Comments on: The Note, 4/3/09: Break Dance — Congressional break marks end of one phase of Obama presidency

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:37:42 +0000

I believe a stimulus package was necessary, but when about 40% of the $783 Billion doesn’t create jobs or stimulate the economy…I think it needed a lot of revision. Tens of Billions went to programs that will eventually wind up as campaign funds. The “transparency” of recovery.gov will not show many of the funds going down to the ultimate recipients. The fleecing of future generations has begun and their doesn’t appear to be a cap on how much can be borrowed. The Trillions already borrowed will never be repaid and Congress is writing the bill for another package of equal or greater value…and the only thing that stands in their way (at this point in time), are a couple of Republican Senators.
I’m also concerned that the unemployment rate will continue to grow, as the wealthy are increasingly taxed to support the growing number of welfare recipients. The reason the President’s plan to “redistribute wealth” will fail, is because he can’t legislate attitude. Increase the taxes on the rich, they will raise prices on average Americans to compensate. Raise taxes on small business owners, and they will be forced to cut the labor force (and do more with less) to sustain a survivable profit margin.
If we are to get the economy growing again AND create the 3.5 million jobs the President promised by 2012, he and lawmakers in Congress must regain the public trust by overhauling business practices, like allowing banks to become “too big to fail,” eliminating bailouts (ie, safety nets that encourage financial mismanagement) and require failed businesses to go under and be replaced by those that know the consequences for failure. For the President to fire a CEO of a Bank or any business, is way out of line. The message that sent was that the President used our taxpayer money to buy a major corporation and now he runs it. I find that to be anti-American, because it violates the workings of a Free Market system. No President should have such power and the ability to abuse it. He makes it sound legit, but undermining our economic core values and softening the American spirit of competition, will only create more problems than it solves. I believe that corporate greed has created this crisis, but now government regulation will worsen it. The road to recovery is a long ways away. This script isn’t new, but it’s new to modern America.
As for Abu Ghraib…the chain of command was eventually held responsible for the lack of oversight, but the more serious offenses, like guards videotaping themselves having sex in front of the prisoners, never would have been condoned by anyone in the chain of command, since it doesn’t measure up to any method for extracting information. These sadistic individuals were perverted and violated Army policy. I also know people who handled enemy combatants during Desert Storm, Somalia and the current war in Iraq…and they explained how senseless the accusations that the chain of command (all the way to the President) could have authorized, or even accepted such abuses, then allowing them to videotape it to take home and use to embarrass us in front of the world. Common sense doesn’t support the desire to “blame Bush” or fuel anti-war sentiment. The media, for it’s part, largely downplayed the truth and sought to promote the juicier story for ratings and sales. I think we will have to wait decades for the truth to emerge, but eventually, it will. Historians tend to correct the errors of the times…but far too late.
I hope I bi-partisan America emerges to get us beyond our current economic crisis and our foreign policy threats from Global Terrorism, China, Russia and Iran. That’s a lot for one decade…I just hope we are up for the challenge, like the “Greatest Generation.”

By: bobj72

bobj72 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:16:51 +0000

Gary | Apr 9, 2009 1:31:16 PM
“…What goes around, will come around.”
___________________
Gary, I have a real appreciation for your discussion, with a “slice here-and-there, I agree with almost all of what you’ve proffered. (Opinion, this IS the worst econimic situation since TGD. Question becomes, how do you get that point across, without causing anxiety – that virtually “cut spending off!” It’s my opinion, the Stimulus was a legitimate strategy, put in place by some of the ‘best finance/economic minds’ – and wasn’t the objective of communicating the severity of the economic downturn. The only other major deal, I don’t take issue with, but would add a simple caveate; Abu Ghraib; I do not believe there was any Policy supporting such “mindless behavior” of a few. I do think however, there was a gross lack of direction “from up the chain of command” which essentially created a “no holds barred”, “wink-and-nod approval” for anything that might take place. (“You just can’t have animals running the zoo!) I think you’ve got a good mind, you seem extremely well balanced & fair. (You can become a bit brazen, when angered… you gotta’ watch that! :>)
I contend it’s going to take a collective, bipartisan effort of well-intended intelligent folks to get us all beyond this thing! Gotta’ remember; It’s all about US, We the people of the Greatest Country on Earth, AMERICA!!!

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:31:16 +0000

bobj72: First, it’s not that I don’t like President Obama…I just disagree with “some” of his policy decisions, especially since there is no checks-and-balances with his party in virtual total control of Congress. He talked down the economy, scaring everyone with his comments that we are in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression (which caused most Americans to limit or stop spending on non-essentials, paniced markets around the world, etc), just so he could ram his economic stimulus package through Congress with almost no time for review. Then, after he signed the legislation into law, he began talking up the economy…but the damage was already done and now he and his advisers are finding it difficult to get things going again. On the national security front, he can’t get our allies to commit more to resources to help fight terrorism, even though other nations (ie, Spain, England, Pakistan, India, Indonesia and others) have suffered major terrorist attacks on their soil since 9/11. Now, I don’t blame him for the lack of will on the part of other nations. And while I think President Bush did a horrible job of working with other nations and being less abrasive in his speeches, he isn’t responsible for the apathy of Europe to do more over the past several decades, either. It may take a massive attack there to get them engaged, but we need to do what we have to do to protect our own vital interests. President Obama’s speech condemning our military and government in his Town Hall Meeting in France last week, calling the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003-2004, U.S. policy; instead of the truth, which is a group of individuals acting on their own. Those who believe otherwise, don’t know the truth, and for our President to make such a grievous error makes me question his ability to make sound and timely decisions. I know he doesn’t have a military background, and I don’t think that ‘common sense’ requires the President to have one, but c’mon…this is a major symptom that isn’t going to get better with time. It didn’t with the past two President’s and it won’t get better for this one, either. It’s true, I didn’t vote for President Obama, because I believe Senator John McCain was better prepared for the job (minus Governor Palin or Senator Biden, of course), but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt once he took office. So far, he has made many decisions that will have long-lasting consequences and he has suggested how he plans to handle several other issues and those concern me just as much, if not more. His overconfidence that he can just “will” his agenda to success is going to come back to haunt him. I have no doubt.
Second, the discussion back on April 3rd didn’t involve Robert Kennedy, but I made the point to explain the parallel between the ideologues of the 60′s movement and today’s version are inspired by what we want to hear, but not grounded in the reality of what is really achievable. We will learn that lesson, but at what price? That is what concerns me and why I have questioned our nations leadership for the past two decades. I don’t see “change” for the better, because those in charge are not prepared for the potential consequences. The severity of those consequences might be minimal, they might be massive, or they may fall somewhere in between…we don’t know, yet. All I do know, is that things will get worse before they get better…but for how long?
You can challenge everything I just wrote, and I encourage others to do so, but don’t expect me to follow along without addressing the “what if’s” and acknowledging the consequences that have to this point been ignored. It’s funny that those who spoke of “speaking truth to power” a few short years ago, are content with following the lies and misrepresentations of today’s power. What goes around, will come around.

By: bobj72

bobj72 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:37:07 +0000

Gary, unless you’re just in this “for exercise”, I would prefer to put it to rest. I thoroughly reviewed our discussion (from your start @ Gary | Apr 3, 2009 10:08:50 AM) and I did not find a hint of any reference you made re: Bobby Kennedy, until your 1:10:13PM statement, which we are still discussing. Therefore, my charge that you made a “reckless Suggestion” stands. But I do accept your after-the-fact explanation of what you MEANT!
But with your explanation you cleaverly weave-in; “The fact that (you, bobj72) “tried” to insinuate that I want the President assassinated, tells me that you are incapable of rational thought. A non-bias person “may” have asked me to explain my linkage of Obama to Kennedy, but you just “assumed” the worst, in a desperate attempt to discredit me.” (Are the provocative insinuations and name calling, really necessary?)
Your rosy rhetoric is designed to discredit or otherwise “blunt” your dislike for President Barack Obama. It’s O.K., don’t like the guy. But add to that, your presumption in suggesting I SHOULD HAVE “asked you to explain your linkage of Obama to Kennedy!!!” I didn’t attempt to discredit you…You…. Personally I think you’re an O.K Guy, it’s just your “debate-Style”; see, in the process of your lengthy discussion you overlooked the necessity to “link” your argument to established Facts….. When that happens, you can run the risk of being completely misunderstood, as is the case here. …Facts… now isn’t that “where I came in?” Fact or Opinion….. the difference is……..

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:32:29 +0000

bobj72: You are off the mark by about 180 degrees…sorry to disappoint. I know that is what you “want” my point to be, but let me break it down for you.
If you are familiar with the reason RFK was popular, you will know that Liberals/Democrats saw him as the man best suited to end the war in Vietnam, ending social injustice, etc. While we will never know how events would have turned out, for better or for worse, I don’t believe that had he been elected that he would have been able to make the changes as easy as he did in his speeches…as President Obama is finding out (and will continue to find out) today. Their speeches are similar, telling us what they want to do, but failing to mention the consequences if things don’t work out as planned. During his campaign, Barrack Obama sounded like Robert Kennedy when discussing the failed policies of the administrations they wanted to replace and giving the illusion that they would have been armed with the knowledge they had obtained after the fact to make different decisions had they been in charge (this is called “time-warping” and is impossible). Hindsight is always 20/20 and I am sure that if LBJ or GWB had seen how their decisions turned out, they would have handled things much different…but again, we will never know.
The fact that “tried” to insinuate that I want the President assassinated, tells me that you are incapable of rational thought. A non-bias person “may” have asked me to explain my linkage of Obama to Kennedy, but you just “assumed” the worst, in a desperate attempt to discredit me. I doubt anyone 21 years or older and able to vote in 1968, believes that the only relevant thing about him was that he was assassinated. He stood for the principles that they admired and while his untimely death was traumatic, it doesn’t define the reasons why he is popular, even to this day. If doubt that is the only thing you remember him for, but I am a very big student of history and he was a big part of it during that turbulent decade. So, what you “suggested” is way out of line and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

By: bobj72

bobj72 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:16:18 +0000

Gary, so you won’t be lost. Robert Kennedy wasn’t living 40 years ago. So what relationship, if any would he have on the comment you made? Other than to create an ambiguous statement. If your point was in reference to Richard Nixon, there was obviously no purpose in mentioning Robert Kennedy’s name.
___________________
Track this with me, and I’m sure (I hope) you’ll see what “suggestion” I interpret your comment to be making.)
(* Notes a reasoned interpretation of your statement.)
“I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’
(* Told who, what? You seem to be more concerned with “being rude & demeaning “than you are with making a “clear point.”)
because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences,
(* some negative-type outcome?)
we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy.”
(* something to be associated with the time, and consequences to the subject? Now, since Robert Kennedy isn’t here, one must assume ‘the writer’ is referencing the time and event, last associated with the subject. And that would be the act committed by Sirhan in L.A., CA in 1968!)
What I’m suggesting is that your comment sounds like a “warning” of some type. Whether you intended that, or not.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:25:27 +0000

Suggesting that it was 40 years ago that Richard Nixon, NOT Robert Kennedy, was sworn into office. Had RFK not been assassinated, he would have had to make all the concessions that Nixon and all other President’s have had to make since that election…then the ideals of the ‘Left’ would have understood the limits of political power and personal will to overcome the challenges of the ‘real world.’
You lost me with your “suggestion” comment…????

By: bobj72

bobj72 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:53:55 +0000

Gary | Apr 6, 2009 1:13:10 PM
Gary, do you realize what you’re suggesting here??? You said; ” I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’ because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences, we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy. I will hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.”
_____________________
Your “40 years ago with Robert Kennedy” proclaimation, is The Year Following Robert Kennedy’s ASSASSINATION! What are YOU SUGGESTING here???

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:13:10 +0000

bobj72: Your rude and childish comments are intended to insult me, but you are far more clueless than I. You think you know what you’re talking about…and this is the real tragedy, because there are too many Americans who think like you and as a result, we will suffer for it. I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’ because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences, we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy. I will hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

By: bobj72

bobj72 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:46:25 +0000

Gary | Apr 5, 2009 12:36:22 PM
“So, have fun with your position and find someone else’s time to waste.”
________________
Gary, you are a rude, non-thinking, immature, naive, suceptable and childish person. “Cutsie, little-girl statements re: “wasting your time” is a *Trademark; which says; “I don’t know what-the-heck I’m talking about, so I’ll go on the attack!” You have a Vague definition of what constitutes a Fact. You ‘offer up’ these grandiose, egotistical statements; “My job for the past two decades-plus has been directly affected by the decisions of our Presidents, for better or for worse.” Who Asked YOU? And Who Cares? Or… statements of “false truths”, i.e. “circumstances and statements documented on television and print, as being ‘my interpretation”, THIS highlights your immaturity and vulnerability. The real risk we have here is a person like you, (intellectually arrogant, posturing to ‘mask’ a major deficit disorder of ignorance), who’s NOT ‘grounded in provable & irrefutable Truth’, is so easily Influenced by others.
As for me, I DO NOT take “sleaze-bag” political bribery lightly. I think they should be treated as any other common criminal.
But, understand “The game” IS reality. And ‘the rules’ will be broken, so “Man-Up” Buddy, your ‘Alter Boy’ expectations “won’t kick that can too far down the road!” Oh, and BTW you don’t get to “Write the rules!” You’re simply a “paying fan, sitting in the stands.”