Patriots In Exile Club

[Tim]

Maybe this is where we differ.

I don't want the whole system to fail/collapse. That would be devastating for ALL of us. What we need is reform from the ground up. Are we going to get it under Obama? I'm not sure and I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it. But IMO he was the best chance of any reform coming to Washington. It sure as hell wasn't going to come from McCain.
As far as marching on Washington... Well, we are getting closer to that then you admit. How long has it actually been that such a large part of the population got "involved" in the process? And having this many people motivated to "fix" the government will force this change. And if they continue on with business as usual, then I think people might take that next step.

But this wasn't going to happen under Bush and I'm pretty sure it wasn't going to happen under McCain.
I don't see Obama as the "savior" by any stretch of the imagination, but I do see hope with him in office. I really like his vision of keeping the lobbyists at bay, transparency, accountability and to top it all off, upholding the constitution. If he follows through with half of what he promised, it will be a huge change over the way things have gone in decades.

 

[Alien Allen]

Maybe this is where we differ.

I don't want the whole system to fail/collapse. That would be devastating for ALL of us. What we need is reform from the ground up. Are we going to get it under Obama? I'm not sure and I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it. But IMO he was the best chance of any reform coming to Washington. It sure as hell wasn't going to come from McCain.
As far as marching on Washington... Well, we are getting closer to that then you admit. How long has it actually been that such a large part of the population got "involved" in the process? And having this many people motivated to "fix" the government will force this change. And if they continue on with business as usual, then I think people might take that next step.

But this wasn't going to happen under Bush and I'm pretty sure it wasn't going to happen under McCain.
I don't see Obama as the "savior" by any stretch of the imagination, but I do see hope with him in office. I really like his vision of keeping the lobbyists at bay, transparency, accountability and to top it all off, upholding the constitution. If he follows through with half of what he promised, it will be a huge change over the way things have gone in decades.

He already back off on two appointments. The treasuries #2 guy was a lobbyist

I don't deny things will be different and hopefully for the better but Obama is not gonna get much done in reform. The congress is too old and too entrenched for him to get much done in reform. Unless you call some of his socialist lite programs as reform.

Sheesh I saw today where Pelosi said food stamps would stimulate the economy. What a twit. Just had to throw that in.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Maybe this is where we differ.

I don't want the whole system to fail/collapse. That would be devastating for ALL of us. What we need is reform from the ground up. Are we going to get it under Obama? I'm not sure and I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it. But IMO he was the best chance of any reform coming to Washington. It sure as hell wasn't going to come from McCain.
As far as marching on Washington... Well, we are getting closer to that then you admit. How long has it actually been that such a large part of the population got "involved" in the process? And having this many people motivated to "fix" the government will force this change. And if they continue on with business as usual, then I think people might take that next step.

But this wasn't going to happen under Bush and I'm pretty sure it wasn't going to happen under McCain.
I don't see Obama as the "savior" by any stretch of the imagination, but I do see hope with him in office. I really like his vision of keeping the lobbyists at bay, transparency, accountability and to top it all off, upholding the constitution. If he follows through with half of what he promised, it will be a huge change over the way things have gone in decades.

My point is this Tim, and it's in-excuseable....4.1 Billion to ACORN

Under the "Neighborhood Stabilization" umbrella....How in the fuck is this going to boost the economy?

ACORN is a lobby, and I don't care who we are talking about....It's another fucking tradgedy unfolding.

I spent as much time pissed off over the past 8 years as anyone, but Neither McCain nor Obama were the answer.

After over a century has passed since we liberated ourselves from the British, and what are our options?

An angry war torn old man, who has way out lived his welcome in DC or

An almost iconic figurehead for our progression as a society with one small missing detail:

His entire cabinet is Clinton left-overs, and he has proven strong anti-establishment ties and we really know nothing about him except every branch of the mass media couldn't wait to stand in line to suck his dick.

 

[Tim]

He already back off on two appointments. The treasuries #2 guy was a lobbyist

I don't deny things will be different and hopefully for the better but Obama is not gonna get much done in reform. The congress is too old and too entrenched for him to get much done in reform. Unless you call some of his socialist lite programs as reform.

Sheesh I saw today where Pelosi said food stamps would stimulate the economy. What a twit. Just had to throw that in.

I agree that one man cannot make the change, but we need to start somewhere.
Pelosi and Reed are idiots... they are part of the problem. They need to go as Bush did.

 

[Tim]

My point is this Tim, and it's in-excuseable....4.1 Billion to ACORN

Under the "Neighborhood Stabilization" umbrella....How in the fuck is this going to boost the economy?

ACORN is a lobby, and I don't care who we are talking about....It's another fucking tradgedy unfolding.

$4.1 Billion to acorn? And you want to talk about being tired of politics and partisan bullshit?

There is no place in the proposed package that targets money to Acorn. No place. This is the part that the Republicans picked up on.

“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), of which—

“(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]”

“(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance […]”

And from there they associated Acorn with it. Reported it as Acorn getting $4.19 billion dollars and stood back and watched the forest go up in flames. Talk about finding a trigger word to associate with this package to turn every partisan republican against it.
Come on Evan, you are smarter than this partisan wordsmithing game.

If we are going to spend this much money trying to stimulate the economy, we need to hit it from all sides. And putting money into community organizations that can have direct impact on the local level and will help the people most directly affected by this economic meltdown.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

$4.1 Billion to acorn? And you want to talk about being tired of politics and partisan bullshit?

There is no place in the proposed package that targets money to Acorn. No place. This is the part that the Republicans picked up on.

And from there they associated Acorn with it. Reported it as Acorn getting $4.19 billion dollars and stood back and watched the forest go up in flames. Talk about finding a trigger word to associate with this package to turn every partisan republican against it.
Come on Evan, you are smarter than this partisan wordsmithing game.

If we are going to spend this much money trying to stimulate the economy, we need to hit it from all sides. And putting money into community organizations that can have direct impact on the local level and will help the people most directly affected by this economic meltdown.

To date they meaning all of them, Senators, Congressmen/women and the President, past and present have not done one thing with the almost trillion...with a T dollars that has helped markets here and abroad, not to mention....Nobody can account for much of the money and where it has been spent.

This transcends partisan politics, it strikes right at the heart of what is wrong.

Let's say ACORN doesn't get a dime....How in the hell does that 4.1 billion help the economy at all?

This whole package was originally a chicken little sky is falling propoganda act to help the banks recover.

Not a handout to every lobbyist that wanted reparations for the election....To me this is far beyond politics...As a matter of fact, this has contorted itself beyond that which is recognizable to anything embaring a striking resemblence to unified resolve.

If we are giving these banks BILLIONS of dollars, why not the insistance that hey re-organize, and start chopping jobs at the TOP not the bottom, you think some poor secretary in some cubicle is the reason the entire globe is financially unstable?

 

[Tim]

In case anyone is interested... Here is the entire Bill, all 647 pages.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

The section on that $4.19 billion is on page 222

Being that it is a PDF, you can use the search feature and really scour the document for key words quickly.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Okay Tim, point taken..Fact still remains.

For the same amount of money we have given the government we could have given every family at or below the poverty line $20,000

If we really cared about our own, we would have done that.

Pfizer has enough money to enact a merger worth 65 billion dollars, then lays off 3,000 people the next day after making the announcement.

It's a fucking crime

 

[Tim]

Okay Tim, point taken..Fact still remains.

For the same amount of money we have given the government we could have given every family at or below the poverty line $20,000

If we really cared about our own, we would have done that.

Pfizer has enough money to enact a merger worth 65 billion dollars, then lays off 3,000 people the next day after making the announcement.

It's a fucking crime

I agree with you.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I agree with you.

I'm quoting that and putting it in my sig:award:

 

[Tim]

I'm quoting that and putting it in my sig:award:

Now why would you find that sig worthy? We agree on many things you goof.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Now why would you find that sig worthy? We agree on many things you goof.

I'm adding that too:ninja:24:

 

[Strauss]

Okay Tim, point taken..Fact still remains.

For the same amount of money we have given the government we could have given every family at or below the poverty line $20,000

If we really cared about our own, we would have done that.

Pfizer has enough money to enact a merger worth 65 billion dollars, then lays off 3,000 people the next day after making the announcement.

It's a fucking crime

No it actually makes perfect sense. A quarter of all revenue generated by Pfizer comes from the sales of Lipitor. The patent on Lipitor runs out in 2011 then the generics will hit the market at a much lower cost. Pfizer has very little in the pipeline for new drugs and has not been successful in buying up start-up biotech companies with promising drug research. So Pfizer turned to its own industry and decided that Weyeth has a number of potential drugs in the early and later stages of the approval process to justify its purchase. So you have the No. 2 drug company buying out the No. 11 company. Anti-trust problem? Under a traditional anti-trust anaylsis the answer is a clear no but....................
From a layoff standpoint, it makes sense to layoff the 3000 at Pfizer because they will be replaced by the 3000 at Weyth who have the knowledge of the new drugs being developed. You can expect more layoffs in the future as the result of redunacies in positions within each company.

 

[SgtSpike]

No it actually makes perfect sense. A quarter of all revenue generated by Pfizer comes from the sales of Lipitor. The patent on Lipitor runs out in 2011 then the generics will hit the market at a much lower cost. Pfizer has very little in the pipeline for new drugs and has not been successful in buying up start-up biotech companies with promising drug research. So Pfizer turned to its own industry and decided that Weyeth has a number of potential drugs in the early and later stages of the approval process to justify its purchase. So you have the No. 2 drug company buying out the No. 11 company. Anti-trust problem? Under a traditional anti-trust anaylsis the answer is a clear no but....................
From a layoff standpoint, it makes sense to layoff the 3000 at Pfizer because they will be replaced by the 3000 at Weyth who have the knowledge of the new drugs being developed. You can expect more layoffs in the future as the result of redunacies in positions within each company.

Exactly. It's just simple and smart business. You'll find almost any business that conducts a merger will lay some workers off.

I still can't understand why people think that layoffs cannot or should not happen. It's just part of the natural business cycle. Deal with it. And keep the government OUT of it.

 

[Accountable]

:homo:

 

[Alien Allen]

Here is my plan which I think is cheaper than this bailout

For the next 3 years nobody pays federal taxes. The govt is run on paper anyway so just print money.

On the 4th year the govt would be allowed to only spend what the first two years averaged out plus 2%

Then each year after the govt budget is established by what revenues came in the prior year. No going over budget unless they have something like a temporary war tax or such.

 

[SgtSpike]

Here is my plan which I think is cheaper than this bailout

For the next 3 years nobody pays federal taxes. The govt is run on paper anyway so just print money.

On the 4th year the govt would be allowed to only spend what the first two years averaged out plus 2%

Then each year after the govt budget is established by what revenues came in the prior year. No going over budget unless they have something like a temporary war tax or such.

No one paying federal taxes would equate to 7.5 trillion dollars (a conservative estimate while assuming economic growth) over the next three years. Not sure how I feel about going in to further debt over the economy or not... Interesting idea though.

We definitely need governmental reform of some sort. Get the federal government back down to a much smaller size, like it is supposed to be.

 

[Obdurate]

Re: The Patriot In Exile Club

How the hell do you know what we differ on? I'm NOT an anarchist, I simply think the system needs to be re-done.

I think it was an expectation of our forefathers to protect ourselves from imminent collapse due to greed and power at the highest levels of government.

I know that we differ because I'm an anarchist. Plus y'know, I've read a bunch of your posts. Your reply to me seemed really hostile though.

 

[Alien Allen]

No one paying federal taxes would equate to 7.5 trillion dollars (a conservative estimate while assuming economic growth) over the next three years. Not sure how I feel about going in to further debt over the economy or not... Interesting idea though.

We definitely need governmental reform of some sort. Get the federal government back down to a much smaller size, like it is supposed to be.

I threw out a wild idea. Not really serious but it would be nice to get a figure the govt could not exceed for the next year somehow.

I should have qualified it based on none of the bailouts we gave thus far also. Revisionist history

my point is put the money in the hands of the people spending.

instead of giving the banks the money we should have given the people owing the money the money if we wanted a quicker fix

There is plenty of data that indicates FDR lengthened the depression. Govt programs won't do squat.

Just rambling. If I was stoned it would be worse though :24:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Re: The Patriot In Exile Club

I know that we differ because I'm an anarchist. Plus y'know, I've read a bunch of your posts. Your reply to me seemed really hostile though.

If you think that was me being hostile, you really don't know me well. That was me being tempered and polite

Sorry I hurt your feelings