to hear a single one. this is a big issue in our home - DH is what i would call a libertarian, he is socially liberal, believes in a strong military & is ALL about free enterprise and gov't out of his ass in doing so.

our diner parties are SO entertaining:)

[BethFromVA 5]

DH is what i would call a libertarian, he is socially liberal, believes in a strong military & is ALL about free enterprise and gov't out of his ass in doing so.

our diner parties are SO entertaining:)

Oh my, I bet they are! LOL

I'm actually curious about the Libertarians. I may be more along their lines than today's Republican.

[plain 12]

Aren't you saying, plain, that Congress voted to give Bush the authority to bomb Iraq, not that Congress voted to allow Bush to bomb Iraq? To me it isn't the same thing.

I don't see the distinction. No matter how you slice it, Congress voted to use military force in Iraq. Using your argument, did the presidents manipulate congress into okaying military force in Korea or Vietnam? Because it was the exact same kind of informal declaration that allowed the invasion of Iraq.

It was a gross error on the part of Congress to give Bush free reign to make a decision like that - and Bush was very manipulative to get them to agree to it. And many people who did vote to give Bush that power were very sorry that they did.

I'm sure they are sorry. But regret is a totally different issue than "did Bush bomb Iraq on his own". Congress voted to bomb. And congress has access to the same intelligence that Bush does. They knew exactly what they were voting on.

Since the Congress is normally directly involved in any decision to declare war, I do not feel that America declared war on Iraq; George Bush declared war on Iraq.

If congress was not involved, how come there's a record of exactly who voted whether or not to use military force? No matter your personal feelings on this, congress approved the invasion....Bush did not act alone.

And the term "shock and awe" was used over and over and over, ad nausem, by Dubya. Before he coined the phrase, most Americans were relatively unfamiliar with it. The author is irrelevant. It was just a tool.

It was the name of the strategy developed when Clinton was president. If it had been named "Fat Boy", would you object to Bush saying it over and over?

So plain, you must be one of the people who believes that you shouldn't pay taxes, eh?

If you agree that they're a necessary evil, then why in the world would you support a policy that allows the wealthiest Americans to get big tax breaks?

I believe most of us should pay taxes (there are some fixed income situations I think should be tax exempt). And I don't believe in giving the wealthy tax breaks.....but they're in the highest bracket right now. How is that a tax break? Do you mean its a break from what they USED to pay?

If you say that it makes sense because it will benefit the economy for the rich folks to get richer, that has been proven to be totally ineffective in helping most Americans.

Furthermore, the proposed increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans is a rate that is still less than what they paid under President Reagan.

The propaganda that is being put out that rich folks are being taken advantage of and gouged is B.S. And if you believe that taxes are necessary, then you should understand that the proposed tax increase for the top very small percentage of Americans is exactly what is fair to mainstream Americans. The rich folks have for some time now had practically a free ride.

We simply don't agree. Crippling tax rates will eventually drive the wealthy (and their businesses) overseas, further hurting our economy.

How many really wealthy folks do you know personally? Have you asked them how much they pay in taxes every year - the bottom line amount?

I don't know any really wealthy folks personally. But I still think its unjust and un-American to redistribute their wealth (even though I dont have to personally worry about it happening to me).

Hopefully Congress, and America, understands why the law was put into effect that doesn't allow a single person to make the decision to go to war and they won't make the same mistake again.

The powers and laws that you're talking about were built into the constitution. At no time in American history has a single person been allowed to make the decision to go to war.

[plain 12]

DH is what i would call a libertarian, he is socially liberal, believes in a strong military & is ALL about free enterprise and gov't out of his ass in doing so.

I consider myself to be more libertarian than anything, in that the government should only be here for our protection (physically, and yes, in some cases.....economically). For the most part, I believe that society would flourish with waaaaaaaaay less government intrusion.

I'm actually curious about the Libertarians. I may be more along their lines than today's Republican.

That's cool and all, but with the two party system today, the government has ensured that no independant parties will ever have a viable candidate......so you pretty much have to do what I do: Register independant and vote on who you think will do the best for each race.

[BethFromVA 5]

That's cool and all, but with the two party system today, the government has ensured that no independant parties will ever have a viable candidate......so you pretty much have to do what I do: Register independant and vote on who you think will do the best for each race.

Yeah, I know.

The government even runs the electoral process.

[BJean 16]

Your posts would indicate that Congress, by a vote, declared war on Iraq. That just isn't the truth. And you know that. I'll bet you've read several of Ron Paul's statements and perhaps those of other people who are concerned with the way our Constitution was tossed to the side when Congress gave Bush the ability to "shock and awe" the citizens of Iraq. And of course the whole world was shocked. And sure, it has happened many times in the past. That of course, does not make it right. And in fact, one would think that America would have learned from our ruinous participation in Vietnam and other places. And maybe most Americans have, but politicians still sell us down the river in these non-declared wars that we wage. And most importantly good people die tragically, for ill-gotten gains. We should be horrified, ashamed and angry.

[BJean 16]

plain: "It was the name of the strategy developed when Clinton was president. If it had been named "Fat Boy", would you object to Bush saying it over and over?"

You're effing kidding, right?

[BethFromVA 5]

Your posts would indicate that Congress, by a vote, declared war on Iraq. That just isn't the truth. And you know that. I'll bet you've read several of Ron Paul's statements and perhaps those of other people who are concerned with the way our Constitution was tossed to the side when Congress gave Bush the ability to "shock and awe" the citizens of Iraq. And of course the whole world was shocked. And sure, it has happened many times in the past. That of course, does not make it right. And in fact, one would think that America would have learned from our ruinous participation in Vietnam and other places. And maybe most Americans have, but politicians still sell us down the river in these non-declared wars that we wage. And most importantly good people die tragically, for ill-gotten gains. We should be horrified, ashamed and angry.

BJean, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, war is what keeps free people free. It's sad but true.

And without Congress' participation, their vote, their permission, deeply rooted in the Constitution, we would not have had the ability to go into Iraq. I know you simply want to label Bush as a rogue who went in there himself, but it just didn't happen that way. And you know it.

[BJean 16]

I know what I know Beth and that ain't it.

War kills. And it sure doesn't always make people free. That's a myth.

Edited April 15, 2009 by BJean

[OneHotMama 0]

Your posts would indicate that Congress, by a vote, declared war on Iraq. That just isn't the truth. And you know that. I'll bet you've read several of Ron Paul's statements and perhaps those of other people who are concerned with the way our Constitution was tossed to the side when Congress gave Bush the ability to "shock and awe" the citizens of Iraq. And of course the whole world was shocked. And sure, it has happened many times in the past. That of course, does not make it right. And in fact, one would think that America would have learned from our ruinous participation in Vietnam and other places. And maybe most Americans have, but politicians still sell us down the river in these non-declared wars that we wage. And most importantly good people die tragically, for ill-gotten gains. We should be horrified, ashamed and angry.

We should be horrified, ashamed, and angry for plenty of things the government does that affects every single one of us. Your problem is your outrage, or lack there of, is dependent upon what side of the aisle it came from.

[BJean 16]

Are you saying that yours doesn't?

[OneHotMama 0]

Are you saying that yours doesn't?

Hmmmm, yep, I could say that mine doesn't.

[BJean 16]

Hmmmm, yes, and so could I.

[BethFromVA 5]

Hmmmm, yes, and so could I.

You could, but you would be dishonest.

BJean, I have watched you give the left pass after pass after pass and point fingers solely at the right. As for me, I blame ALL of them. I may have my beliefs, but the people in office now for the most part don't carry those same beliefs. In other words, my "representatives" don't exactly represent me or my stance. I choose a particular belief, but I do NOT support all those who carry the "proper label."

However, you do. And though we have been on a pretty good path lately, I have to say that discussing anything with you is getting to be particularly painful because you twist and turn the topic when you are confronted with facts that mess with your agenda.

I'm not saying it's bad to stick to a belief, but it makes it difficult to have respect for someone's viewpoint when the topic changes constantly because the facts you are presented with don't conform to what you believe. And then you start getting snitty and personal again.

[plain 12]

Your posts would indicate that Congress, by a vote, declared war on Iraq. That just isn't the truth.

It is exactly the truth!! Ok, I'll make this extremely easy for you, BJean, since you are not getting my point: Google (or use your own favorite search engine) Public Law No. 107-243 and see what comes up. Or just click this anti-war link:

http://www.believersagainstthewar.com/HJ114_text.html

Be sure and read section 3, where it states that this law (public law No. 107-243) is consistant with the war powers act. Now, look up that law anywhere you want, and tell me how congress didn't vote to go to war with Iraq.

I'll bet you've read several of Ron Paul's statements and perhaps those of other people who are concerned with the way our Constitution was tossed to the side when Congress gave Bush the ability to "shock and awe" the citizens of Iraq.

It doesn't matter what Ron Paul or anybody else said. The constitution was certainly not tossed to the side. How could it have been? Congress voted. Period. That's how the constitution works, BJean.

plain: "It was the name of the strategy developed when Clinton was president. If it had been named "Fat Boy", would you object to Bush saying it over and over?"

You're effing kidding, right?

No, I'm serious. You've mentioned the term "shock and awe" in almost every post directed to me. I'm still trying to figure it out. Is your problem with the name of the strategy, or the fact that Bush decided to use said strategy? Please clarify.

Edited April 15, 2009 by plain