Park Life 70 Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Talk is that Obama will have another go at asking Iran nicely to accept being at the end of the barrel of a gun, and if they still persist with working towards a deterrent he'll bomb the shit out of them....then use it as leverage against Israel to make concessions with Palestine. Israel would just tell him to fuck off though. He won't ok the Iran war. If he did then he IS the anti-christ. Happy Face and wife 37min onwards.. Edited November 8, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTurk 0 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 $2 billion spent, to end up with the same deadlocked and useless situation. Hilarious. Still, it was god fun watching the people on Fox have a breakdown as they realised they weren't going to win, with them seemingly geniunely surprised at that. Delusional. Obama going on about the American dream in his victory spech is also hilarious - I read something during the campaign that the US has the least social mobility out of most western democracies. Americans are some of the most insularly ignorant people on the planet, including most of the democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The amount spent on it makes Elton John's birthday bashes seem like low bedget affairs like. Absolutely disgusting really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9142 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Another issue must be that the decisions made by the 1st term presidency are done so with one eye on the next election, meaning they're decided upon, not simply because of their merit, but also how it will play. It'll be interesting to see how Obama plays this now that he hasn't got one eye on re-election. Obviously it'd have been easier without the Republicans retaining the House,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 He has an eye on the 2014 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Good old Greenwald put it in much more detail what will happen... The political leader in whose triumph liberals are today ecstatically basking is likely to target their most cherished government policies [social security] within a matter of weeks, even days. With their newly minted power, will they have any ability, or even will, to stop him? If history is any indication, this is how this "fight" will proceed: STEP ONE: Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing "means-testing" – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try. STEP TWO: As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement. STEP THREE: Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins. STEP FOUR: The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition. STEP FIVE: Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents. STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/07/obama-progressives-left-entitlements That was the day after the election. As if by magic, step 1 is well underway already. With this story from 14 hours ago... Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate are saying this week that they won't push changes to Social Security as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit. "We are not going to mess with Social Security," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters as he left a news conference Wednesday, according to Reuters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/social-security-harry-reid_n_2093482.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20060 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 i challenge you all not to well up a bit at this http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-cries-as-he-thanks-his-staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 i challenge you all not to well up a bit at this http://www.buzzfeed....hanks-his-staff Nice, sincere speech but have a quiet word with yourself, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20060 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 the man's made history. that states have come a long way. meanwhile our country is being run by an old etonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Stop posting about medicare benefits, neither you nor Greenwald have a clue about what you are even discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12866 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 ooh, get her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I cant stand his holier than thou leftist nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I cant stand his holier than thou leftist nonsense. Iirc, a classic one was his complaining about bankers' bonuses being back to what they'd been before the banking crisis. He knew about this because his lass is a banker who'd just got a big bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Iirc, a classic one was his complaining about bankers' bonuses being back to what they'd been before the banking crisis. He knew about this because his lass is a banker who'd just got a big bonus Me? or Greemwald? Never had a lass that worked in a bank....and Greenwald is gay. I don't give a fuck about bankers bonuses either tbh. Private companies can do what they like within the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Me? or Greemwald? Never had a lass that worked in a bank....and Greenwald is gay. I don't give a fuck about bankers bonuses either tbh. Private companies can do what they like within the law. I thought he meant Gloom (and you), i.e. Greenwald being his pet name for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Stop posting about medicare benefits, neither you nor Greenwald have a clue about what you are even discussing. Only what I read from your boys Krugman and Stiglitz. I understand the Stiglitz prescription for medicare was to stop big pharma setting their own prices. He seemed to think if that provision is eliminated and the government can negotiate drug prices it would save taxpayers $1 trillion over the next 10 years. I'd be surprised if that was part of the medicare plan Obama puts in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20060 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I thought he meant Gloom (and you), i.e. Greenwald being his pet name for you what's so funny about that anyway? bonuses have remained high since the start of the crisis. i know that because i see it first hand down here - and not just through my mrs, who isn't a banker incidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 what's so funny about that anyway? bonuses have remained high since the start of the crisis. i know that because i see it first hand down here - and not just through my mrs, who isn't a banker incidentally. In that case I apologise, as I must have remembered it wrong but I thought you were complaining about it then mentioned in the same post she'd just got a bonus from work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Only what I read from your boys Krugman and Stiglitz. I understand the Stiglitz prescription for medicare was to stop big pharma setting their own prices. He seemed to think if that provision is eliminated and the government can negotiate drug prices it would save taxpayers $1 trillion over the next 10 years. I'd be surprised if that was part of the medicare plan Obama puts in place. Krugman and Stiglitz would defer to me on this as i could explain to them which medical services are over-utilised using marginal micro-economic analysis. Political points like 'let the government negotiate price to save a trillion dollars' dont hold up to scrutiny and are riddled with simplistic macro assumptions. I'd give them the low-down on medicare fee for service schedules for things hospital imaging services which have no discernible impact on public health, the private income streams that they generate for physicians and hospitals, the average and marginal gains in health outcomes for the patients. I'd help think through the targets for increased efficiency of the deployment of medicareresources, how you would measure the micro-efficiency of those marginal programme changes and we'd all conclude that a fuck load of spending in medicare does nothing but make US oncologists richer than UK bankers, that medicare reform is essential and overall cuts make total sense if those cuts do nothing but just reduce private incomes and do not affect patient outcomes. We in Europe talk this language every day, US economists dont have a clue about this sort of thing. The US has to reign in healthcare spending, if they carried on as they are by 2020 1 in 3 of every US dollars spent would be on healthcare. Its insane and medicare reform is essential. Social security on the other hand is not something i would condone him cutting and i would agree that its disappointing for people who want more social benefits for those who lose their jobs etc. The reality is that once a right wing party who believes in small government gets into power in the current climate, they can use concerns over public debt levels to implement massive austerity programmes. To control debt, you need to keep spending in check whilst ensuring that growth is maintained. Obama's fiscal stimulus is one of the reasons why the US economy bounced in 09/10. The idea that the GOP would not set about dismantling the piss poor social structures that exist in the US is naive iyam. It would be a lot worse under Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Krugman and Stiglitz would defer to me on this as i could explain to them which medical services are over-utilised using marginal micro-economic analysis. Political points like 'let the government negotiate price to save a trillion dollars' dont hold up to scrutiny and are riddled with simplistic macro assumptions. I'd give them the low-down on medicare fee for service schedules for things hospital imaging services which have no discernible impact on public health, the private income streams that they generate for physicians and hospitals, the average and marginal gains in health outcomes for the patients. I'd help think through the targets for increased efficiency of the deployment of medicareresources, how you would measure the micro-efficiency of those marginal programme changes and we'd all conclude that a fuck load of spending in medicare does nothing but make US oncologists richer than UK bankers, that medicare reform is essential and overall cuts make total sense if those cuts do nothing but just reduce private incomes and do not affect patient outcomes. We in Europe talk this language every day, US economists dont have a clue about this sort of thing. The US has to reign in healthcare spending, if they carried on as they are by 2020 1 in 3 of every US dollars spent would be on healthcare. Its insane and medicare reform is essential. Social security on the other hand is not something i would condone him cutting and i would agree that its disappointing for people who want more social benefits for those who lose their jobs etc. The reality is that once a right wing party who believes in small government gets into power in the current climate, they can use concerns over public debt levels to implement massive austerity programmes. To control debt, you need to keep spending in check whilst ensuring that growth is maintained. Obama's fiscal stimulus is one of the reasons why the US economy bounced in 09/10. The idea that the GOP would not set about dismantling the piss poor social structures that exist in the US is naive iyam. It would be a lot worse under Romney. I'm sure your expertise in the area would allow you to identify places where cuts could be made. Any industry can have a scalpel taken to it to cut out waste. I could save my own company and the DWP lots of money if I was an autonomous individual without the constraints of following process or answering to anyone else. No cuts are EVER implemented that way and you know it though. The same people continue to use the same methods, their efforts are just spread thinner. Increasing the age for qualification as Obama proposes isn't the sort of scalpel use you're suggesting either. It's simply an across the board removal of millions of people from the healthcare program. I have made the same point just a few posts ago that resistance to cuts is more applicable in the case of Social Security than Medicare. But Obama's starting point as a liberal should be that the Bush Tax cuts were outrageous at the same time he started wars on two fronts and implemented a $1/2trillion prescription drug program. The tax cuts need repealed and the prescription program needs reformed. He then has ground to move into where he can conced some points on medicare. His starting point though is that medicare and Social Security need to be cut, so can we get some tax increases too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20060 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 john stewart ripping into the Fox News election coverage. i particularly enjoy karl rove's denial meltdown. class. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-jon-stewart-rips-fox-news-election-coverage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Good article on the BBC about the "arithmetic" that said this was a done deal months ago... The prediction he had been posting on his site since 23 June.Obama 332 votes, Romney 206. Now, Obama has been elected to a second term, and election workers are still counting the votes in Florida, which is leaning ever so slightly towards the Democrats. The Romney team admitted to the Miami Herald that they had lost the state, though it has not been officially called. When it is, the final tally in this once too-close-to call election will be: Obama, 332 votes, Romney 206. Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30727 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I suppose it was in the interests of all parties concerned, whether they be the media, the Democrats or the Republicans, to make it seem like a close run thing. Not that that makes it any less disingenuous on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) http://www.businessw...slo-mo-recovery By a range of indicators, the economy is better situated for growth today than it’s been in years. Banks have strengthened their balance sheets. Most households, which borrowed too much during the housing bubble, have pared their debt back to normal levels through a combination of frugality and default. Upper-income households’ balance sheets “are as pristine as they’ve ever been,” although mortgage debt remains a heavy burden at lower-income levels, Zandi says. Housing prices have gone from falling to rising, buoying confidence. Increased consumer spending should induce more business investment in a virtuous circle. And there’s pent-up demand for residential and commercial construction. That’s not to say that growth will be gangbusters. It may not even be strong enough to get the U.S. back to full employment by the time the president’s second term comes to an end." Edited November 9, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 NO real difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now