bostonbubble.com

[john p]

MPR said:

[balor123]

[balor123]

[john p]

The "Responsible" States are already having to pay for the "Irresponsible" States. The Irresponsible States hold power right now so they aren't administering what is needed, they are just doubling down on the patronage and subsidies and bailouts to the Unions.

To me the casinos were a real "Tell Sign" because there is always this rule in society that says "Your free to do what you want so long as it doesn't cause harm to others". Now although there is a civic duty to be tolerant so you're not playing the victim aggressively, if casinos cause a financial hardship to those that don't want them via putting a surcharge of dead weight on the public safety net (those that took on too much risk and fell into the public safety net through self created hardship) then you have yet again, the responsible bailing out the irresponsible. The irresponsible have safety in numbers in a Democracy and it is only the realization that they will kill or poison the host that they will be forced to recalibrate their aims. Unions wanted their jobs despite the negative impacts on society from casinos. They broke the society rule where they pushed a self interest which creates an overall negative effect. At this point they became Pinkertons, or a self serving thug machine that protected a predatory industry. These are the last people you want near the power of a Nation with a $650 Billion Military because if they are willing to do for themselves despite the harm it inflicts on others, who knows what they are capable of? In many past societies, when the aggressive thugs get close to power they ended up with problems.

So we got the first dose of poison and we went into septic shock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_shock

Because the irresponsible are in power, we ended up not acknowledging the true nature of the toxic assets which caused the TARP (toxic asset relief program). As Admin pointed out, the FHA still has too low of standards of lending and the banks are still investing in these securitized subprime investments so we might pollute ourselves yet again. In this case, due to politics, the Judge and Jury were actors in this poisoning so it wasn't adjudicated without the pollution of politics.

The Republicans Message ought to be:

The bailouts and subsidies for special interests and the extensions of entitlements are not sustainable and they will run out quickly. We cannot afford an open bar policy which creates moral hazards and rewards a lack of self government. It is in the best interest of even the Special Interests that we have a sustainable economy where the most capable and effective members of our society are empowered to create the abundance necessary to provide for our society. Americans need to understand the Pareto principle where the vital few need to be empowered, and those are jobs creators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

The Democrats Message ought to be:

No matter how much we cut in Discretionary Spending we are still on an unsustainable course due to our mandatory entitlement programs. Our new Health Care Law will cut costs by reducing the surcharge of emergency care because it was the only place that the uncovered could actually receive any level of care. The Private Sector has had their chance to prove their effectiveness and we can model out what a future with them still in control would look like and that is not a sustainable future. Because our Nation cannot afford to be in this situation we need to act. Although it is not proven that the Government can do a better job and many believe that Government is the problem and not the solution, we were not afforded the choice to stay on the prior course. As the Health Care system will eventually squeeze even further, it is in the best interest of all citizens that the Private Sector, driven by profit will not make decisions based as such and be susceptible to predatory abuses. In an attempt to not shock the system too rapidly, we will employ a number of cost saving strategies suggested by the Republicans such as opening up interstate competition to allow the benefits of capitalism to play into the process while providing the protections of individuals for preconditions and other issues where judgment could be swayed by unethical business practices. In this consolidation we can prove that we can reduce the costs by 20-30 percent without lowering the existing level of service and we can use the economy of scale to help elevate the level of service in the future. Moreover, look at this chart and see the impact of Health Care with respect to their contribution to the unsustainable deficits we will face. While the Republicans are focusing on cutting discretionary spending, you can see that it makes less of an impact than the major reform to the Health Care System. It is a choice we can't afford not to take because again, we have a measurable track record of performance of the private sector's control of this Industry. Lastly, for individuals to trust in Government Control of this Industry we need to purge the pollutants of special interests and special deals for certain stakeholders. We do not want politicians calling doctors to negotiate better level of service for a selected few and a firewall will be created to prevent this. We will purge out any special deals made in the Health Care Bill such as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase and we will not allow different classes of citizenship or preferential treatment for any stakeholder.

The democratic process would be much better if both parties came to the table with a decent plan and a decent set of choices and the Party that actually adopts the best ideas from their opponents SHOULD win. My interest is that both parties put out their best hand and they throw out their special interests and the moderates who can bring together the best of the both should win. What George W. Bush / Karl Rove did which was terrible for our Nation was prove that it was better politically to focus on your base rather than try to win over those who aren't predisposed to you. Gore ran on being a President for all of the people and Bush ran with the strategy of getting one more vote than his opposition. The result was a more polar process whereas politicians like Obama would vote 97% along Party Lines and make special deals with Unions because they were his stakeholders the same way Big Oil was for the Republicans. Getting into these major pendulum swings is terrible and because our political cycle is a slower pace, we can't afford these massive 4 year pendulum cycles because they throw us too far off course and we need to let independent people win to insure that the special interests don't get too long of a stay at the trough.

[Renting in Mass]

[john p]

Excuse me, but weren't you making the charge that I was arguing with imaginary people in my head?

Isn't that a trifle obnoxious?

Be glad that I preferred to respond with humor.

My favorite was:

[Renting in Mass]

The imaginary people in your head was another way of saying that you have a fixed and oversimplified image of a particular type of person (i.e. a stereotype).

Pointing out something that Halle Berry said (and implying that it's representative of anything other than what Halle Berry thinks) is an excellent example.

Halle Berry isn't the imaginary person. It's the teaming masses that she represents that exist only in your head.

[john p]

But it is ok for many in the media to define the "Tea Party" in one broad generalization?

My point is how people suspend disbelief and get uprooted from their critical voice. Obama was artful in communicating with people's critical voice; he framed that voice as the cynic inside of you. He wanted people to use "hope".

I have always hoped for the best, but PLANNED for the worst. That whole touchy-feely overly positive new age fluff is exactly that, empty rhetoric.

Now this is Bill Maher being critical of the Tea Party, but where was this level of criticism of Barack Obama? This is pretty tastless, he basically calls Tea Party people "toothless"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OnDXkvGZ8&feature=related

[Renting in Mass]

[john p]

HBO lets this guy say whatever he wants, as degrading and insulting as he wants and it just send more and more people away from the Liberal position.

Here is a great one showing Bill Maher and Joy Behar discussing how it was ok for people to make fun of Sarah Palin's child. They turn it on Sarah and say that the word "retarded" is needed so that it can be used to describe Sarah Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a9PU6p74uk

These people are disgusting to think that it is acceptable to make fun of a child with mental disabilities, it is absolutely sick. There are more where he makes fun of people who believe in Religion. And to think that main stream people support him and networks let this guy talk and talk and talk.

I mean when Imus said inflammatory things he was excoriated as he should have, but it is ok to have two main stream liberals making fun of a child with mental disabilities with absolutely no public outrage is disgusting. These same people make fun of poor people, he makes fun of people in certain States like Kentucky or Tennessee etc. It is like for Liberals, it is fair game to make fun of certain people but not certain others. Take that into context with Obama's comment about bitter people who cling to religion and guns.

I'm not imagining anything buddy, there is an elitism and that is why people are leaving the elite liberal tent. Now I'm not a Sarah Palin fan but I don't think it is ok to make fun of her child with mental disability and I sure think it is wrong for people to support Bill Maher and not condemn him for these comments; he gets a pass because he is a liberal who makes fun of people of faith. I don't make fun of someone based on what they believe.

I remember being with a bunch of stuck up architects who were making fun of people from Revere and saying that they were dumb and wore gold chains etc. Little did they know that my family came from Revere and underneath my suit was a gold chain and cross. I never understood how liberals and Democrats were supposed to be for the poor yet they have so many stuck up eggheads who make fun of those who didn't have the same opportunities they had. When people realize that these elites aren't that special and start to listen to someone else, the elites attack them and degrade them. They offer their own talking points and people feel a peer pressure to go along or be characterized as a second class toothless uneducated and brainwashed hick.

Just watch MSNBC and listen to how they degrade anyone who disagrees with their agenda. When you listen to FOX they expose some of the shady things Obama has done and people that Obama has a history with, but for the ones that disagree with him like him as a person but think his policies are going to hurt us, and guess what, they're right, he's really doing a bad job and the Economy sucks and all that Hope and Together We Can isn't working. Together We Can have what? 10 percent unemployment? Have any relatives or friends that are laid off? How's that super sweet Together We Can taste right about now?

Now read this and see if it pops your Obama Bubble:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

[Renting in Mass]

If Bill Maher held a rally in Washington, like six people would show up.

[mpr]

[balor123]

I don't know if that's true across the board since you haven't actually quoted numbers but is it also true that if they did get all the money back they sent to the Fed that they would suddenly become responsible? I suspect the analysis is very hard to perform but the inability to balance a budget is a real problem under any scenario I think. Other states should be angry as they are compelled to rescue their reckless behavior in the future even if they are net producers today. And I don't see what rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and child sexual abuse have to do with balanced budgets. Also, there's a whole lot of variables that go into those things besides politics. Texas, for example, is the biggest polluter primarily because of it's relative size and since all the Oil in the US is refined there, not because of environmentally unfriendly policies.

[Kaidran]

I have no idea who Joy Behar is but I watched your clip. I was left with the question, did you actually watch it John? Or was it just posted on a FOX blog somewhere?

I can give you a brief synopsis: they were commenting on an episode of Family Guy (a FOX show) where a teenage character with Downs Syndrome is the child of Sarah Palin. The character is not the butt of any jokes except being Palins daughter and is portrayed as strong and assertive. (I could not get much more from the short clip). Baher and Maher then comment on how positively she was portrayed. They then go on a tirade about political correctness and how it has failed to remove the word "retard" from the American vocabulary. Maher hypothesizes that it is because America just needs that word to describe the stupidity that regularly goes on. He then specifically states that he believes it is only unacceptable to use it when talking about someone with actual mental illness. He then goes on to defend Imus right to say whatever the hell he said.

I'm not 100% about your point but if it was that liberal elites can make jokes about people with mental illness then you failed. Maybe you think that someone with Downs Syndrome cannot be a strong character and so their presence is by definition a joke? I've not seen the full episode of Family Guy, maybe you should link to that?

Seriously John can you not see how biased you are?

[mpr]