Left vs Right

[bieber]

read somewhere, in veep debate this october
Paul Ryan will be holding the laser and Biden runs allover to catch the red dot

[Pedro Gonzales]

FZ is the most over rated in liberal dominated media,

Sarah Palin appears to have hacked into bieber's account. :)

Seriously, though, I didn't realize we had conservatives in our community (let alone our forum). This is my last word on this topic, political arguments take too much time.

[bieber]

Sarah Palin appears to have hacked into bieber's account. :)

Seriously, though, I didn't realize we had conservatives in our community (let alone our forum). This is my last word on this topic, political arguments take too much time.

Pedro,

I'm center-right, conservative(moderate).

[qesehmk]

Teddy - you too brutus! How can you be right of center. Right of center starts a very dangerous slippery slope ;)

On a serious note - I do think that when young all of us are lefties and with age we lean right. The true right to me is about - freedom & fiscal conservatism.

However the right in this country has been hijacked by Limbaugh, Coulter, Grover Norquist, Texas (the entire defense industry), and Catholic Church and stupid chicago friedmanian economics rooted in monetary policy that created stock bubble followed by housing bubble followed by commodities bubble.

Be careful my friend - especially since I know you so close - that right is not a friendly place for immigrants.


Friends just my two cents with my own bias Iam definitely centre - right. CNN is a political neutral channel, I am not regular with GPS but have watched some episodes and I can definitely concur with those who feel Fareed is left leaning. He supported TARP (Many believe it’s a success as the govt profited in most cases but this is definitely contrary to how the free market should functions where winners should win on their own) and the bailouts and if you have watched the episode on healthcare he does support government run healthcare (PS - Iam no fan of the current healthcare system that we have here wherein the fundamental problem is cost but government run healthcare is also not a great solution). Fareed however is quite neutral on most political issues and quite secular in terms of his leanings. I hope he is back soon; he is pro legal immigration as well.

[GhostWriter]

Yes because the tax bill increases as you age. Though towards retirement one should again switch back to the left side and collect pension and healthcare benefits :).



On a serious note - I do think that when young all of us are lefties and with age we lean right. The true right to me is about - freedom & fiscal conservatism.

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy - you too brutus! How can you be right of center. Right of center starts a very dangerous slippery slope ;)

On a serious note - I do think that when young all of us are lefties and with age we lean right. The true right to me is about - freedom & fiscal conservatism.

However the right in this country has been hijacked by Limbaugh, Coulter, Grover Norquist, Texas (the entire defense industry), and Catholic Church and stupid chicago friedmanian economics rooted in monetary policy that created stock bubble followed by housing bubble followed by commodities bubble.

Be careful my friend - especially since I know you so close - that right is not a friendly place for immigrants.

Q you are right in many ways, fiscal conservatism is the key that is definitely one area where Iam probably far right. In fact most Asian families have beliefs that we should never be spending beyond our means and saving for a rainy day. Some of the spending going on is way over the top and unsustainable reform is the need of the hour, taxes alone cannot help. Yes I do believe that taxes should be brought down or the Bush tax cuts should apply for all. Iam definitely left by a safe distance of all the individuals whom you mentioned, Iam definitely not a fan of some of the liberal left leaning channels.

It is only the extreme far right that is against every form of immigration in the republican presidential debates notably Jon Huntsman did highlight the problems and overboard scrutiny that H1B folks are going through and Mitt Romney has always openly said that he is pro legal immigration, so it really is at a individual level. HR 3012 has also been brought up by Jason Chafetz who is right leaning Republican.

[bieber]

Q
a talk show host can lean right or left, that won't hurt the country.
what if a president can not compromise and puts idelogy infront of nation, and there is no plan for future. It's just that the other guys is 'so' bad that you have no choice but deal with my stupidity another term :D

[bieber]

I was only taking a dig at your 'liberal dominated media' comment.

I will stop it here since you don't want to continue the discussion. but if you change your mind, please tell me why that statement is not accurate
I'm open for discussion and can handle views that I'm not aligned with

[bieber]

Yes because the tax bill increases as you age. Though towards retirement one should again switch back to the left side and collect pension and healthcare benefits :).

collecting what they paid is nothing to do with left/right

[qesehmk]

HR 3012 has also been brought up by Jason Chafetz who is right leaning Republican.
Teddy - you are right on that one. I am not against getting benefitted from the right side. If you look at the jewish vote in this country - they would love all the tax cuts - of late they are in love with republicans on middle east affairs and all the wars - however their hearts and minds are all on the left side including most of the billionairres (whether Soros or others). And I admire that since they don't forget their history and know who their true wellwishers are. So I think even Indian (and all larger immigrant) community should work with the right and make them work for us. But right has fundamentally become a place of narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. My 2 cents Teddy. Don't mean to argue with you at all!


Q
a talk show host can lean right or left, that won't hurt the country.
what if a president can not compromise and puts idelogy infront of nation, and there is no plan for future. It's just that the other guys is 'so' bad that you have no choice but deal with my stupidity another term :D
Bieber, I assume you are talking about Obama. It's funny how two people can look at the same thing and arrive at different conclusion. In my opinion Obama has hardly implemented any leftist agenda - especially on the fiscal stimulus. And I think given the circumstances he has done a good (not great) job. If you think about it - he has twice the difficult job just because the color of his skin and thrice the difficult job because of the unprecedented economic collapse that threatened the modern world. Considering that he is doing really good. I hope and I am confident that his second term will quite different when he won't be running again for any office.

I think I have given more than my 2 cents on this topic. It's a fun and mature discussion but I too shall retire now!

[cbpds1]

[QUOTE=qesehmk;29271]LoL.
I am yet to find a republican who refuses to accept social security or medicare ;)
Bill Oreilly, although he claims to be an independant, he is a conservative though.

Q, there are a lot of left wingers too, george soros, bill maher etc, who have hijacked the left as well. The housing bubble was created by Barney frank and the left as they had the power in the congress and wanted every american to have a house
and barney created fannie and freddie to load unsafe mortgages

Q, u definitely are a leftie :), I think Q likes redistributing wealth, i can give u my bank account :)

Teddy, I used to like CNN before, but it has become a lot left leaning now.

Moreover the politicians are one and the same whether its left of right, we have to chose people who are capable and can find solutions

[GhostWriter]

Make sure your account is empty, redistribution might give you unexpected results otherwise !!.

Bill O'Reilly is as right wing as it gets. I find him extremely arrogant and closed minded. Always prefer a 1 star movie over O'Reilly Factor !!



[QUOTE=qesehmk;29271]LoL.

Bill Oreilly, although he claims to be an independant, he is a conservative though.

Q, u definitely are a leftie :), I think Q likes redistributing wealth, i can give u my bank account :)

[qesehmk]

LoL.
Q, u definitely are a leftie :), I think Q likes redistributing wealth, i can give u my bank account :)
...
Moreover the politicians are one and the same whether its left of right, we have to chose people who are capable and can find solutions
cbpds1 - I don't know what I am. I am quite a lefty and yet I do love Ron Paul and his libertarian views. Appreciate your views and personal note. We can take the discussion offline but not before saying that this is all a side discussion as far as this forum is concerned.

On this forum - we all stand for immigration and share and collaborate to bring clarity to GC process and make this journey easier.

Happy Indepdence Day again!

[cbpds1]

Ghostwriter, the response was to Q's question, please read carefully.

Q: I am yet to find a republican who refuses to accept social security or medicare
cbpds: Bill Oreilly does not take SS , although he claims to be an independant, he is a conservative though.

btw if u think Oeilly is what he is, why is his show the #1 cable news show since 12 years, care to analyze?


Make sure your account is empty, redistribution might give you unexpected results otherwise !!.

Bill O'Reilly is as right wing as it gets. I find him extremely arrogant and closed minded. Always prefer a 1 star movie over O'Reilly Factor !!


[QUOTE=cbpds1;29284]

[qesehmk]

I had to move all this American Left vs Right discussion to a new thread since this is quite different from Farid Zakaria discussion.

[Pedro Gonzales]

btw if u think Oeilly is what he is, why is his show the #1 cable news show since 12 years, care to analyze?

The same reason that 'Titanic' was the biggest grossing movie in 1997 when 'Seven Years in Tibet' came in 59th, Himesh Reshammiya sells more CDs than Ilayaraja, 0-time national award winner Shah Rukh Khan makes more money than 3 time winner Mammootty. Volume / Popularity does not equal Quality. Regardless of where on the political spectrum you lie, it should be self evident that O'Reilly is an obnoxious, arrogant and angry loud-mouth.

This is usually when the conservatives start calling me an elitist, btw.

PS:- My apologies to bieber. I walked away from a debate with him saying I didn't want to get dragged into a time consuming exercise, but I had to comment when I saw someone holding O'Reilly up as an epitome of journalistic discourse.Hopefully I can display better will power in the future.

[gs1968]

To Q
I think we should move away from hot-button issues like politics and religion as these usually cause needless rifts between people who are otherwise working towards a common cause. I do however agree that this can be much more than an immigration forum.Movie reviews/cheap flight deals to India/concert shows etc come to mind and will be beneficial to a lot of people

Or should I start a thread on Basmati rice instead?!

[qesehmk]

gs1968 - I think you are right. Honestly I really like Farid (or is it Fareed?) and got carried away. And then this left vs right debate started which doesn't seem to end. And that's ok - as long as people respect each other and do NOT attack each other personally.

Regarding basmati rice - believe it or not few days back somebody (was it soggadu?) posted a question about Aata and to my surprise he actually received quite a few response!!!

To Q
I think we should move away from hot-button issues like politics and religion as these usually cause needless rifts between people who are otherwise working towards a common cause. I do however agree that this can be much more than an immigration forum.Movie reviews/cheap flight deals to India/concert shows etc come to mind and will be beneficial to a lot of people

Or should I start a thread on Basmati rice instead?!

[cbpds1]

I watched almost all the news shows one time or the other, I liked 60 minutes, oreilly and john batchelor radio show.

Oreilly may be brash or arrogant as it seems but the reason I like his show are:
1.he is an honest guy and states the facts....
2.If you see him make a mistake and point it out, he will correct it and state it the next day
3.He always gets the reactions from both the left and right columnists.
4.Obama has said that Oreilly was fair to him
5.he bashes all the fluffy folks who keep repeating talking points
6.He collars people who deflect the questions like Barney Frank.

btw Im no republican as you think
I did not like Bush or Mr O, but like Bill Clinton.


The same reason that 'Titanic' was the biggest grossing movie in 1997 when 'Seven Years in Tibet' came in 59th, Himesh Reshammiya sells more CDs than Ilayaraja, 0-time national award winner Shah Rukh Khan makes more money than 3 time winner Mammootty. Volume / Popularity does not equal Quality. Regardless of where on the political spectrum you lie, it should be self evident that O'Reilly is an obnoxious, arrogant and angry loud-mouth.

This is usually when the conservatives start calling me an elitist, btw.

PS:- My apologies to bieber. I walked away from a debate with him saying I didn't want to get dragged into a time consuming exercise, but I had to comment when I saw someone holding O'Reilly up as an epitome of journalistic discourse.Hopefully I can display better will power in the future.

[Pedro Gonzales]

My apologies cbpds1, if I came across as aggressive. I did think you were a Republican, but I don't think of that as a negative. I have many Republican friends, including a cousin with whom I discuss politics every Friday. We still get along. He never forgets to end every debate with the reminder that he can vote and I cannot, so he wins all the time.

To address my opinion on O'Reilly, I first started to put up a list of youtube clips where he unfairly cuts his guests off, yells, at them, interrupts them when they are saying things he doesn't like, and generally doing the stuff he does, but then decided not to. Someone who has been broadcasting as long as he has will have plenty of good and bad days. We can cherry pick what we want here to help justify our opinion of him. That would be unfair to him. Let everyone else form their own opinion from an unbiased sample of his work. I haven't formed my opinion on O'Reilley lightly myself, and I guess that you haven't either.

To address the left vs. right debate I am a fiscal conservative myself. I don't like what unions have become, I think welfare should be used sparingly so as to not invite dependence on it, I believe in simplifying the tax code along with decreasing overall tax levels, I believe in limited government spending (although I think the government is obligated to invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure when the private sector will not), and I don't like bailouts. However, I never ever thought about leaning Republican / conservative in this country because of a) where they stand on social issues, and b) who runs/controls the conservative movement in this country these days (Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Edelson and the like).

On social issues too, I went to school in North Carolina and know and like very many social conservatives. One of my best friends and study companion while I was there was from Texas and I had endless debates with him on guns and religion. I don't agree with the anti-choice and anti-gay rights crowd but I don't disrespect them for their views on that.

What I do disrespect, are the people at the forefront of the conservative movement these days. The only one that acts in accordance to his ideology is Ron Paul, and he is the only one that I respect. I do not like the fact that Fox News is now unabashedly a propaganda machine. I do not like that Karl Rowe spouts out lies (not exaggerations) with no shame in public, and that every move he has ever made focuses on making it tougher for the poor and easier for the rich. I don't like that the Koch Brothers are fiscal conservatives except when it comes to subsidies for chemical industry. I do not like that the conservative spokespersons are extremely unpleasant and laughably ignorant people like Palin & Coulter, and that their talkshows are led by despicable characters like Beck & Limbaugh. I don't like that they insist that regulations are killing the oil and gas industry when in fact, regulations are the only thing that makes the industry give any focus at all to safety and the environment (I know, I've worked in and for the industry for about 15 years now). I hate that they are climate change deniers when the argument has been settled. I hate that they are trying to win this election cycle by disenfranchising millions of folks in swing states (Did you know that in Ohio, where Republicans control the state legislature, they have moved resources around thereby decreased / eliminating early voting in Democrat leaning districts while expanded early voting hours/days in Republican leaning districts?).

I don't hate Republicans, I just hate the individuals that are leading them, funding them, and informing them.

Rant over.

[ChampU]

I'm sorry, had to delete my posts on this issue coz they were posted in work hours. since I am working on a federal govt contract, my boss thought its not a very bright idea..

If i were to accept the Democratic party's accusation that the Republicans cater only to the rich, it would want me to vote Republican even more strongly coz thats what i came to this country for.. To become rich.. I am not sure what the Democratic Party's message is for most of us.. Most of us are amongst the top 20% income earners in the u.s... We came here as 20 something years olds, worked hard and have earned this position.. We did not have a safety net or unemployment benefits.. So if the President says that I did not earn this, I am not sure who did..

Sure, we're not millionaires (i dont know about the Gurus (Q, Teddy, Spec,veni et.al)) but if you look at the "revised" definition for "rich" (those making >250k), we can hit that mark in our lifetime.. Would you think its fair for being taxed a little extra for your success? We all are making a lot of sacrifices in our careers coz we are not U.S. citizens.. When i see citizens simply collecting welfare checks or young lads lining up for the Occupy movement and blame veryone else for their problems, it makes me cringe...these are not the people who made this country great.. Its the can-doers, risk takers who toiled and built this country with their blood, sweat and tears... These Occupy idiots need to see the documentary about the Golden Gate Bridge, how it was built and how people went through the hardships but came through with hardwork.. And we are gonna tax that spirit and the hardwork? It incentivizes Govt. dependence and punishes the individual... And if you ask any Dem what would a "fair" tax % be, there is never an answer coz the limit on spending is a moving target as well..

Another false propoganda is Republicans are "anti-immigrants".. Just a few pointers on that.. Amnesty to illegals was first granted under Reagen.. Bush 43 championed the immigration reform much more vehemently than what Obama did... hr 3012 was introduced by a Republican.. It was under W that the first and second African-American Secretaries of State took office..both "Indian American" Governers are Republicans.. sen. Rubio from Florida is a Tea Party backed Cuban American.. The recent GOP candidate from Tx for the Senate (i believe his name is Cruz) is Hispanic and backed by the Tea Party..i'm sure there are many more examples of Tea party backed immigrants/minorities..The Dems had a super majority and could have passed immigration reform very easily had they really care for the immigrants.. But we all know what happened..

Rove, Limbaugh, koch, coulter, beck don't care about any party.. They re just out tere to make money..its true they have a lot of clout in the party but so do a lot of not so genuine characters on the left.. The entire NBC network, most CNN anchors, Chris Matthews, Maddow, maher, soros, jon stewart, some Hollywood crazies, New York social butterflies?. There are people on both sides whose job is to exaggerate and make money.. For themselves and their masters..but such is the case with media, the more outrageous it is, the more it sells.. How else can te Kardashians or Jersey Shore crew make their millions? As regards Palin, She'z dumb but the Veep or Al Franken or Harry Reid or Pelosi aint much brighter either..

I have made up my mind.. I wont get my GC this calendar year fo'sure..if Dems win in Nov., i'll ask my boss to move me on the fed. Contract fulltime as thats the best place to be in.. If Romney wins, i'll move to a more "country club" account..


Can anyone supporting the left please give me a few good reasons why I should vote Dem?

[Pedro Gonzales]

Can anyone supporting the left please give me a few good reasons why I should vote Dem?

Apart from the reasons I give above (that they are being led, informed and funded by lying, scheming, despicable folk)?

Here are a few reasons.

1) When you become a citizen, do you plan to bring your parents to the country on a green card? The Affordable Health Care Act promises that they will have affordable insurance that doesn't disqualify any pre-existing conditions. While I wish your parents the best of health, it is likely that they will come here with some pre-existing condition (most likely, for Indians, hypertension or diabetes). Today, the maximum insurance coverage they will have is $100K (if they're over 65) and that costs an arm and a leg and does not cover anything to do with diabetes and hypertension (I'll invite the doctors here to comment further, but I have been told that since my father has hypertension, any issues with the heart or circulation isn't covered). Since your parents wouldn't have paid taxes in the US for 10 years, they will not qualify for Medicare. Since you would have sponsored them, they will not qualify for Medicaid. The Affordable Health Care Act promises at the very least to cover pre-existing conditions, and possibly bring down costs and increase coverage if the insurance exchanges work as they should. If Romney wins, he will repeal the affordable care act.

2) If the Republicans win (and potentially even if they don't) the Keystone pipeline will be built to bring in crude from the oil sands in Canada to the U.S. That will bring in billions of additional tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere much sooner than we will be able to even have a plan to deal with it. The alternative, of course is that the Chinese will built a pipeline to get it over the Rockies into British Columbia, but that will be more expensive to build (so more unlikely to get built), time consuming and will increase the $/barrell production costs (the additional electricity required to pump it over the Rockies) that it may not happen. Thanks to the recession and the spread between crude oil and gas prices, we have finally started to decrease CO2 emissions in this country, the Keystone pipeline would expand it significantly. Yes, your gasoline would be cheaper, but so many other things would be more expensive. And with Bangladesh being amongst the most susceptible to rising sea level, we'll have a refugee crisis at our borders of gigantic proportions. Yes this is a scenario that will affect us only in the long term, but it's certainly not far-fetched.

3) Surely you agree that an economic recovery is better for you personally. You need to reflect on whether tackling the deficit & tax cuts for corporations are likely to trigger a recovery or an investment in infrastructure. You've probably heard the argument that Europe and the U.K focused on the former since 2009 whereas China and the U.S. focused on the latter and that China and the U.S. are currently better off. That argument is simplistic but accurate. There are economists on both sides of the argument. Figure out for yourself which you believe in. I recommend Paul Krugman's writing on the subject. My argument is that if the economy recovers, I have more job security and get paid more, compared to what I'd save on taxes if the taxes are dropped and the economy doesn't recover.

[bieber]

Bieber, I assume you are talking about Obama. It's funny how two people can look at the same thing and arrive at different conclusion. In my opinion Obama has hardly implemented any leftist agenda - especially on the fiscal stimulus. And I think given the circumstances he has done a good (not great) job. If you think about it - he has twice the difficult job just because the color of his skin and thrice the difficult job because of the unprecedented economic collapse that threatened the modern world. Considering that he is doing really good. I hope and I am confident that his second term will quite different when he won't be running again for any office.

I think I have given more than my 2 cents on this topic. It's a fun and mature discussion but I too shall retire now!

Q

Obama implemented health care reform which no presidenct could do in past century. and Dodd-Frank too

[bieber]

Pedro
No need for sorry brother :)

I just read you suggested Paul Krugman, that's the path to Europe

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro
I just read you suggested Paul Krugman, that's the path to Europe

We need to differentiate between U.K. / Europe economic policy in the last 30 years vs. U.K. / Europe response to this recession. Yes, Krugman recommends improving the safety net the way they have over the last 30 years, but he recommends stimulus to get out of the recession which they have not focused on sufficiently these last 4.

I may have to uninstall Firefox and IE as my will power is letting me down here. :)

[ChampU]

I knew you would bring up Healthcare.. but there is a reason why majority of people opposed this legislation and it was rammed down the throats by passing it in the middle of the night.. But anyways its upheld by the Supreme Court and is the law of the land, for now.. so lets respect it..

The reason why it was unpopular is:

1. Common sense tells me.. if the Healthcare Act really was that good, they wouldn't have to rush through passing it..they would have advertised it like crazy coz it is a land mark legislation..
Its like if you cook a good Biryani, you will invite people to smell it, look at it, sample it and enjoy it.. But you are making Kauwa-Biryani and selling it as Chicken Biryani, you wouldn't even lift the lid and allow the users to peep inside the vessel..it will be hush hush and parcels packed in the middle of the night..

2. It brings up taxes (0.9% across the board and 3.8% for high income earners) for Medicare for everyone when there are serious doubts about the sustainablity of the program for people of our generation..

3. About the issue of parents and pre-existing conditions, sure it eliminates coverage limits but there are no guidelines on premium calculation. And if the premiums exceed 10k per year (which is quite likely for 65+ individuals with any of the pre-existing conditions), guess what you pay a 40% excise tax on the plan (the limits are 10.2k for individuals and 27.5k for families)..

So no.. It won't be any cheaper with the new healthcare.. It is like instead of having a credit card with 100k limit and 20% APR, now you have a credit card with no limit credit line but 40% APR..

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act)

And while it provides healthcare to individuals with pre-existing conditions through the High-Risk Insurance Pools, for an individual to be eligible he/she must be uninsured for more than 6 months.. Now you wouldn't let parents with pre-existing to be uninsured, would you?

http://www.aad.org/member-tools-and-benefits/practice-management-resources/health-system-reform-resource-center/high-risk-insurance-pools

In a lot of ways, the healthcare exchanges will be like the Ration Card stores that we have in India.. sure it would give access to the service for those who cannot afford it. But, if you have ever been to a ration card store and walked away with a happy experience regarding availability or quality of the product/service, you are in a minority. And with regards to the healthcare for our near and dear ones, I wouldn't want to compromise on it.

I'll get back on the other 2 points in lunch hour.. :)

[cbpds1]

Atleast Oreilly doesnt swoon to Obama like the mainstream media does, they bow to him even if they dont agree to him, job security

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.

If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,

The reason we are successful here is bcos of capitalism and not socialism, I do not believe in giving money for lazy people who dont just get off their ass and find work.

I understand we have to give money to poor or needy, no prob with that, do u know there is 100 million people in US who are dependant on welfare funds from the fed, (not SS or medicare)

Obama talked abt honest govt , but he is a proven liar in chief, did u see how he rammed his fellow dems to pass healthcare.



What abt fast and furious, what abt crony capitalism, the very essence of political corrupition in India(pay back donors with fed projects)

he has done nothing to the economy, the private sector wud have been much improved except for dodd frank(too much regulations than needed)

Obama is just pandering to people for votes, he pandered to gay folks with DADT, trying to get women votes with contraceptives, getting latino vote by giving amnesty without doing immig reform, large new Health care taxes in Obamacare.
He just want to redistribute wealth , this was not what America is based on, Is this the hope and Change u voted for?


We need to differentiate between U.K. / Europe economic policy in the last 30 years vs. U.K. / Europe response to this recession. Yes, Krugman recommends improving the safety net the way they have over the last 30 years, but he recommends stimulus to get out of the recession which they have not focused on sufficiently these last 4.

I may have to uninstall Firefox and IE as my will power is letting me down here. :)

[cbpds1]

If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama :)


Apart from the reasons I give above (that they are being led, informed and funded by lying, scheming, despicable folk)?

Here are a few reasons.

1) When you become a c
2) If the Republicans win (and potentially even if they don't) the Keystone pipeline will be built to bring in crude from the oil sands in Canada to the U.S. That will bring in billions of additional tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere much sooner than we will be able to even have a plan to deal with it. The alternative, of course is that the Chinese will built a pipeline to get it over the Rockies into British Columbia, but that will be more expensive to build (so more unlikely to get built), time consuming and will increase the $/barrell production costs (the additional electricity required to pump it over the Rockies) that it may not happen. Thanks to the recession and the spread between crude oil and gas prices, we have finally started to decrease CO2 emissions in this country, the Keystone pipeline would expand it significantly. Yes, your gasoline would be cheaper, but so many other things would be more expensive. And with Bangladesh being amongst the most susceptible to rising sea level, we'll have a refugee crisis at our borders of gigantic proportions. Yes this is a scenario that will affect us only in the long term, but it's certainly not far-fetched.

3) Surely you agree that an economic recovery is better for you personally. You need to reflect on whether tackling the deficit & tax cuts for corporations are likely to trigger a recovery or an investment in infrastructure. You've probably heard the argument that Europe and the U.K focused on the former since 2009 whereas China and the U.S. focused on the latter and that China and the U.S. are currently better off. That argument is simplistic but accurate. There are economists on both sides of the argument. Figure out for yourself which you believe in. I recommend Paul Krugman's writing on the subject. My argument is that if the economy recovers, I have more job security and get paid more, compared to what I'd save on taxes if the taxes are dropped and the economy doesn't recover.

[cbpds1]

hey Pedro,

Your defense is not strong, you are deflecting by pointing to right wingers when there are much more left wing lunatics, they are the fringe, they are present in both left and right.

The points that u mentioned below is the main points that Obama is running on, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney :)
". I don't like what unions have become, I think welfare should be used sparingly so as to not invite dependence on it, I believe in simplifying the tax code along with decreasing overall tax levels, I believe in limited government spending (although I think the government is obligated to invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure when the private sector will not), and I don't like bailouts."

I am fine with dem or rep as long as they treat every class equally, its not a crime to be rich, they earned it.
I dont like folks who promote welfare for ppl who are lazy, give more to the needy instead.

O is just pandering by giving goodies to all sections of voters to get votes, nothing more abt hope and change.
he is same as any other politician.

You say republicans disenfranchised the voters, what about the thousands of voter fraud that the Dems commit, what abt the black panther party threatening ppl not to vote and Holder took no action against them?



[QUOTE=Pedro Gonzales;29295]My apologies cbpds1, if I came across as aggressive. I did think you were a Republican, but I don't think of that as a negative. I have many Republican friends, including a cousin with whom I discuss politics every Friday. We still get along. He never forgets to end every debate with the reminder that he can vote and I cannot, so he wins all the time.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.
'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.


If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,
Arguably, there's no pure capitalistic society in the world anymore. The U.S. and Europe are all partially socialistic. All I want is a stronger safety net.


I do not believe in giving money for lazy people who dont just get off their ass and find work.
Do u know there is 100 million people in US who are dependant on welfare funds from the fed, (not SS or medicare)
I don't need the hard sell on this. As I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I don't think we ought to incentivize indolence. It's a downside to voting Democratic, today but one I can live with until the Republican party moves a bit to the left. Eventually (perhaps as soon as after this election?) the extreme right will be routed out of the Republican party, and they will move to the center (only slightly to the right of where the Democratic party is today).

Ignoring your rant against Obama, which is so far off keel that I do not think I need to counter....


the private sector wud have been much improved except for dodd frank(too much regulations than needed)
Another area where I have some personal knowledge. Wall Street, (where i've spent the last 7 years) like the Oil and Gas Industry (where I spent the previous 7 years) will never self-regulate. These are smart, generally ethical, but incredibly ambitious people in a system that rewards people for taking risks with little to no personal downside (opportunity cost, which they will point to, is not real downside). Dodd-Frank tries to tackle it but ineffectively. Dodd-Frank's problem is that it focuses on many costly non-issues while not addressing vital segments of the industry that require regulation. In 2005, I was sold on the '99 repeal of Glass Steagall by Gramm Leach Bliley. Yet, in my time in a top investment bank, many of the contradictions of the common banking model started to come to light. I had decided for myself before 2008 that common investors (through retail bank accounts or pension fund / mutual fund investments) weren't sufficiently rewarded for the profits their funds enabled the investment bankers to make. I didn't expect the bail out so I thought common investors would fit the bill whenever losses mounted, although partners (stock holders eventually as more of these banks IPOed) would a hit too. As it turned out, the buck stopped with the taxpayer. Cbs, if you're with a hedge fund, as many of my friends are, nothing I can tell you will seem to justify the regulations you are starting to face, and that's the only reason I can see for you to be against it. For everyone else, the fact is, this regulation replaces the board supervision and investor manager prudence that have been found wanting.

Much has been written on the topic by experts, who have put far more thought on it than I have, so don't just believe that Krugman is shit because O'Reilly says so. Read his work and figure out for himself. Or read any of the other neutral economists.

[Pedro Gonzales]

If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama :)

Surely you know better than to spout that lie. Surely you know that Romney is quoting him out of context there. Surely you know that Obama was referring to the infrastructure in place to help businesses succeed. If you buy that crap from Fox news, I think you're beyond hope.

EDIT:- The above possibly comes across as a personal attack. If so, I apologize. I'll leave it to Q or the other mods to delete if they see fit.

[Pedro Gonzales]

hey Pedro,
Your defense is not strong, you are deflecting by pointing to right wingers when there are much more left wing lunatics, they are the fringe, they are present in both left and right.

Except, on the left the fringe are not on TV every day spouting their BS. On the left, the fringe do not get talk shows on TV and radio. Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart (who is a comedian, btw, not a newshound) are not in the same league as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.


The points that u mentioned below is the main points that Obama is running on, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney :)
And yet, I can't stand Romney and what he stands for (actually, no one knows what Romney stands for). I would vote Democrat (if I could vote) despite their stance on some of these issues.


O is just pandering by giving goodies to all sections of voters to get votes, nothing more abt hope and change.
he is same as any other politician.
No argument here either. But we don't have an Idealist like Ron Paul on the other side. We have Romney and Ryan, also politicians.


You say republicans disenfranchised the voters, what about the thousands of voter fraud that the Dems commit, what abt the black panther party threatening ppl not to vote and Holder took no action against them?
Never heard of the Black Panther threats, so I think it must be some obscure issue that Fox is talking up. From what i've read (in the WSJ, Time and the Economist), there is no evidence for any voter fraud. The 1000s that you allege have no basis - just complaints by Republicans. In any case, I have no issue with voter ID requirements. As long as you're making it equally difficult for everyone it's difficult to argue against. My issue was with selectively disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts in Ohio compared to Republican districts. That is unethical, and i'm surprised not illegal.

[ChampU]

'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.

Pedro, my friend.. The Nobel Prize used to be noble.. but ever since the kid was awarded a Ph.D. before he stepped out of kindergarten.. I for one, have lost respect for that award. You know the kid about whom, I am talking about. I am yet to find a soul who convincingly justifies that Nobel Award..


Arguably, there's no pure capitalistic society in the world anymore. The U.S. and Europe are all partially socialistic. All I want is a stronger safety net.

Safety Net is good.. but at what cost? Too much emphasis on the safety net becomes a shackle on the one who wants to fly high.. the ones who are not afraid to fall down.. Do you blame them for being too reckless? If the Wright Brothers had worried about the safety net, they would have never managed to fly.. Edison failed a thousand times.. he didn't worry about a safety net.. Had Steve Jobs and Ellison and Bill Gates worried about the safety net, they would have never summoned the courage to drop out of school...George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were wealthy farmers with a very very secure future.. Yet they risked it all because they believed in the idea of freedom.
America is built by people who took all kinds of risks to get to its shores.. work hard and make a better lives for ourselves..
Think about it.. we left the safety net and comfort of our homes to come here.. were there any guarantees that we'd be successful.. no.. but we worked hard and here we are.. young, successful professionals.. had we thought of a safety net, we would be somewhere in India contemplating what could have been had we made up our mind to go to the U.S.



I don't need the hard sell on this. As I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I don't think we ought to incentivize indolence. It's a downside to voting Democratic, today but one I can live with until the Republican party moves a bit to the left. Eventually (perhaps as soon as after this election?) the extreme right will be routed out of the Republican party, and they will move to the center (only slightly to the right of where the Democratic party is today).

Ignoring your rant against Obama, which is so far off keel that I do not think I need to counter....


Another area where I have some personal knowledge. Wall Street, (where i've spent the last 7 years) like the Oil and Gas Industry (where I spent the previous 7 years) will never self-regulate. These are smart, generally ethical, but incredibly ambitious people in a system that rewards people for taking risks with little to no personal downside (opportunity cost, which they will point to, is not real downside). Dodd-Frank tries to tackle it but ineffectively. Dodd-Frank's problem is that it focuses on many costly non-issues while not addressing vital segments of the industry that require regulation. In 2005, I was sold on the '99 repeal of Glass Steagall by Gramm Leach Bliley. Yet, in my time in a top investment bank, many of the contradictions of the common banking model started to come to light. I had decided for myself before 2008 that common investors (through retail bank accounts or pension fund / mutual fund investments) weren't sufficiently rewarded for the profits their funds enabled the investment bankers to make. I didn't expect the bail out so I thought common investors would fit the bill whenever losses mounted, although partners (stock holders eventually as more of these banks IPOed) would a hit too. As it turned out, the buck stopped with the taxpayer. Cbs, if you're with a hedge fund, as many of my friends are, nothing I can tell you will seem to justify the regulations you are starting to face, and that's the only reason I can see for you to be against it. For everyone else, the fact is, this regulation replaces the board supervision and investor manager prudence that have been found wanting.

Much has been written on the topic by experts, who have put far more thought on it than I have, so don't just believe that Krugman is shit because O'Reilly says so. Read his work and figure out for himself. Or read any of the other neutral economists.

Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[cbpds1]

Well said Champu,
"its just pick your poison and pick your sector."

Pedro, I dont like Rush, Coulter or the Jessie Jacksons either, stop talking abt the extreme right or left , it will make our discussion futile.

Guess we need a centrist party :)




Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[qesehmk]

ChampU K street is a hire gun of wall street and corporate America. More later. Hard to type on phone.


Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[cbpds1]

Pedro,
The majority of the people like voter id laws
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holders-uphill-battle-huge-public-support-for-voter-id/article/2504969#.UCvTzqDrSSp

The voter id law applies to the whole state and republican governors are doing it, why dont the dem governors do the same !!

The more I discuss with u, it seems u are emotionally a lefty but practically a centrist, takes time to change :)



Never heard of the Black Panther threats, so I think it must be some obscure issue that Fox is talking up. From what i've read (in the WSJ, Time and the Economist), there is no evidence for any voter fraud. The 1000s that you allege have no basis - just complaints by Republicans. In any case, I have no issue with voter ID requirements. As long as you're making it equally difficult for everyone it's difficult to argue against. My issue was with selectively disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts in Ohio compared to Republican districts. That is unethical, and i'm surprised not illegal.

[geterdone]

this is all i got to say:
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm128/gorskic77/funny%20pictures/tin-foil-hat.jpg



Well said Champu,
"its just pick your poison and pick your sector."

Pedro, I dont like Rush, Coulter or the Jessie Jacksons either, stop talking abt the extreme right or left , it will make our discussion futile.

Guess we need a centrist party :)

[ChampU]

Pedro,

Regarding your point about the Keystone Pipeline and CO2 emissions... I don't get the correlation.. Even if the Keystone Pipeline does not go through, the US will use gas from other sources..they crude will have to be refined and it will generate CO2 exhausts, anyways.. I don't see where the "additional" billions of tons would come from.. The crude refinement may not happen in the US but i dont think it matters where the Co2 exhausts come from. If you are talking about additional energy expenditure of pumping it over the Rockies, then help me understand how that is less efficient than shipping it from the world's most volatile waters.
Regards to problem with Bangladesh and the world's rising Oceans.. Understand this that the demands for energy are going to rise no matter what the environmentalists say.. India and China.. A third of the world's population is about to breakthrough towards development and they need energy.. Do you think that Indians who face a mega shortage of energy and have to basic necessaities would listen to the environmentalists sitting in A/c cabins lecturing them about rising waters?? What are they supposed to do?? Live in dark and Cook on woodfires so that the liberals can protect some purple assed crab's environment? Why dont we do this.. Since all the Dems worry so much about the rising levels of waters in Bangladesh, they stop using A/C or any other "luxury materialistic energy hogging pleasures".. How about that?

Funny how you talked about only the correlation of co2 and rising waters when Co2 is not even the largest GHG and a bulk of the CO2 on the planet has nothing to do with Energy..Most of the sources are natural..

The real reason for opposition to Keystone pipeline is it would have helped solve the energy crisis at home.. So the Al Gores of the world who have invested billions in "clean energy" of the Solyndra kind would have been seen running around with wind turbines up theirs..See all this care for environment is just a disguised and pathetic way to fill their pockets..

[qesehmk]

ChampU - the debate we are having is not whether personally for YOU whether democrats or republicans make sense. Sure republican policies are good for high income / high net worth people. So if you are one of those then good for you.

The debate we are having is - is it good for the country and society. Just go back in the history and look at FDR and what he did. Why ? Just go back and look at what Lyndon Johnson did. All those things would be considered absolutely socialistic in nature. However, a lot of those things (social security, infrastructure, big projects, internet, defense research, equal opportunity, fairness in employment and so on and so forth) are things that really gave USA the competitive edge sicne WWII.

Progressive taxation is universally accepted by economists. The simple reason behind progrssive taxation is the law of diminishing returns on an individuals amassed wealth for the society as a whole. Estate and inheritance taxes exist for the same reason. Wealth is killed when accumulated. Wealth lies in products and services creation and consumption. When accumulated, one is only accumulating future claims and creating a gurantee for his ability to consume at a future date without doing anything then.

Republicans being antiimiigrant - I would stand by that. The amnesty is driven more by business lobbying rather than republicans love for immigrants. Dems on the other hand oppose immigration for fear of losing jobs rather than fundamentally being hateful of other cultures. Thats a crucial difference.

One simple reason why anybody should vote Dem this time around is because republicans will destroy American fabric. They have become a party with narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. Dems are slight better in practice and a lot better in theory.But I do grant that they are nearly same.


If i were to accept the Democratic party's accusation that the Republicans cater only to the rich, it would want me to vote Republican even more strongly coz thats what i came to this country for.. To become rich......


Would you think its fair for being taxed a little extra for your success?
...
And we are gonna tax that spirit and the hardwork?

Another false propoganda is Republicans are "anti-immigrants"..

Can anyone supporting the left please give me a few good reasons why I should vote Dem?


Q

Obama implemented health care reform which no presidenct could do in past century. and Dodd-Frank too
bieber - yes. Agree. But abortion rights, gay rights, guns and wars is where dems agenda has not been pushed much.


Pedro
No need for sorry brother :)

I just read you suggested Paul Krugman, that's the path to Europe
bieber - Europe's problems are not out of Austrian economics. They primarily stem from having a monetary union without a political union which is then prohibiting them to make right choices. What you quote "path to Europe" is a clever propoganda from those who are financially motivated for more stimulus. We should be careful in catching these kind of terms on the fly and recycling them. Sorry - don't mean to be rude.


Atleast Oreilly doesnt swoon to Obama like the mainstream media does,

...

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.

...
If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,

....
I understand we have to give money to poor or needy,
..

Obama talked abt honest govt , but he is a proven liar in chief, did u see how he rammed his fellow dems to pass healthcare.
...

What abt fast and furious, what abt crony capitalism, the very essence of political corrupition in India(pay back donors with fed projects)

cbpds1 - i think swooning or not to obama is not a qualification or disqualification. That shouldn't matter. When I check the list of things you said above - its hard to argue since all of them are opinions at best and baseless accusations picked from right at worst. Instead if you write your analysis your words and your logic, it would be a better way to have a dialogue.


If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama :)
This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one :)

[bieber]

'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.



Pedro brother

I knew it will come :D

The people who oppose Krugman are also nobel prize winners,
Did you see the journal yesterday, 400 economists (4 of them with Nobel) supported Romney plan over Obamas (tax rich and spend)

[bieber]

Surely you know better than to spout that lie. Surely you know that Romney is quoting him out of context there. Surely you know that Obama was referring to the infrastructure in place to help businesses succeed. If you buy that crap from Fox news, I think you're beyond hope.

EDIT:- The above possibly comes across as a personal attack. If so, I apologize. I'll leave it to Q or the other mods to delete if they see fit.

As Romney said, the context is even worse than quote.
by the way, how did govt pay for those roads and bridges? it's the money that people paid as taxes, so it's not a winning argument to say that you didn't build that

and there is a reason in this world, why there are fewer employers than employees, it's risk taking. Obama would never understand this.
he is a good person genuinely, but he never gets what it takes to run a business and tackle economy

[bieber]

Q
I have been following Krugman for long time, his idea is big government. it's definitely path to Europe it's not propaganda for sure.

There are people who get respect from both parties and they laugh at what Krugman proposes each time. if a new 5-6 T debt created less than 2% growth in GDP it doesn't take Nobel to acknowledge it's not working. administration borrows 40 cents on every dollar they spend, and the growth that comes out is less than a dollar, you can see where it's leading to (to maintain 1 dollar income, gdp needs to grow at 3%)

[ChampU]

Q,

Ofcourse, i was looking out for whats good for me, when i said I'd vote republican.. But isn't it what an individual looks for when s/he votes...
Sure, through some of the Democtatic policies, the safety net for the poor/middle class exists.. And it is equally true that the Dems can never live within a budget.. When they run out of money alloted for a program they borrow from programs that they shouldn't or come back to the taxpayer for more.. Can any Dem politician guarantee that the Social Security and Medicare program would exist and i would get the same benefits that people are reaping today, If i pay the money i am paying today?
If not, why? Is it my fault that i'm in the back of the line and therefore i'm screwed?? Please don't tell me that its ok to get screwed, just because I can afford to pay a little bit more.. Given a choice, i'd much rather spend the money somewhere else or donate to a charity of my choice..

I agree stagnation of wealth, destroys it.. But its also true that those who know how to accumulate wealth, also know how to make it grow.... And to have 40% of the population not pay taxes and expect more and more off those who do isn't a sign of a healthy society.. To have millions of healthy individuals who are addicted to public welfare does not help a nation rise.. It just helps a politician get a vote.. Coz a vote by a thoughtless hungry man given a loaf of bread counts just as much as the vote of a person who works hard to earn it..except that the former is happy with the free bread and doesn't ask any questions..

I'll end my posts on this topic, with a video of what i truly believe in.. You may say i'm cocky, arrogant and don't care about the society/environment but its not so.. I just can't stand it when people blame everything on someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their actions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

I'm sorry, if I might have across as someone who is imposing his personal opinions on a general discussion..

[cbpds1]

Q,

Republicans being antiimiigrant - I would stand by that. The amnesty is driven more by business lobbying rather than republicans love for immigrants. Dems on the other hand oppose immigration for fear of losing jobs rather than fundamentally being hateful of other cultures. Thats a crucial difference.
cbpds1----hey Q, Dems wud not care a rats ass if it wasnt for votes, they try to keep minority blocks as latinos are an every growing population, its pure votes nothing else, if this was the case why Harry reid is holding up on HR 3012?


One simple reason why anybody should vote Dem this time around is because republicans will destroy American fabric. They have become a party with narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. Dems are slight better in practice and a lot better in theory.But I do grant that they are nearly same.
Q---guess ur watching msnbc all the time, can you tell how repubs have become narrow on ideas, Pedro likes many of repubs ideas except for social issues, O spent 5 trillion and still the under- emeployment acc to gallup is 17%, its like talking and u still want to vote for him after the points below?
Obama said
“I promise that I support traditional marriage-1 man-1 woman.
“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.
“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.
“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.
"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.
“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."
"I'll close Guantanamo."
"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
"I'll unite the people of this great country."
It's like a comedy routine! But it's no laughing matter!



cbpds1 - i think swooning or not to obama is not a qualification or disqualification. That shouldn't matter. When I check the list of things you said above - its hard to argue since all of them are opinions at best and baseless accusations picked from right at worst. Instead if you write your analysis your words and your logic, it would be a better way to have a dialogue.
----THe news channels need to be independant and apply the same yardstick to Dems and rep, if its not happ then its purely biased, Oreilly tries to present both of them, u cant sit and tell me that msnbc is independant either.
MSNBC does not have the highest ratings like Oreilly and lots of independants watch his show, show some credibility for this man.

This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one

This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one :)[/QUOTE]
Probably i gave the wrong example of your site, google or facebook did not build their business on govt' help, in terms of internet etc, the people paid the govt to invest in research, do u really say the govt built the internet?

[cbpds1]

Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admits-d-weird-superpower-152537128.html

[bieber]

Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admits-d-weird-superpower-152537128.html

LOL

Imagine Paul Ryan saying Virginia in Carolina and 'back in chains' and media would cry like there is nothing else matters

on the other side, Obama called Bush unpatriotic for debt and promised he would cut it half in first term, otherwise he should not be contesting 2nd term (his own words, also before superbowl in 2009) and what happened
he added more debt than what Bush did in 8 years, no follow up

he told american ppl thagt HC law is not tax, his lawyers argued it's tax (not penalty) in SC, no follow up

he and his party repeatedly lies that Ryan plan would end medicare for seniors, the plan won't touch any body over 55 and Obama team took 700 billion from medicare to sponser HC reform and they don't talk a word about it

[Pedro Gonzales]

As Romney said, the context is even worse than quote.
by the way, how did govt pay for those roads and bridges? it's the money that people paid as taxes, so it's not a winning argument to say that you didn't build that

and there is a reason in this world, why there are fewer employers than employees, it's risk taking. Obama would never understand this.
he is a good person genuinely, but he never gets what it takes to run a business and tackle economy

That's a weak cop out, brother. First, misquote the man, then when the lie is pointed out, make a tangential argument to try to distract the issue.

If you agree that Obama didn't say that business owners didn't build their business, you ought not to bring it up. Period.

As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Q,
Pedro likes many of repubs ideas except for social issues,

I said no such thing. I like many Republican ideals. Unfortunately, except for Ron Paul, no Republican stands by your ideals anymore.


Probably i gave the wrong example of your site, google or facebook did not build their business on govt' help, in terms of internet etc, the people paid the govt to invest in research, do u really say the govt built the internet?
Of course the government built the internet. Who paid taxes for it is irrelevant. If the government hadn't funded it through DARPA it wouldn't have got built.

[bieber]

That's a weak cop out, brother. First, misquote the man, then when the lie is pointed out, make a tangential argument to try to distract the issue.

If you agree that Obama didn't say that business owners didn't build their business, you ought not to bring it up. Period.

As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.

When Dems say context is different, I talk about context.
Now, after I talk about context, you say, because I talked about context, I lost mu argument on quote

Both the quote and context mean the same thing, you didn't build it, somebody else (govt) made it happen

[Pedro Gonzales]

he and his party repeatedly lies that Ryan plan would end medicare for seniors, the plan won't touch any body over 55 and Obama team took 700 billion from medicare to sponser HC reform and they don't talk a word about it
Reading from Karl Rowe's talking points i see. Obama's campaign line is 'end Medicare as we know it', doesn't mention anything about who it will affect. The onus is on Ryan and Romney to clarify that it won't touch those who are 55 or over today. Also, would you like to check on what those $700bn of cuts are, and get back to us? Hint: They're not cuts to entitlement (if they had been, I'm sure you righties would have praised him to the moon).

[bieber]

As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.

In order to build the roads, govt taxed people. how did those people ran businesses before roads were built by govt?

[bieber]

Pedro
I follow politics toomuch, don't just give all the credit to Karl Rove :D

heard, Axelord refer to Rove's playbook every now and then :D

[Pedro Gonzales]

When Dems say context is different, I talk about context.
Now, after I talk about context, you say, because I talked about context, I lost mu argument on quote

Both the quote and context mean the same thing, you didn't build it, somebody else (govt) made it happen

Absolute rot. The quote was meant to portray Obama as saying that business owners did not build their businesses. He never said any such thing. The fact that you, as an educated, intelligent person brings it up without the context (apologies if it wasn't you, the original quote has gone to the previous page) makes you a party to Romney's lie.

The context is that business owners didn't build the infrastructure. That remains true.

[bieber]

Absolute rot. The quote was meant to portray Obama as saying that business owners did not build their businesses. He never said any such thing. The fact that you, as an educated, intelligent person brings it up without the context (apologies if it wasn't you, the original quote has gone to the previous page) makes you a party to Romney's lie.

The context is that business owners didn't build the infrastructure. That remains true.

didn't build infrastructure, hence?

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro,

Regarding your point about the Keystone Pipeline and CO2 emissions... I don't get the correlation.. Even if the Keystone Pipeline does not go through, the US will use gas from other sources..they crude will have to be refined and it will generate CO2 exhausts, anyways.. I don't see where the "additional" billions of tons would come from.. The crude refinement may not happen in the US but i dont think it matters where the Co2 exhausts come from. If you are talking about additional energy expenditure of pumping it over the Rockies, then help me understand how that is less efficient than shipping it from the world's most volatile waters.

Quite simple actually. Tar Sands produce 15 to 20% more CO2 per barrel of crude vs. middle eastern oil, (that’s well to wheels as they say.). This is because the bitumen is highly viscous and needs to be heated (using steam produced by burning natural gas) in order to release it and permit it to flow. The net calorific value turns out to be barely positive.


Understand this that the demands for energy are going to rise no matter what the environmentalists say.. India and China.. A third of the world's population is about to breakthrough towards development and they need energy.. Do you think that Indians who face a mega shortage of energy and have to basic necessaities would listen to the environmentalists sitting in A/c cabins lecturing them about rising waters?? What are they supposed to do?? Live in dark and Cook on woodfires so that the liberals can protect some purple assed crab's environment?

Climate change will affect a lot more than the purple assed crab. The current drought in the U.S. and India (two of the world’s top three food producers) is going to cause significant spike in food prices this year. People are going to go hungry. You may argue that this is one off and has nothing to do with global warming. Only time will tell.


Why dont we do this.. Since all the Dems worry so much about the rising levels of waters in Bangladesh, they stop using A/C or any other "luxury materialistic energy hogging pleasures".. How about that?
People who care for the environment absolutely live a more energy efficient life than others. I can tell you that I a) have solar panels on my roof in Phoenix that produces more electricity than I use most months, b) I never use the heat or air conditioning in my apartment in New York, c) I use public transportation in New York, d) I drive a hybrid in Phoenix (with a plan to switch to plug in hybrid in the near future), e) always check the option to buy offsets for my flights (it’s required by my employer for my official flights, but I do so for my personal flights too), f) use a clothes hanger (both in New York and Phoenix), and most importantly of all, g) stuck to my habit from childhood of switching off lights and air-conditioning when I leave a room/home. I’m still not living a carbon neutral life which most famous spokespeople for the environment do (Gore, Ed Baglely Jr, Di Caprio, Larry Hangman etc). All Dems wouldn’t do what I do because all Dems don’t care about the environment as much as you think they do. They ought to, as ought the Republicans, but they don’t. Most environmentalists are Democrats, most Democrats aren’t environmentalists.

But most importantly, your whole argument is irrelevant. I could turn your logic around and ask that all conservatives not use medicare, public universities, libraries, postal service, or airports so that the government has to spend less on these thereby balancing the budget. There are a lot more conservatives in favor of small (read non existant) government than there are environmentalists. What I’m suggesting would make more of a dent in the US deficit that what you’re asking would do to sea levels.


Funny how you talked about only the correlation of co2 and rising waters when Co2 is not even the largest GHG and a bulk of the CO2 on the planet has nothing to do with Energy..Most of the sources are natural..
Actually, CO2 is the largest GHG (after water vapor which is usually ignored given its generally temporary lifespan in the atmosphere). I think you’re referring to the fact that it’s not as potent as methane or NOx – but the reason we’re not as concerned about those two is because a) their volumes are lower (even after accounting for the higher potency) b) roughly half those are manmade and technology exists to control them and c) volumes have been decreasing steadily over the last 20 years in the West. Yes most CO2 generation is natural, as is practically all sequestration of CO2; but nature has been maintaining this delicate balance for millennia. It’s the manmade CO2 component that has exploded, increasing levels by 40% since the industrial revolution began. In other words, nature cleans up its own shit, we’re the ones that don’t clean up ours.

The real reason for opposition to Keystone pipeline is it would have helped solve the energy crisis at home.. So the Al Gores of the world who have invested billions in "clean energy" of the Solyndra kind would have been seen running around with wind turbines up theirs..See all this care for environment is just a disguised and pathetic way to fill their pockets..

Dude, now that’s just insulting. To suggest that we who care for the environment are doing it for personal gain is deeply offensive. It’s easy to invert cause and effect. These folks see the problems and are looking for solutions. They invest billions looking for a solution, knowing that the investment is highly risky. As an investment strategy, it would be incredibly stupid to make a risky investment with a plan of altering national opinion and effecting public policy so that that investment can then make you great returns. As an example, my solar panels are giving me a negative return on investment (in Phoenix, our utility does not net-meter). I’m a finance guy, I understood it when I made the investment but I made the investment despite that, not with the hope that it would somehow turn into an incredible investment sometime in the future. To attack with baseless allegations, an individual whose arguments you disagree with (Gore here, not me) instead of attacking their argument is typical of what I have seen on Fox and elsewhere. I think some of that might just be rubbing off on you.

[bieber]

Pedro

If president chose his words carefully, nobody needs to defend him asking whether other side is educated/intelligent or not.

[Pedro Gonzales]

didn't build infrastructure, hence?

hence you are making use of common public goods that was built using taxes. Hence, taxes, are sometimes essential.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro

If president chose his words carefully, nobody needs to defend him asking whether other side is educated/intelligent or not.

That is unfortunately true in today's politics. Everything ought to be scripted. Otherwise a Presidential candidate will quote you out of context.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Over and out. I need a drink.

[cbpds1]

Its even more messy if you take the whole context, thats the reason the Mr O is still quiet inspite of Romney repeated reference to "you didnt build that", its the same reason many business folks are still angry.Please see the entire video.

So u are saying Obama shd get credit for Apple and not Steve Jobs, govt did not do on its own as well, it just spent the money that the people gave to the govt.


hence you are making use of common public goods that was built using taxes. Hence, taxes, are sometimes essential.

[cbpds1]

On a lighter note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A1v4AkqYJE

have a good weekend

[qesehmk]

Bieber, what is "path to Europe"? Generally the critics of fiscal policy mean 2 things - 1) It means Europe's problems are result of big govt. 2) It also means Europe's inability to defuse the crisis steps from European governments' unwillingness to embrace austerity. Seen from both angles - neither of these two things are universally true in Europe.

The root of european crisis is "monetary base expansion without underlying real growth" which leads to bubbles and investments in non productive assets. When bubbles burst they jeopardize our ability to honor our liabilities. Same is true with Govts. However one must understand that root cause of the problem is 'more than necessary monetary expansion leading to bubbles'.

Mind you the problem becomes acute where capital can't be efficiently deployed. How do you solve bubbles? There are two ways. Let them correct themselves. Which means let them implode leading to huge losses to the rich who were asymmetrically benefitted from the bubbles. The second way is to increase inflation to the extent that the debt stays. The problem with second approach is that it creates other bubbles rather than solving problems. It is like giving more drugs to an addict. We already saw 2 cycles where stimulus resulted in further bubbles - first there was internet bubble which when followed by furthre stimulus resulted in housing bubble which when was followed by further monetary stimulus gave rise to recent commodities bubble. If monetary steroids are kept injecting the system, only world war III will stop this madness. Which is why monetary policy should be checked and let the debt destroy itself. Those who run bogey of path-to-euope are the creditors who want more monetary stimulus and don't want debt destroyed. Better yet they want govt to buy that debt which the govt actually did.

So again I repeat don't fall for the words path to Europe. That's a clever scare tactic and deflection from real problems.

Now you can also see why the trillions in stimulus didn't create more growth. Because the stimulus was monetary rather than fiscal. Get it? I don't read krugman and don't care what he says. But I am sure he is advocating fiscal as opposed to monetary stimulus.


Q
I have been following Krugman for long time, his idea is big government. it's definitely path to Europe it's not propaganda for sure.

There are people who get respect from both parties and they laugh at what Krugman proposes each time. if a new 5-6 T debt created less than 2% growth in GDP it doesn't take Nobel to acknowledge it's not working. administration borrows 40 cents on every dollar they spend, and the growth that comes out is less than a dollar, you can see where it's leading to (to maintain 1 dollar income, gdp needs to grow at 3%)


Q,

Ofcourse, i was looking out for whats good for me, when i said I'd vote republican.. But isn't it what an individual looks for when s/he votes...

. To have millions of healthy individuals who are addicted to public welfare does not help a nation rise.. It just helps a politician get a vote..

...
I'll end my posts on this topic, with a video of what i truly believe in.. You may say i'm cocky, arrogant and don't care about the society/environment but its not so.. I just can't stand it when people blame everything on someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their actions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

I'm sorry, if I might have across as someone who is imposing his personal opinions on a general discussion..
Champu u r fine. No need to be sorry. As long as this is an objective logical discussion I will be happy to learn and share.

I don't dispute your right to advocate for republicans based on your personal interest. No problem.

To say 40% don't pay taxes is wrong. If nothing else they pay sales and property taxes.

Ayn rand was a phenomenal lady w fierce intellect. I admire her objective morality. I completely agree with stark speech. And by same standard debt must be allowed to destroy itself. Makes sense? Equal opportunity is what stark would have advocated. Right?

Today America is moving away from equal opportunity by creating too big to fail. This is socialization of debt and crony capitalism. Debt that is perpetual and unsustainable is antithetical to free societies. Ayn Rands views are more libertarian and even democratic than republican.

Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admits-d-weird-superpower-152537128.html
That certainly is NOT what I said. Please reread my post.

In order to build the roads, govt taxed people. how did those people ran businesses before roads were built by govt?they ran them with less profits. With all the infra in place today's businesses make far more money than any other businesses in history.


Pedro

If president chose his words carefully, nobody needs to defend him asking whether other side is educated/intelligent or not.

Yes bieber but that is true universally. And hence not quite relevant to our discussion.

[Pedro Gonzales]

With two days to take a deep breath, I am able to look back at this discussion with an avuncular, almost non partisan eye. One thing, that I think is increasingly evident is that politics today is devoid of information and analysis and is replete with falsehoods.

Taking a leaf out of this forums' original motive (that of providing some clarity to the immigration process), perhaps we could use this thread to provide some clarity to policy issues. That could perhaps help us better understand the differences between the right and the left.

I'll take the first step and post what I think is a good analytical read. Krugman clearly is a leftist, but that shouldn't take anything away from his arguments in this article. If any of you see a good counterpoint from the right (that actually answers the issues he raises, rather than vilifying Krugman, Obama or others), please let me know. I look forward (genuinely) to reading more about how people justify Ryan's plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=1