CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jan 8, 2011 4:54pm
I get what you're saying... BUT... isn't that just sweeping the dirt under the brand new pretty rug and exclaiming how pretty your living room is?ptown_trojans_1;629961 wrote:Sort of, but farm subsidies are awful and need dramatically reformed/ cut. It is more of the subsidies toward new areas, tech jobs, nuclear power, breaks for small businesses that favor a new technology, breaks for businesses that can help improve infrastructure, etc. those sort of things.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 10, 2011 9:26am
“Well, listen, I have — I promised a more open process,’’ Boehner said. “I didn’t promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill. Or, as I said yesterday, we went through a whole Congress, two years, without one — without one open rule. And as I said yesterday, there will be many open rules in this Congress, and just watch.’’
Good start for the tan man. You all got fooled again.
Good start for the tan man. You all got fooled again.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 11, 2011 5:18pm
BGFalcons82;629958 wrote:Do you mean subsidies similar to the wonderful "Cash for Clunkers" program that stimulated...ummm...uhhh....well....nothing? Or farm subsidies, where people are paid not to farm and have prices held artificially high so that everyone pays for it? Those kind of programs?
Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jan 11, 2011 5:25pm
Bigdogg;634550 wrote:Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486
How can you consider something that only pushes sales forward -- and destroys the used car market -- a success?
The economy didn't improve one iota with that program. Unemployment was the same or higher; nothing changed. Except now when you try to find some types of used cars, you can't. Because they were foolishly destroyed. As a result, people looking for used cars get to pay higher prices than they would have without this program.
Is that really your idea of success?
Since you backed (apparently) this program, how about the burden of proof of its success fall to YOU?
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jan 11, 2011 7:12pm
Without reading the link, is that a ".gov" link that is probably giving the thumbs up to a government program?Bigdogg;634550 wrote:Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jan 11, 2011 7:43pm
CenterBHSFan;634686 wrote:Without reading the link, is that a ".gov" link that is probably giving the thumbs up to a government program?
Not the GAO, Government Accountability Office.
Most if not all government agencies hate the GAO as all of their reports call for leaner, more efficient, effective metrics for government programs, if not the eradication for programs. Think of them as those annoying account people that always say what are your metrics and why can't you do it better and with less?
There are numerous GAO reports ripping programs from the Defense Department, to the Nuclear weapons labs, to the budget system.
(I know as I've had to read many reports for my job lol.)
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jan 11, 2011 7:50pm
That may be the case Ptown, but the big difference between the non-profit GAO and private for-profit accounting offices is the first one is still a government agency. Who holds the GAO accountable for their "reports"? Oh that's right...politicians and bureaucrats beholden to politicians.ptown_trojans_1;634722 wrote:Not the GAO, Government Accountability Office.
Most if not all government agencies hate the GAO as all of their reports call for leaner, more efficient, effective metrics for government programs, if not the eradication for programs. Think of them as those annoying account people that always say what are your metrics and why can't you do it better and with less?
There are numerous GAO reports ripping programs from the Defense Department, to the Nuclear weapons labs, to the budget system.
(I know as I've had to read many reports for my job lol.)
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jan 11, 2011 7:58pm
believer;634731 wrote:That may be the case Ptown, but the big difference between the non-profit GAO and private for-profit accounting offices is the first one is still a government agency. Who holds the GAO accountable for their "reports"? Oh that's right...politicians and bureaucrats beholden to politicians.
Yep, which is why their recommendation rarely get fulfilled or implemented.
Still, they out out great work.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 11, 2011 8:37pm
Writerbuckeye;634553 wrote:How can you consider something that only pushes sales forward -- and destroys the used car market -- a success?
The economy didn't improve one iota with that program. Unemployment was the same or higher; nothing changed. Except now when you try to find some types of used cars, you can't. Because they were foolishly destroyed. As a result, people looking for used cars get to pay higher prices than they would have without this program.
Is that really your idea of success?
Since you backed (apparently) this program, how about the burden of proof of its success fall to YOU?
Did not back or oppose the program. I am not the one that called it a failure. I don't think it was real effective but I would not call it a failure either. I trust the GAO over some of the idiots on here.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jan 11, 2011 9:33pm
I don't trust government to be honest on boondoggles like this. Too much political pressure.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 20, 2011 1:13pm
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/19/another_poll_shows_surge_in_obama_support.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_increasingly_viewed_as_a_moderate.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/a_short_republican_honeymoon.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_looks_stronger_for_2012.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_increasingly_viewed_as_a_moderate.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/a_short_republican_honeymoon.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_looks_stronger_for_2012.html
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jan 20, 2011 2:31pm
I'm not suprised. Obama has sorta been forced to move closer to the center (Clinton-Style).
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jan 20, 2011 3:11pm
Ty Webb;645431 wrote:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/19/another_poll_shows_surge_in_obama_support.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_increasingly_viewed_as_a_moderate.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/a_short_republican_honeymoon.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/20/obama_looks_stronger_for_2012.html
Isn't it amazing what can happen when you actually start listening to the voters a little bit? Crazy stuff.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 21, 2011 2:54pm
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jan 21, 2011 5:27pm
Welcome back from hibernation, Gibby. We missed you.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 24, 2011 1:23pm
Why Obama is in Better Shape Than Many Think
Chris Cillizza notes "a detailed examination of the national map heading into 2012 suggests that the president still sits in a strong position for reelection -- able to lose half a dozen (or more) swing states he carried in 2008 and still win the 270 electoral votes he needs for a second term."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303752.html
Pretty fun read....and you know he won't lose all those states either
Chris Cillizza notes "a detailed examination of the national map heading into 2012 suggests that the president still sits in a strong position for reelection -- able to lose half a dozen (or more) swing states he carried in 2008 and still win the 270 electoral votes he needs for a second term."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303752.html
Pretty fun read....and you know he won't lose all those states either
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jan 24, 2011 1:27pm
Ty Webb;650466 wrote:Why Obama is in Better Shape Than Many Think
Chris Cillizza notes "a detailed examination of the national map heading into 2012 suggests that the president still sits in a strong position for reelection -- able to lose half a dozen (or more) swing states he carried in 2008 and still win the 270 electoral votes he needs for a second term."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303752.html
Pretty fun read....and you know he won't lose all those states either
I didn't know it was 2012....
Also, didn't know the R's had a nominee.
I honestly, nor do most people, yet care for the 2012 election right now.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 24, 2011 1:29pm
ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is
They are all getting destroyed
They are all getting destroyed
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jan 24, 2011 1:32pm
Ty Webb;650476 wrote:ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is
They are all getting destroyed
Really does it matter?
It is January 24, 2011. The election is just under 2 years away. A hell of a lot of things can happen.
It is like trying to predict who is going to win the 2012 college football national title.
Why spend time on it now. Focus on the more important issues, like policy.
Politics can come back once we hit 2012.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Jan 24, 2011 1:35pm
Ty Webb;650476 wrote:ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is
They are all getting destroyed
As Lee Corso says so frequently....Not so fast. Governor Christie is the only Republican who beats Obama, 43-40. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chris-christie-ahead-obama-poll_526715.html
Before you type he's not running, please add a word to the end of your sentence...."yet".
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jan 24, 2011 1:36pm
The fact that the Post feels the need to start handicapping the 2012 election today tells me all I need to know.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 24, 2011 1:42pm
BGFalcons82;650494 wrote:As Lee Corso says so frequently....Not so fast. Governor Christie is the only Republican who beats Obama, 43-40. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chris-christie-ahead-obama-poll_526715.html
Before you type he's not running, please add a word to the end of your sentence...."yet".
How many times does the man need to say he isn't running???
He's said it from the time he was elected...
He's not going to run....
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jan 24, 2011 1:43pm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Also fish....what do you expect a right leaning pollster to say?
Also fish....what do you expect a right leaning pollster to say?
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Jan 24, 2011 2:00pm
You wrote, and I quote, " They are all getting destroyed". I stomped all over this drivel.Ty Webb;650511 wrote:How many times does the man need to say he isn't running???
He's said it from the time he was elected...
He's not going to run....
Point awarded to BG.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 24, 2011 3:32pm
BGFalcons82;650570 wrote:You wrote, and I quote, " They are all getting destroyed". I stomped all over this drivel.
Point awarded to BG.
Yes, you are a legend. I agree two years is way to long in politics, hell who knows maybe you will come to see the benefits of RomneyCare oops, I mean The Affordable Health Care Act by then