I use Wikipedia, but I usually double check the facts on at least one other site.
Charismatic religious sects and speaking in tongues is considered extreme and controversial by most mainstream biblical scholars, who relate: There is clear Scriptural evidence condemning the mumbo-jumbo, nonsense, which Charismatics call "speaking in tongues" today. First, on the Day of Pentecost Peter spoke in Greek, no other language. The Bible says that the people from other nations HEARD (Acts 2:6-8) in their own native tongue (i.e., language). What they actually experienced that day was HEARING IN TONGUES.
And what I mean about witches is that her church condoned the belief in them. There is a video of her praying with a minister from Africa with hopes of dispelling a "witch" from a village. These 'witches' are usually women that have been targeted for some reason or another and are physically abused and driven from African villages.
I personally do not believe that people talk in tongues having said that I was referring to the "sanction" reference. How can anyone sanction or not sanction this? If you are saying she belongs to a church with strange beliefs and led by men/women who say or do odd things I would point you in the direction of Barack Obama and Jerimiah Wright. As far as witches go isn't Wicca an approved religion and refer to themselves as witches? Maybe what you witnessed in the video was an exorcism, I believe the Catholic church has in the past performed them as well.
Well you can't pair up Obama and Wright, Obama claims he never, in the 20 years that he has attended that church, ever heard Wright talk that way and he was flabbergasted when he was informed about it.
Tsk, tsk.
Hmmm. Your opinion seems to be influenced by your political persuasions. FYI, the Catholic church came out with a statement regarding exorcism when this whole thing with Palin was in the news.
And you completely miss the point I make about so-called 'witches.' These are simply women targeted in Africa, who do not claim necessarily any religious belief, but instead are targeted as evil influences and made to suffer. Comparing this to the Jeremiah Wright situation is comparing apples to oranges logically.
And no. The video (which is available for viewing)is of Palin praying with an African minister over the expulsion of this so-called 'witch' in Africa.
But you are welcome to believe and value what you will. Don't think it will help Ms. Palin.
*btw, it is very interesting that your name is mine spelled backwards. Very interesting indeed. Did you notice that?
My opinion is probably influenced by my political persuasion as is yours. I was not comparing Barack Obama and Jerimiah Wright to an exorcism or expelling witches I was comparing it to strange things that happen in churches. I did not notice that it was your name spelled backwards, it is actually my last name.
Or better yet, other languages, not necessarily unknown. Theologically this was for sharing of the gospel, at birth of new religion. Need to reach many language groups at time. This happens sometimes in modern evangelism.
But Charismatics have focused on the 'unknown' factor.
I'm impressed Lita.
I find Barack Obama to be disingenuous and condescending! I do not trust him and would never support any of his policies especially his antiquated economic policies.
He doesn't have any economic policies, remember that so far he always hands the job over to the Democrats in the House and Senate to come up with something that he can claim as his own.
K..and K. And hey, you're both hot, .
Jib, belief in Soros conspiracies, in my opinion, is a little out there, as is the job stat thing, but K. Yes, he probably did/does influence Obama. I'm aware Pentecostals 'speak in tongues' (supposedly), as yes, they are part of the charismatic group...and yeah, they are controversial as a religious group.
Atil, you must be Kazakhstanian or Turkish, huh?
No I am not either of those my step father is Mexican and adopted me when I was 12 I have had his name ever since.
Ah. I was gonna say something about Mexican being a possibility, too! ...something about the Sonoran desert (you know I just found out it was named after a snake? And here I have been living in it for 4 1/2 years already).
Your last point: That is the sticking point where we absolutely disagree, and I think most lib/cons find a source of disagreement. I just cannot fathom how you can think this way. Yes, the poor must be given opportunity...and it is true that some take advantage of welfare systems. But in general...I don't think that is or has to be the case, especially concerning children (and help has to come this early when needed). I think basic, fundamental needs (and I mean BASIC) being met is paramount to people even being able to HAVE a chance at opportunity.
It's both nature & nurture in life...human beings included.
I certainly do not condone laziness or lack of ambition...I just don't think that this is the root of human nature. I believe human beings are best motivated when they are internally motivated, and that absolutely requires adequate nurturance to develop (although some may come by it more naturally).
Of course there are always going to be some (and I'd probably see it as their problem if they were raised in an adequate fashion) who need the hard, cold reality that they won't have a place to live or food to eat unless they decide to be productive (em, my bf's son might be one of those, and I would probably surprise you in my thinking of how he should be handled, lol). If encouraged and facilitated, however, in the best way, and with decent basic fundamentals I feel all are owed, I don't think many people like this would be 'produced.' We aren't animals...and behavioral methods have proven over and over again not to work that well in regards to changing or producing behavior.
It's surprising to me at the core of things, how much we actually agree...but at the same time differ so much about basic things. I'd say at the heart are ideas about human nature.
No, I agree that people at times need charity. I've never believed that charity is never needed. Where we differ is the best way to provide that charity. From experience and what I've heard others say, government doesn't seem to have people's best interests at heart. Private charities need to appease their donors, so that at least makes it more likely that they will be diligent in helping people. Also people treat charity differently than they do welfare. People on charity know it's temporary and do what it takes to get away from it. We're now going on three or four generations raised on welfare and, really, what chance do those people have to make something of themselves? All they know is how to collect a check every month.
Nurturing is part of it, but so is tough love. I used to tell my kids that they could choose to do whatever they wanted. What they could not choose was the consequences of their decisions. So they better make their decisions good ones. What surprised me was how many of them really got it. Heck I can remember one kid who hated my guts. He lived to torment me whenever I came in to start my shift. Apparently I reminded him of his stepdad and he took it out on me. We finally had it out one night where I basically told him he needed to suck it up and deal. There were kids there with much worse backgrounds than him, all he had to deal with was a parent that got physical. At least he didn't get raped or locked in a cage or some of the other horrible stuff that happened to our kids.
What really made the difference I think was that I told him that no matter what he did, I'd never lay a hand on him. At first he didn't believe me, but when I asked him if his stepdad would have knocked his lights out by now, the light went on. That realization that he could trust me to keep my word changed everything. Heck after that night I was his favorite staff. It was hard, especially when you saw kids keep making the same mistakes over and over again, but you did what you could. Some of them got it and some did not.
I used to like that job, but then they started making changes for political reasons. Those changes made the job harder and more dangerous for us and our kids. Plus they started in on some of the more namby pamby nurturing stuff, like rights and respect. Which isn't bad, in and of itself, but when the kids started using rights and respect as a way to get out of doing things they were supposed to be doing, well it didn't make our jobs any easier. Another thing they've recently done is restrict any and all physical restraints with these kids. That's going to kill a kid one day. All because the DMH wants to look good and say they don't have any physical restraints anymore. That's why I hate government anything because of decisions like that. Not only are they going to wind up killing a kid, they're going to destroy the lives of the staff members working with that kid. If you have a finding of abuse/neglect against you, you could lose your kids, lose your career, it horrible what can happen. If you're implicated in the death of a kid, well it's just that much worse, on top of the remorse and guilt you're going to feel over the incident.
Of course not all change is good. Nobody who thinks critically would ever believe so.
What job did you have under the...Department of Mental Health? Working with kids with disabilities of some kind? What I mentioned about 'nurturing' I meant in regard to basically, 'normal' kids (anyway...there is a whole school of thought regarding internal motivation vs. external motivation..and it isn't mamby pampy or even a lib/con (or libertarian..whatever) thing). Kids with emotional problems, disability problems, etc., from what I have read, actually DO respond best (at least at first) to behavioral methods...yeah, rewards/punishment, ie, 'tough love' would probably fall under that category. ...I still feel you are arguing a bit against a strawman, LDT, looking for code words for, lol, symbolic liberalism to rail against.
I would argue that it isn't necessarily "the government" that is always at fault, either for poor decisions or rules. I guess I feel it is a false dichotomy that private 'charity' is superior to government 'socialism.' The basis of that is that both are human endeavors and subject to faults and frailties...mistakes. And both have advantages and challenges as far as implementation.
Incidentally, when I was just first out of college, I spent a year as a VISTA (government...stateside Peace Corp) in a nonprofit that served refugees. After that, I spent a year in an nonprofit (private) that focused on adult illiteracy. It did give me a feel for both sides of social service organizations--their advantages and disadvantages. I frankly think they both have their place and are very interwoven into the fabric of our society. I don't see either realm changing or isolating...only getting more entangled.
I agree that working with children or teaching has become almost a risky enterprise...probably due to stupid governmental or other rules, yes, but also due to people's own private excessively stupid expectations of teachers/service workers and their own lack of initiative in teaching their kids some basic discipline. THAT puts everybody at risk.
I worked as a psychiatric aide for the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Those guys never really get any credit for the fine work they do unless you count the lives of the kids we've been able to make a difference in.
And yes, I am carrying some baggage against lib/progressive ideas from that time. I think the main difference between private and public ventures is how they react when something bad happens. A private charity for example will have to be transparent in their investigation, otherwise they will risk losing funding. There is an incentive there to investigate fully and prove to their donors that appropriate steps have been taken to rectify the situation.
Public entities treat catastrophes like things they'd like to ignore. I've seen people who wanted to be teachers, or work in the social service field because someone else sold then down the river to deflect attention from their neglect. It was a sad thing when you had to CYA against some of the people you work with.
"More important than the nanny state, is that we as a people allow the poor as many opportunities to make it as we can."
i'm filing this one with your comments on palin and global warming, possibly even the one on gold.
Make people think they have a need for a useless token, give them the "opportunity" to receive it. Show them where others think your useless token is vitally needed. Make them think if they do not take advantage of the useless token, if they do not agree with the others about it, they are missing out on something (albeit, a lie) but ...something wonderful and charitable!
you have just been given a crash course in "oppression".
This is the definition of oppression. Can you tie it to what you are expressing.
Oppression, the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the cruel exercise of power in a society or social group
I believe you just did with that definition.
However I will offer my take on it in some detail.
The oppression is the trade-off for the useless token. first you have to get people to believe in your token. Believe they "need" it.
The truth is we do not "need" useless tokens from our government. We do not "need" our government to handle everything for us. This is something our founders were very clear on.
When someone has needs they will make a way to provide for themselves.
I know there are those out there who do need help. I am not talking about the minority. But the truth is, there are a majority who although will accept the token really have no NEED for it. In other words if the government turned them down for help, they would make a way to survive. They would have to right?
And I speak from experience. My husband is an over the road commercial truck driver, he has made some seriously good money over the years. He lost his job due to cutbacks and we have gone through all of our savings. We sold our home and thank God we found a buyer. We made no profit from it though.
Struggling to make ends meet has been extremely difficult to say the least but we manage.
Lots of tears, but we manage.
Lots of prayer, and we manage.
Lots of hard work, and we manage.
So if given the choice of, oppression or freedom, which does one choose? One has a worthless token attached to it and the other responsibility.
I believe the growing opposition to Obama has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with some people feeling squeezed into this box of oppression through his policies and the masses accepting it.
By a useless token I assume you are talking about the health care bills that are floating around in congress. I will await your answer so I can address that issue.
I can't believe you'd support something like government mandated health care. Remember, government limits options, it doesn't expand them. It's their way or the highway. By participating in a government program, you become dependent on that program. When you depend on something like that, you're more likely to vote people in who will expand that program. So what happens when you have more people on a program than you have paying for it? How can you continue such a program. We're about to get a lesson in that concerning Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security in a few years.
Your philosophy that the marketplace is the answer to rising costs and government excesses is a hard sell in the current air of wall street failure and public unrest with how the government fell asleep at the wheel with de-regulations.
Health care costs have doubled in the last three years and is totally strapping many families to the point of bankruptcy. How can it be made affordable by the insurance companies when the whole thing is set up to profit them and deny services. It hardly seems a system that is looking out for our best interests.
That's because you assume that all Wall Street did was get rid of standards they didn't like. Fascist economic systems don't work like that. Not only did they get rid of standards they didn't like they attempted to get standards put in to erect barriers to entry in various industries so they wouldn't face competition. Look at that, limiting choice again. All we had was partial de-regulation. Full regulation would kill many of the big businesses in this country and we'd be able to build a better foundation for our economy.
Why do you use insurance to pay for doctors? Can you think of any other type of insurance in which we do this? Do you use your auto insurance to pay for a mechanic? One of the problems with doing healthcare this way is that doctors can steadily increase what they charge due to charging a company not an individual. If they charged in individual, they'd have to be careful not to overcharge, otherwise their patient would find a more reasonable alternative. That little fact would keep costs in check.
When a doctor can charge a company or the government, things change. They can steadily increase what they charge and pad their expenses, making more money than they otherwise would. That's the effect of socializing costs across a population. In the case of insurance companies costs are socialized across all policyholders. In the case of government, the cost is socialized across the entire population. That's what is meant by exploding cost when you look at government mandated healthcare.
Not that I'm a big fan of that co-op nightmare that is being discussed in Washington. That, economically, will have the same effect as government mandated heath care, only it will take longer to fall apart. Besides all of the "solutions" out of Washington ignore the real reason costs are exploding We have a supply problem as concerns doctors. We have about 100,000 more doctors licensed in this country than we did in 1900, yet our population has tripled. What do you think scarcity is going to do to the cost of healthcare?
The reason costs have doubled over the last few years is due, in part, to inflation. Everything is getting more expensive. What do you think happens when you increase the money supply? You devalue it, thus it costs more pieces of paper to afford stuff. Nations inflate their money supply to pay for welfare projects and wars, so they don't have to raise interest rates. Problem is that inflation destroys economies and causes bubbles. As painful as what we are experiencing today from paying the cost of the Iraq war, how much worse is it going to be when we have to pay for trillion dollar deficits and, possibly, universal healthcare?
Well if we assume what you are saying is true then once again you wil have an incredible amount of choices to make and depend on moving around from doctor to doctor til you find one who's prices you like. This has no congruent effect and who has this type of time.
Rather than that don't you agree it could work a lot like life insurance. The sooner you get into the system the lower the cost. But that would require that everyone would need to be in it to span the cost over many years. Americans like choices I agree but our greatness was not what we achieved individually but what we did as a group to get here.
That's incorrect. We got to where we are because we allow people to forge their own destiny. Where else but America could we have had people like Henry Ford or Thomas Edison? Why else have we endured as a nation if not for the idea that all people are naturally free and deserve to live in a place where they are free to choose?
The problem with your idea bout insurance being like life insurance is not very workable. Life insurance works because you are able to quantify behaviors and life expectancy. That's why you can charge smokers a higher premium than non-smokers because they'll cost you earlier. Also life insurance, auto insurance, fire insurance, etc. are all based on compensating you for a catastrophic event like your house burning down.
Health insurance doesn't work that way. Part of it is due to our incomplete understanding of genetics, environment and how the two interact to facilitate or resist disease and aging. Because we can't quantify the probability of good health, you have a problem forecasting risk. If you have a problem forecasting risk, you increase the chances that you'll have to pay out more in claims than you take in in premiums. When that happens, you go out of business and your former policyholders are SOL.
In a market based solution, initially, you'd see a lot of variation. Over time, however, that variation would limit itself to the most popular choices. Those choices, after all, will attract the most customers and because they attract so many people, they must be satisfied with the cost and quality of service they get. Since the rest of the industry wants to get as many customers as possible, they too will adopt those best practices or they'll go out of business. Either way the customer wins. Because the easiest way to get custom in business is to lower your prices, you'll see cost start to decrease.
Because doctors will be making less and less per patient, there will be a drive to lower operating costs as well. This will reverberate through the supply chains of medical care, lowering costs across the board and increasing the pace of new technological development. After all if you can be the first with a new treatment, then you'll make a bundle. Your competitors will adopt the tech and through competition the cost will be lowered over time. So not only will we see lower costs, we'll see increased research and development.
Can you think of a government based solution that will do all of this?
Yes I agree that our system gives the individual the opportunity to succeed but they did not do it on their own. With Ford he needed to get money to promote his agenda as well as lucrative contracts with many other industry suppliers and Edison needed the same as well as the protection of patents and licensing arrangements as well as manufacturing companies to exploit his ideas.
The thing about life insurance model not working well because of all the risk due to the benefits paid out during a shorter bouts of illness that is a misnomer. Most health benefits are paid out in the ending years and miniscule are the benefits paid out in short term illnesses. Typical rate increases could include poor health habits clauses that are easy enough to detect.
If your deduction that lesser well run doctors offices would have to lower operating costs may in the long run pick up but the mayhem that would ensue due to doctors and hospitals scrambling to survive may cause a worse strain on an already strapped system.
I really think we need to consider other alternatives to your assumptions because of the greed that comes from unscrupulous characters that emerge through open air capitalism.
Sure but Ford had to find people willing to invest in his ideas. The people who were smart enough to see his vision and understand it were made wealthy by it. They took a risk though, Ford could have easily failed. Edison and Ford built themselves up, they didn't do so by taking government money to start their businesses. I also have problems with patents, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm leery of insurance because of the effects of socializing healthcare. It's a bias of mine. That's not to say that there won't be some sort of insurance to guard against catastrophic illness or end-of-life scenarios. In fact I think such offerings would be likely. We should not be using insurance to pay for doctor's visits and things like the flu.
All doctors offices would have to be mindful of cost control, just like any other business. The lesser run offices would have to get better at it or they'd fail. Now you do have a point about chaos if we allow states to limit the number of licenses and medical schools to limit the number of students they accept. Restriction of supply is another reason health care costs are so high. 500,000 doctors for 100 million people in 1900 vs 600,000 doctors for 300 million people. Lower supply = higher price.
You're making the assumption that greed is always the case in a capitalist endeavor. I say it isn't. There is not business in a free market that can afford to screw their customers over. If they do, their customers will simply get their needs met somewhere else. And they will get their needs met. Wherever there is demand, there is money to be made. If you can successfully meet that demand, you're rewarded with profit. That's how you know how well you are doing in providing a good or service. No socialist program can ever know how well they are doing, they don't operate according to the profit motive.
Unless you think the average person is too stupid to act in their own interest and are not capable of meeting their own needs.
I don't agree with some of your assumptions but perhaps that is my own bias to trust a system that runs for profit without a determined ethical approach Mind you I don't believe our system should be a socialist one but I believe a mixture of both when it comes to critical quality of life issues.
The problem with instituting a plan or blueprint of what you suggest is daunting to say the least. Getting it past the slime on the hill besides the masses will be near impossible.
Is a whole revamping of the system possible when you have so many wanting to fix what we have?
Thanks for your open mindedness. It's very refreshing. Don't just take my word for it. Do some digging on our own. I was once where you are. But then I began looking at the assumptions I was laboring under and found many of those assumptions invalid. Of course, it helped that I was working for the state at the time, so I got a first hand look at how poorly the needs of Missourians with mental health issues were being treated by government bureaucracy.
The Wild Wheel talks abut Ford and his company as well as Edison and the changes they wrought in American life: http://mises.org/books/wildwheel.pdf
Garet Garrett is one of my favorite authors. Here's a sampling of his work if you're interested in reading more: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action … amp;Id=742
You might also want to study the Progressive Era a bit more. Many of our current attitudes about government and its role date to that time. Contrast that with the writings of the Founders and see if history has unfolded more according to the theories of our Founders or those high priests of Progressivism.
I'm not talking about revamping the system as much as relaxing the controls that keep the system working the way it does. I'm certain the effects of that relaxing will work it's way pretty quickly through the field. Caveat emptor still holds, so people would have to be careful, but I don't see why something like Consumer Reports won't set up standards to measure the quality of medical care.
And I appreciate the respect you have shown in this conversation. While I can't comment on what I haven't read I guess at this juncture will will have to leave it up in the air till we meet again. Thanks
No problem. If anything is going to get us out of the mess we find ourselves in, it's going to be education, using reason and making the right choices.
LEDFEN, I really like your responses, but seesh, please condense, my mouse is tired.
I am not just talking about health care bills. There are all sorts of "tokens" we have been duped into believing we "need".
Growing Opposition against Obama, now with the Olympics. Why the push?
The city has more than a half-billion-dollar deficit – and just received word that its Olympic insurance policy will cover only about $1.1 billion of the $3.8-billion operating budget drawn up by Daley. Cost overruns, fraud, and union-inflated contracts are inevitable.
Take senior White House adviser and Obama campaign guru David Axelrod. He’s been a Daley loyalist since 1989, when he signed up as a political consultant for the mayor’s first run. Axelrod’s public relations firm, Chicago-based AKPD Message and Media, has pitched in work for the Chicago 2016 committee. It is unknown how much AKPD has received for its services – or how much they’ll make in future income if the bid is successful. AKPD currently owes Axelrod $2 million.
Obama confidante Penny Pritzker, who in addition chairs the Olympic Village Subcommittee and is president of Pritzker Realty Group – a mega-developer in Illinois that could reap untold millions in project work if the Daley Machine/White House campaign succeeds.
Crain’s Chicago Business reports that Jarrett and Chicago 2016 committee member Lori Healey met this month with federal officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development “to discuss financing options” for the estimated $1 billion Olympic Village.
White folks always try to play this game! For whatever reason, many whites hate, just for the sake of hating. They hate Blacks, for many numerous reasons, one of them being the color of their skin. They always try to act as though, they are not racist, or that skin color and such, is meaningless to them, but their mannerisms, and statements, tell another tale. Why do people who disrespect you right in your face, give you all the vibrations, and inuendo of superiority, and dislike, and then act as though that is not the case? Personally, I don't understand the prediliction with skin color, race, national origin, or any of these things! I love all people, of all nationalities, races, colors, whatever, as long as, they are decent human beings. America is the most racist nation on earth, the rest of the world knows the plight of Black-America, the latinos, and the Native-Americans, yet white americans, act as though everyone is stupid, and can't see their small-mindedness, and hatred for what it is. In America you feel Black, but when I lived in Europe, I felt like a person, a human being, not a particular race, or nationality. Those who harbor racist attitudes, need to learn from their European counterparts, stop hating other fellow human beings, and realize, people are people. You should be thankful for a Pres. who, cares about all the people of this nation, not just a few, with red necks!
What's that old saying, oh yeah: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
As far as I can tell, Obama only cares about taking care of his buddies from Chicago. Where is he today? Setting up a sweet deal to bulldoze public housing that his "sister" Valerie Jarrett ran into the ground. Just so you know, she made millions when she was part of the company that oversaw the public housing in Chicago. Those buildings have been so poorly taken care of and not maintained that they are fit only to be destroyed. That sounds like a slumlord, not someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
You said it alot better than I ever could. Glad I'm not alone out here.
I don't believe the opposition is "growing" as much as it appears. I believe the opposition are the same people that have been opposed to Obama all along. The visible growth, in my opinion, is a result of more of the same people showing up. It's normal for there to be a number of people that want to be a part of something, but won't get up and get active until someone else creates that opportunity. Some people might sit, afraid to be seen, but know that they can blend with a crowd. I've yet meet these people that were Obama supporters that have "switched" sides and now stand opposed to him. I've met one person to make such a claim, and one person that said they are not as passionately behind him as they once were, but were not "opposed" to him. The latter of those two are far more normal than the Rushites are willing to admit.
Not opposed? His approval ratings are flirting with going under 50%. Do you even support any of his policies? Universal Healthcare? Cap and Trade? His support of ACORN and SEIU? Those are far more important reasons people support and don't support the President. If anything it's the administrations attempt to control all debate, a la Nixon, that is the true threat.
50% approval rating... You say that like it is a bad thing. My god, Bush would've creamed his jeans for 50%. Every president would have, and now all of a sudden- some how 50% isn't good enough?
Get real. You're so over the top. Weren't YOU the one who predicted that we were heading for the greatest depression since the Great Depression? Yes you were- spouting your statical sub prime numbers. Well, what happen? Still haven't seen mass chaos of food lines that extend a mile. Stock market was up over 10,000. Bad businesses are going out, good businesses are moving right back in.
Talk about being a little dramatic. 50% approval rating IS not a bad thing. Seriously.
I'm still waiting for them long food lines too. However, seeing how the housing market just a hit a two year high- I don't think we have anything to worry about.
I concur, 50% is damn good in the political arena. I don't quite understand it myself, how someone thinks otherwise. Maybe they were just caught up in their own intelligence, and faltered.
I know you think a lot of him, but seriously RK I don't see how. Everything is doom-and-gloom. He sounds like a broken record.
Dead cat bounce. It's been estimated that the Dow would have to hit about 10,000 before starting its way back down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner353.html
Right now we're in a deflationary phase of the depression. We're also still in the throes of the "stimulus" money the government just wasted. Look at how much auto sales declined in September from Augusts "Cash for Clunkers" high. Once the stimulus spending ends, so will the rally. The rally itself is unsustainable and we're right back where we were a year ago. It would have been much better to leave things alone then, we'd be well on our way to recovery right now. A little pain now, saves a lot later.
Drawn out arguments won't change the fact that you were dead ass wrong. For once LEF, try taking it like a man. Fact is fact, you have no clue and were flat, dead wrong.
Yes, he was and is. He has one answer for every problem: The government should do nothing. He's a hard core libertarian.
I'm content to wait. Economics is kind of like quantum physics. You can tell the direction you're going in, but you don't know exactly when it's going to happen. We'll see. I'd be ecstatic if I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.
His approval rating is flirting closer to 60% than 50%, but as it's been stated so eloquently - does 50% approval rating really indicate a mass mutiny of supporters? You blew a lot of hot air, but yet as I read hubs and comments I am still yet to find these Obama supporters that "turned on him". I still contend, and believe this site supports the contention, that the majority of his vocal and non-vocal opposition are the same people that voted against him in November. Even if your "flirting with 50%" statistic were dead on, you'd still be supporting my argument. Why? Do the math.
In November he received just under 53% of the popular vote. So more than 47% of that 50% opposing Obama never did support him. It's an illusion that's being fed to you, and you in turn are trying to pollute the minds of others with statistics that unknowingly contradict your argument.
According to the polls, his approval rating was just under 70% after the inauguration. It's now at about 50%. 20 points is a big deal when you're trying to fundamentally change America.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123806/Obama … oints.aspx
So where exactly am I wrong?
Again you make my point. The majority of those opposing, were already opposed.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter who the president is, there will be opposition. Obama must be congratulated for his attempts to change things such as bringing peace to the Middle East, pushing diplomacy and fixing the financial mess. However, he should not push his agenda at the expense of ignoring certain important things. The President has earned his fair share of criticism for some of this actions: traveling the world to apologize for America's actions; pushing programs in an effort to take from the rich and give to the poor - the so called "spread the wealth"; pushing Israel to yield grounds that rightfully belong to them, etc.
Yes, it's not easy being President and many of us would have run away by now. However, the choices that the president makes must align with mainstream America.
A "Californicated" GOP endangers the nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opini … ef=opinion
I dare say that Days of fame and fortune of US are over (at least temporary)and Obama's election proves it. You guys had to elect somebody like him to shovel all your social and economical manure so to say and be "the beating boy" as they say it in Russian, so everybody has the right to beat him up for this or that. He could be of any color, it does not change the purpose of making him the President. I admire his nerve and do not envy his position.
If U.S. "days of fame and fortune are over," blame George W. Bush, not Obama. The Wall Street banksters and others whom he's benefited aren't beating up on Obama and calling him a socialist or Marxist.
I wonder what you're referring to as "social and economical manure?" I guess I can understand your skepticism of government. It seems to be common to immigrants from former Iron Curtain countries nearly all of whom seem to have left their communitarian instincts behind.
You sound like you may be an "Incredible McCain Girl!"
http://hubpages.com/hub/John-McCain-is- … her-videos
I've previously read that if there was one person that was responsible for the financial meltdown it was Alan Greenspan.
I didn't understand this until I watched 'The Warning' tonight on CBC's Passionate Eye.
The documentary starts off by saying Alan Greenspan was a student of Ayn Rand's la se fair libertarian philosophy.
Brooksley Born tried to sound the whistle in the 1990s but she was basically attacked by Greenspan's bulldog Summers.
From The Warning
The CBC's Passionate Eye web site just has a trailer for 'The Warning'. But I found the whole eye opening 55 minute documentary at this PBS web site.
FRONTLINE The Warning
Or if you just want to see Alan Greenspan admit that for 40 years his philosophy of how the world works and his resisting market regulations was flawed then you can watch this short clip of 'The Warning'.
Greenspan Admits Philisophical Error in "The Warning"
So ledefensetech so much for Ron Paul or anyone that tries to push Von Mises' Austrian school of economics or la se fair libertarian unfettered capitalist philosophy. It's tits up. It's too bad Alan Greenspan had to take down the whole world with it.
Do you even know what Rand taught? Let me give you a little help, since you don't seem to know anything about the situation. If you ever bothered to look at the home of the Austrian School, you'd see how much invective is written about Greenspan, but why let facts get in the way of puerile anecdotes?
http://mises.org/story/3404
Here's an oldie but goodie from all the way back in 2001:
http://mises.org/article.aspx?record=620&month=29
Greenspan was a joke. This is what happens when you put an idiot who doesn't believe the role of the Fed is to manage the money supply in charge of the money supply!
Reality is quite often quite different from what you might hear from "them" or just read what someone else has written. Exploring the facts takes time and effort, MM, if you're not willing to take the time to understand things, then you're just all at sea and a dupe for whomever comes along and says the "right" things.
Yeah Ayn Rand was a nut. From this 1959 two part Mike Wallace interview Ayn Rand describes her messed up libertarian philosophy in her own words.
Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1
Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2
I doubt that it's coincidental that Ron Paul named one of his son's Rand.
I'd have to agree. Right from the first 5 minutes of 'The Warning' it says that Alan Greenspan embraced an unusual political guru, the libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand, Greenspan is her disciple.
The fact that Alan Greenspan admits that for 40 years his philosophy of how the world works was flawed stems back to his embrace of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Greenspan Admits Philisophical Error
So ledefensetech it seems that you do not even understand libertarian philosophy yourself. Which is understandable because there has never been a successful libertarian Austrian School of Economics model in the history of man. Here's a scientific method to critique the Austrian School of Economics.
We have witnessed the failure of communism in Soviet Russia just the same way we have just recently witnessed the failure of le sa fair unfettered libertarian capitalism in the US thanks to the previous head of the Fed, Alan Greenspan and his own admittedly flawed libertarian philosophy.
Now I think it is appropriate to quote a former Soviet diplomat, Christian Rakovsky. What is the essence of Communism? Rakovsky explains, “Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the Revolution.” In accord with this fundamental principle, it does not matter what degree of political and economic freedom is permitted in a liberalized Marxist State, because “words and facts in Marxism are subject to the strict rules of the higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution.” “The State as such is only power. AND MONEY IS EXCLUSIVELY POWER.” Thus it logically follows, as Rakovsky explains, that “Moscow is subjective Communism, but [objective] Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective.” What he means by ‘New York’ is: “The Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one [i.e. Communist International]…”
Very true. Greenspan himself did a mea culpa on his role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgx6-fOqr2A
Apparently you have a hard time with the definition of lassiez-faire. How can manipulating the monetary supply be anything but taking an active role in the economy as opposed to a hands off style? Are you sure you know what you think you know about economics? I'm inclined to think not.
Lots to read here... and its a great debate.
Just weighing in by saying that I tend to think when they throw the "Race Card" out there its just an obvious ploy to silence opposition. Yet, To be fair, there probably are a few old hold outs who despise a black (or half black) president, but it is a very very small minority. Those affected by racism in the past probably feel like it is more than it is in reality. A black man is the chairman of the GOP, so I do not think it is a race issue over all.
You still don't get it. Try reading about the Austrian school before you critique it. At least then you'll have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.mises.org
Communism, as you have said, has failed. But then you make the fallacious claim that since Communism failed, unfettered capitalism, too must fail. What examples do you have, exactly, to prove that claim?
I'd be careful quoting former Soviets. They embraced an economic system, after all, that impoverished a society that began as serfs, which takes some doing when you really think about it.
In response to your critique, I'd like you to listen to Peter Schiff explain about the Austrian School: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSeAjR0y … re=related
You know, he's the guy who predicted the mess we're in today. Before that, he was known as the guy who predicted the stock market crash in 2000-2001.
It helped that they murdered 64 million who tried to stand up against them
Thanks for the links tech
That little factoid doesn't matter to Progressives. After all the average person is too stupid to figure out the real villains of the piece, they need to be dragged to the Truth!
And what, my dear, is wrong with that?
I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with name dropping.
But it implies that unless one has read firsthand all of the same expert sources, then one's opinion is inferior.
Which basically reminds me that I have no business coming into this forum thread.
So I will go away and do something else Hub related.
Ciao bellos.
You have a business going anywhere you wish, that doesn't mean that you'll necessarily find people that share your opinion exactly.
Carter? I will say this about Carter. He's predictable. He a little man. He raised little nuts and that's what he has in his pants. That's why he comes up with these stupendous outcrys for notoriety because he knows nothing else. He will say something with that stupid grin of his (like a mule eating briars thru a bob wire fence) and get into the News because he knows they don't print News anymore, they print Headlines that draw attention away from the huge issues at stake and give the Democrats more of a window to play with. Carter started the "give the folks a home" project because they deserved it" and look what that got us! It has all but collapsed our market when expanded on by Clinton. Carter. What a joke.
Obama is White and Black by the way, so how can you be a racist if you disagree with his policies? Just like Michele having whites in her family history, we are all Americans whether you try to give another name or not. An Afro-American is still an American. I don't call myself an Irish/German/Seminole American. I call myself an American and I hope Obama does not ruin the idea of being an American but he sure is trying, isn't he?
Liberal politicians learned from the OJ trial that the race card is a powerful, albeit absurd, weapon.
by Nathan Bernardo 11 years ago
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
This question is addressed to the TDS crowd. What do I mean about this question? Suppose Trump achieve even 50% of his goals in the first two years.Suppose the economic policies lead to more jobs, better pay and increased wealth for all people both at the top and the middle and even the bottom of...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
According to CNN and Fox News reports dated July 14, 2004, Attorney General Holder stated that there is opposition to him and President Obama because they are Black. Attorney General Holder maintained that no other president has been criticized in America as much as President...
by marinealways24 14 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
by ChenardRobinson 11 years ago
Ever since the President has stepped into office he has been wrong. Its almost as if white people forgot to vote in 2008 and President Obama stole the seat. I would like to take you on a journey over the last four years to put into perspective of how racially divided we have come in the last four...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |