Should there be an Obama subforum?

[drkaje]

Jeez Louise!

[tonymctones]

LOL nope, if there wasnt a palin sub forum there will never be a need for a obama sub forum

[drkaje]

Them how about a subforum for non-Obama political stuff?

They're probably getting away with murder while everyone's looking at the President.

[Soul Crusher]

Them how about a subforum for non-Obama political stuff?

They're probably getting away with murder while everyone's looking at the President.

Maybe if that disgusting wretch in office were not actively engaging in a crime spree that is still ongoing other topics like wildlife preservation, saving the trees, burning the flag, and such other vital issues would be front and center.

[drkaje]

Just imagine what they haven't been caught at.

[Coach is Back!]

You mean a communist board,,, right?

[drkaje]

You mean a communist board,,, right?

When the petwits got too annoying, they were given a forum to post about nonsense all the time. Shouldn't Obamawits be extended the same courtesy or at least about 30% of their posts be on the Conspiracy board?

[Psychopath]

333 goes ape shit on everything Obama related. As if presidents have say in anything.

[Soul Crusher]

333 goes ape shit on everything Obama related. As if presidents have say in anything.

Yeah - no one is to blame for anything.  All the radicals appointed all over the govt - yeah obi not to blame for at a minimum being complicit in allowing this bs to happen.

[Agnostic007]

Maybe just a 333 sub forum

[drkaje]

333 goes ape shit on everything Obama related. As if presidents have say in anything.

Can you appoint a radical and expect moderate behavior?

I'm not saying presidents micromanage but appointees do have shared frames of reference and agendas. To say their actions are endorsed by a President is no more of a stretch than to claiming plausible deniability.

What's that quote about people getting the electorate they deserve?

IMO, We're the blame for this. Until we do the responsible thing and change, politicians will keep screwing things up more.

[Psychopath]

Can you appoint a radical and expect moderate behavior?

I'm not saying presidents micromanage but appointees do have shared frames of reference and agendas. To say their actions are endorsed by a President is no more of a stretch than to claiming plausible deniability.

What's that quote about people getting the electorate they deserve?

IMO, We're the blame for this. Until we do the responsible thing and change, politicians will keep screwing things up more.

Yes, America of today is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Nobody is involved on the political level, and i'm not talking national.

State citizens in the past used to rally and demand action from their appointed political representatives, and it is the job of those local representatives to mitigate their demands and correspond with the federal government accordingly.

I no longer think America is a democracy, it's a farce. It's corporate run with a strong police state developing.

It has been this way for the past 40+ years, and getting worse with every minute.

[drkaje]

@ Phychopath,

Ultimately, I believe we all have to personally spend/consume less. The Govt has become a monster we must starve to death (or at least put on a serious diet) before it eats us all.

One thing is certain: These problems won't fix themselves.

[syntaxmachine]

@ Phychopath,

Ultimately, I believe we all have to personally spend/consume less. The Govt has become a monster we must starve to death (or at least put on a serious diet) before it eats us all.

Consumption is far and above the largest portion of GDP; reducing it almost certainly implies increased (compensatory) government spending, especially if most of the deferred spending is simply saved rather than invested (investment being another significant element of GDP, savings not being so) -- as would most likely occur. This is the precise opposite of what you want.

Further, slashing government left and right will significantly increase the unemployment rate and slow growth, with predictably deleterious effects on the economy (even the modest sequestration has slowed growth, as you can confirm for yourself).

We aren't going to become a society of Buffetts and there's only so much we can improve exports. All things being equal, then, your plan should result in a significant decline in GDP and thus in Americans' standard of living. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce government spending, but presumably it must be done very gradually and in a way that is compensated for by other growth factors ("starving" the government being nothing but a fantasy, a libertarian wet dream which will almost certainly never come to fruition).

[George Whorewell]

Consumption is far and above the largest portion of GDP; reducing it almost certainly implies increased (compensatory) government spending, especially if most of the deferred spending is simply saved rather than invested (investment being another significant element of GDP, savings not being so) -- as would most likely occur. This is the precise opposite of what you want.

Further, slashing government left and right will significantly increase the unemployment rate and slow growth, with predictably deleterious effects on the economy (even the modest sequestration has slowed growth, as you can confirm for yourself).

We aren't going to become a society of Buffetts and there's only so much we can improve exports. All things being equal, then, your plan should result in a significant decline in GDP and thus in Americans' standard of living. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce government spending, but presumably it must be done very gradually and in a way that is compensated for by other growth factors ("starving" the government being nothing but a fantasy, a libertarian wet dream which will almost certainly never come to fruition).

Nonsense.

Government creates nothing, produces nothing and functions only through the confiscation of wealth generated by the private sector. The sequester, which was initially touted by our pathetic 3rd world president and his party of mindless sycophants as an "end of days"  scenario leading to the apocalypse, was a complete myth. The economy has actually improved since the sequester.

Our government is big, bloated, intrusive and out of control. Moreover, the vast majority of its appendages are completely unnecessary. At least 5-10 agencies in the endless alphabet soup bureaucracy should be eliminated immediately. This country does not need the Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service, FCC, EPA or DHS (among others). These highly politicized institutions place suck our nations resources dry and provide zero accountability to the American tax payer who unwittingly finances the entire operation.  

[drkaje]

Consumption is far and above the largest portion of GDP; reducing it almost certainly implies increased (compensatory) government spending, especially if most of the deferred spending is simply saved rather than invested (investment being another significant element of GDP, savings not being so) -- as would most likely occur. This is the precise opposite of what you want.

Further, slashing government left and right will significantly increase the unemployment rate and slow growth, with predictably deleterious effects on the economy (even the modest sequestration has slowed growth, as you can confirm for yourself).

We aren't going to become a society of Buffetts and there's only so much we can improve exports. All things being equal, then, your plan should result in a significant decline in GDP and thus in Americans' standard of living. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce government spending, but presumably it must be done very gradually and in a way that is compensated for by other growth factors ("starving" the government being nothing but a fantasy, a libertarian wet dream which will almost certainly never come to fruition).

You may not have read my post carefully. We personally have to spend/consume less.

We're in a hole, it's time to stop digging.

[syntaxmachine]

You may not have read my post carefully. We personally have to spend/consume less.

We're in a hole, it's time to stop digging.

I addressed both government and private spending (i.e., consumption) in my post. If by "we personally" you mean the latter, I indicated that I agree but that it shouldn't be done austerity-style since that will hurt growth significantly (the sequester has made a dent in growth as is); if the former, I indicated that consumption is far and above the largest chunk of GDP and that it's unlikely that investment or exports will make up for a major decline, meaning we'll all be adversely affected by less consumption.

Who the fuck else are you saying needs to spend less if not either of the above?

[drkaje]

I addressed both government and private spending (i.e., consumption) in my post. If by "we personally" you mean the latter, I indicated that I agree but that it shouldn't be done austerity-style since that will hurt growth significantly (the sequester has made a dent in growth as is); if the former, I indicated that consumption is far and above the largest chunk of GDP and that it's unlikely that investment or exports will make up for a major decline, meaning we'll all be adversely affected by less consumption.

Who the fuck else are you saying needs to spend less if not either of the above?

By spending less, we'll limit their ability to spend.

[syntaxmachine]

Nonsense.

Government creates nothing, produces nothing and functions only through the confiscation of wealth generated by the private sector.

1. The government produces a bunch of stuff, spends a lot, and buys a bunch of other stuff. Maybe these values are somehow overstated by this or that statistical measure, but this is still real economic activity all the same.

It's also questionable to characterize governments as mere leeches upon the glorious private sectors around the world, seeing as historically governments have been around much longer, invented markets for funding purposes, are (and always have been) the primary force structuring market interactions, maintain the currencies that all private sector activity occurs in, and much else besides.

Now, maybe in some mythological future -- rather like the Marxists' "genuine" Communist state -- private sector activity will operate at the national level with minimal (or perhaps no?) government activity accompanying it. But given that it -- rather like the Marxists' "genuine" Communist state -- has literally never occurred in human history and has essentially zero prospects of occurring in the future, such an exaltation of government-free markets and private actors seems unrealistic.

The sequester, which was initially touted by our pathetic 3rd world president and his party of mindless sycophants as an "end of days"  scenario leading to the apocalypse, was a complete myth. The economy has actually improved since the sequester.

The latest GDP data was below analyst expectations, jobs growth was tepid, and most projections don't indicate any effects of the sequester at all until next quarter -- the effects being less growth. How could it be that the sequester would propel more growth in a couple of months' time, anyway? As stupid an idea as that is, if it were real we would see it in the jobs market, I think, and this clearly hasn't happened.

Our government is big, bloated, intrusive and out of control. Moreover, the vast majority of its appendages are completely unnecessary. At least 5-10 agencies in the endless alphabet soup bureaucracy should be eliminated immediately. This country does not need the Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service, FCC, EPA or DHS (among others). These highly politicized institutions place suck our nations resources dry and provide zero accountability to the American tax payer who unwittingly finances the entire operation.  

3. We agree, except that we seem to disagree merely about the scope and limits of the different approaches to getting to less government.