Boob Update.

[badge]

Obama pats government on the back for creating 150 jobs at $2 million each.

It’s one thing to be the chief architect of a horribly failed social experiment, but it’s another level of obliviousness to brag about it.

The economic stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provided $2.4 billion in grants to advanced vehicle batteries technology. From that amount, $300 million in grants went to Johnson Controls to manufacture batteries.

According to the White House, thus far the firm has added 150 jobs because of the grant. That means the government spent about $2 million per job, but only if no more jobs are added.

If that’s “success” I don’t want to see what Obama considers an economic failure. It’s like watching the Captain of the Hindenburg stand on a smoldering field in Lakehurst and say, “Until I came along, half the passengers on this ship never even had the opportunity to roast a marshmallow, but thanks to me…”

Obama nevertheless took the opportunity to pat himself on the back.

Obama reminded the workers that the government made the jobs possible.

“What made this possible? The most important part is you,” said Obama. “Your drive, your work ethic, your ingenuity, your management, the grit and optimism that says we’ve got an idea for a new battery technology or a new manufacturing process and we’re going to take that leap. But what also made this possible are the actions that we took together as a nation through our government.”

Obama of course couldn’t say what didn’t make the jobs possible, which is demand for the product! So on top of the “stimulus” money, the government then has to spend billions buying the products nobody wants so they didn’t waste the money creating all the jobs. This is the liberal definition of “fiscal responsibility.”

http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/07/stabenow_plans_to_introduce_bi.html

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

We dont need no stinkin supply and demand
But, you will have to pay for health care or else

 

[badge]

Topps Baseball Cards honored George W. Bush recently by putting his photo on a limited edition baseball card. He promoted baseball by holding tee-ball games out on the South Lawn. Someday President Obama will be honored with his photo on the package of radish seeds.

No end in sight to the glory of hope and change. For fifteen months anyway.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Sheesh - with the title I thought we were gonna see more booth babes!!

 

[badge]

I still have that pic somewhere of the body painted girl rey had tatooed over his heart. I'd risk posting it here, but the guy may show up with his boxcutter and complain again.

 

[dalauder]

I'll admit that it's pretty pathetic for Obama to brag about 150 jobs. But the more pathetic thing is how big of an improvement he is over Dubya. At least he's not starting wars that commit us to $500B+ a year instead of paying off the deficit. And he's a lot better than someone like Michelle Bachman--who's a crazy fundamentalist, which is a bit redundant.

That said, Obama's pretty disappointing. I think the government needs some major changes so that it actually involves governing instead of merely power plays one way or another. If the democrats actually had the balls to fight for what they believe in (Republicans do have balls, I'll give them that), nothing would get done as both parties would be at a stalemate. But I can't say I agree with the Republican idea of job creation--give rich people more money. I just don't see how that translates to jobs since they don't hire more people, they'll just save/invest overseas.

Anyhow...the government's not gonna get fixed. The economy will simply slowly improve with time and none of the people responsible for the world financial crisis will have to pay for it with money or jail time. But somehow big TVs are getting cheaper...at least something's improving.

 

[badge]

But the more pathetic thing is how big of an improvement he is over Dubya

"The Lundberg Survey said Thursday that falling oil prices could lead to three-dollar-a-gallon gas by this fall. That's good news for all the people who will be sleeping in their cars and SUVs. They'll be able to afford to move every three hours so they don't get a parking ticket."

 

[dalauder]

If someone gave you 33% stock in Chrysler in 2005, do you think you could've kept them from tanking? No--not only is 33% not enough power, but it's too late to change it. You can blame Obama if you like, but the truth is that he didn't cause any of this bad stuff to happen--he just isn't doing so hot at fixing it. But I don't think anybody can, so it's hard to blame him.

Bush, on the other hard, could have done A LOT to prevent these problems--instead he exacerbated them.

The president has power to stop legislation. He can't actually make new laws...make stuff happen, that is. Obama tried to fix healthcare...but people say that having a healthcare system as good as every other NATO nation makes you communist. I thought NATO was definitively not Communist?

I do like that balanced budget amendment, although it could use some ironing out.

I like that Obama--Carter photo too. They both picked tough times to be President.

 

[Archean]

I think first Bush and then Obama chickened out and burned trillions of dollars saving thugs and thieves of financial industry (starting from Goldman Sachs, and including AIG and others). IMO it would have been lot better to let them sink, instead of taking all their bad bets off their record and on to Govt.'s balance sheet. But on the other side of this, the teapublicans & co.'s thoughtless austerity drive will ensure a deeper and very long recession. Not doing the right things at the right time is a recipe for disaster.

 

[alikum]

I think first Bush and then Obama chickened out and burned trillions of dollars saving thugs and thieves of financial industry (starting from Goldman Sachs, and including AIG and others). IMO it would have been lot better to let them sink, instead of taking all their bad bets off their record and on to Govt.'s balance sheet. But on the other side of this, the teapublicans & co.'s thoughtless austerity drive will ensure a deeper and very long recession. Not doing the right things at the right time is a recipe for disaster.

Just a question. If let's say AIG sinks, who is gonna foot the bill if anything happens to any of their customers?

And if that happens, the administration will get complaints again for not doing enough to save AIG, thereby saving millions who bought from AIG. Either way, the administration is to be blame.

 

[DXRick]

Huh? Did you already forget about all the census takers jobs he created? One of them kept harassing me until I sent mine in. A job well done.

 

[xsamitt]

mmmmmm I see.

 

[RazberyBandit]

Teapublicans? That's a new one for me =)

I've always had a hard time blaming a President for much of anything. I mean really, aside times of war, a President is really just a policy instructor, not an actual policy maker. When it comes to actual law making, our President more akin to being the Lobbyist in Chief than the actual Commander in Chief of our country. He can tell everyone what he wants and why he wants it, but it's up to the Legislative branch whether or not that happens, and the Judicial branch to decide it's legality.

Honestly, our government is so f'd up right now, I'm literally embarrassed by it. You grow up in this country being constantly told idealist stories about how the "Founding Fathers" created a system that truly represents the People, and how they were wise enough to know that over time, the People can change their minds, so they created a means for amending the laws they set in place. We hear about our "inalienable rights" and how they fought and struggled to create a society in which individual freedoms granted by our laws would not be infringed upon by the ruling body. That may have worked when there were a million, 5 million, or 25 million people living within this country. But now that we've got over 300 million, it's failing fundamentally.

Our government has grown uncontrollably in many ways along with our population, and failed to grow accordingly in others. Example: while the house is setup to provide per-capita representation, we still only have two senators per state, which is exactly the same as when we were but a fledgling nation. Two people used to represent a few hundred thousand people, but now represent 40 million people. How does that provide citizens equal representation at all? Oh! Right! Because we still get to elect those two people...

Anyways... Back on topic - Obama. My only true criticism of the guy is that he promised change, but should have known, and probably knew, that he can't actually change much of anything on his own. If he didn't know, I think he figured it out pretty quickly, but hasn't once apologized for his original promise, and continues to claim he has changed things. (Even though he hasn't delivered on even half the things he said he would.)

 

[monkeysweat]

where's boobs? ME WANT BOOBS!

 

[dalauder]

where's boobs? ME WANT BOOBS!

I second that.

Huh? Did you already forget about all the census takers jobs he created? One of them kept harassing me until I sent mine in. A job well done.

I'm pretty sure I didn't even get counted in the census.

 

[dalauder]

...Honestly, our government is so f'd up right now, I'm literally embarrassed by it. You grow up in this country being constantly told idealist stories about how the "Founding Fathers" created a system that truly represents the People, and how they were wise enough to know that over time, the People can change their minds, so they created a means for amending the laws they set in place. We hear about our "inalienable rights" and how they fought and struggled to create a society in which individual freedoms granted by our laws would not be infringed upon by the ruling body. That may have worked when there were a million, 5 million, or 25 million people living within this country. But now that we've got over 300 million, it's failing fundamentally...

...Anyways... Back on topic - Obama. My only true criticism of the guy is that he promised change, but should have known, and probably knew, that he can't actually change much of anything on his own. If he didn't know, I think he figured it out pretty quickly, but hasn't once apologized for his original promise, and continues to claim he has changed things. (Even though he hasn't delivered on even half the things he said he would.)

I totally agree with what you said.

Now I don't trust the public to be smart enough to make major decisions, but I trust Congress even less to make any decisions at all--in a timely fashion that is. So something needs to be done to allow representatives (supposedly smarter than the public) to make decisions.

I personally think that the proportion of representatives for each party should be linearly related to the proportion of registered voters for that party in the district in question--whether that be a city, state, or nation.

The voters should be allowed to change their party once a year or something like that (on their online ".gov" login or through paperwork at a local passport/social security office). I don't think many people would actually be too fickle about changing their party, so it won't do major swings. But if one party really screws up, then next election they'll end up with a lot less representatives. This won't immediately fix much, but it will allow smaller groups to get represented in government. The Tea Party could be its own party like it wants to be. The Green Party and Libertarians would finally have representatives. Then there wouldn't be strict voting along party lines--it would split on every issue along the lines that the general populace believes in. And aside from presidential elections, elections would be within a single party. There can't be bipartisan government or "reach across the aisle" politics if there are 5, 8, or 19 parties.

 

[RazberyBandit]

By definition, you can only have a bipartisan government if there are two parties. (The prefix "bi" means two.) If there are more than 2 parties, we'd have to come up with a new term for it, as taking terms already used within the EU would be un-American. But at least we already have a term for any agreements made within such a system -- non-partisan! (sarcasm) It's odd how even when our government officials agree on something across the board, they still use terms that reflect upon the fact that our government typically stands divided, huh?

All I know is that the system itself, while an excellent one, has a LOT of room for improvement. But until a day comes where it completely topples or implodes upon itself, positive changes will remain incredibly small and non-prolific. Negative changes will continue as well.

No one dares mess with the idea of an overhaul for fear of Anti-American backlash. Even independent-thinking non-government officials, university professors, and common people won't do it for fear of alienation, loss of work, research grants, etc.. You just don't mess with the word of the "Founding Fathers," ever. This despite the fact that they encouraged us to do so because they knew not all of their decisions would stand the test of time.

I can't help but think that if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd be fighting another revolution...

 

[dalauder]

I can't help but think that if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd be fighting another revolution...

I'm pretty sure if the Founding Fathers saw what our government is today, they'd be thoroughly embarrassed. As an American, I'm ashamed to see my government in inaction. I hate how criticizing the government has somehow become unpatriotic. Based on the founding principles of America, questioning or protesting against your government is the most patriotic thing an American can do.

I guess it's just fear though. People are always afraid that if things change, everything will suck. They forget that things change even if you don't cause them to. All you can do is try to make sure the change is positive. I like the Tea Party wanting change, but I think they're heavily misguided and their views will do more harm than good. I'm really sick of Republicans being required to say publicly that scientists are lying about Global Warming or Evolution. If ignorant people would bother to learn about Global Warming or Evolution, they'd realize that neither is an attack on their religion or livelihood--but then I guess if they were willing to learn, I couldn't call them ignorant.

Like I said, there can't be bipartisan government if there are 5 parties, which is the way it should be. If enough people want something to happen, whether good or bad, it will happen. And I think that's the way it should be. Represent the people--whether or not they're right.

 

[RazberyBandit]

Represent the people--whether or not they're right.

An inherent problem exists within that. Our "representatives" don't always act based on the majority opinion of those whom they represent, nor of those who actually voted them into office. Instead, they act upon their personal views and opinions, or upon the opinion of someone else, whether they be a fellow politician, lobbyist, or a corporate or religious big-wig whose favor they wish to gain. That's politics...

It's yet another mark against the idealist ideas ingrained into us as children during our educational youth. We're taught that by voting, the government is "of the People, by the People, and for the People," but it's not -- not really. When elected officials act of their own accord, that's a breakdown of their vow to represent their people. Our government then becomes one that's not "of the People," but instead "of the persons whom the People put in charge of making decisions for them." There's a big difference between the two. All we as voters can really do is hope that the persons we elect will actually represent our views on matters. Beyond that, we yield little power, aside from trying to get it right the next time around.

The "of the People" ideology, however pure it's intentions, will never come to be. Why? Because somewhere, someone is always losing. We all accept the consequence of majority rule though, don't we...? Nope. Unfortunately, we don't. Why? Well, not to sound overly cliche, but it's because what's good for the goose is NOT always good for the gander.

The only means to achieving a government that more accurately represents "the People" is by transferring Federal authority to localized governmental powers, be they to individual states or municipalities. Only through those means will "the People" have a greater say in what affects them, both nationally and locally. Some might argue that if we had stuck with a system that had more localized governmental power, slavery, equal rights, and other such things may have taken a different course. I disagree. I think those things would have been decided as they were - on a national level. The problem is, when such important issues were decided on a national level, the Federal government got it into it's head that they had to decide nearly EVERYTHING on a national level.

And Badge... Sorry to sidetrack things. I too think Obama acts like a "boob" by claiming responsibility for things he didn't actually or genuinely affect. However, have you ever known a President who hasn't done the same? For that matter, any politician? I didn't think so...

 

[dalauder]

While you're right about all of that--the representatives could much better represent people if it was possible for them to come from different parties with different platforms. Instead, the law only allows for two parties to exist--well, more or less. It's set up to make sure the Republicans and Democrats hold onto power. And that's hurting everyone--their struggles for power.

Someone brought up the "representative duty" like jury duty idea. I like that a lot. I think that would fix it and make it a true democracy. If all Congresses were made up of citizens willing to do their Civic duty and selected randomly rather than because they're the most ambitious.

 

[jsc]

Instead, the law only allows for two parties to exist ...

What law?

 

[Pyree]

This is like the 5 times I click on this thread expecting for some boobs. Damn it, it get me every time! So please change the title.

 

[dalauder]

What law?

You quoted me so horrendously out of context that it's more accurate to say that you misquoted me. I said,

"Instead, the law only allows for two parties to exist--well, more or less. It's set up to make sure the Republicans and Democrats hold onto power."

Representatives have to win by region, so an entire region goes to one party, regardless of the political make up of that region. Do you think every person in the United States is a Democrat or Republican? Well every representative in the House is a Democrat or Republican. Ralph Nader won 3% of the Presidential popular vote, but I don't remember when 3% of Congress was the Green Party. It's designed to make it impossible for a new party to rival the power of the two ruling parties. The only way to run independent is for you to run as a Democrat or Republican, like Tea Partiers do...but the system still holds them back. But I suppose a Tea Party Republican schism could help change that.

 

[badge]

What law?

My best guess would the same 'law' (ahmmm) responsible for the formation of the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party was created to counter the socialist ideals of Barrack Obama. The Tea Party was created by Barrack Obama.

 

[dalauder]

My best guess would the same 'law' (ahmmm) responsible for the formation of the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party was created to counter the socialist ideals of Barrack Obama. The Tea Party was created by Barrack Obama.

Your logic is flawed.

Even if Obama helped cause the Tea Party movement to start, he didn't create it. That's like saying Lenin created NATO or diabetes invented Splenda. You're making jumps between concepts and leaving out a lot of the important stuff. Yes, Obama has his flaws. But to act like he's got more hidden agendas than Michelle Bachmann is naive (at best).

The Tea Party was a response to the decrease in popularity of the Republican Party around 2009 or so. In an attempt to address why they had lost popularity, many Republicans formed a new group, the Tea Party, with what they saw to be a better set of policies. The only things I've ever liked from the Tea Party are 1) Passion about your political opinions (regardless of what they may be) and 2) Pushing a balanced budget amendment. I wish the Democrats were more into both of those.

Commentary on my comments: I find it difficult to be completely civil when I so heavily disagree with your political opinions. I feel like you're gonna call Obama "Hitler" like some people do--and that doesn't even make any sense. But moreover, I haven't actually talked to many well read people who still choose to support Republicans. So I would appreciate insight on the reasoning behind hating (correct me if it is mere disagreeing with) Obama or his politics. So far I only understand (not agree with) two kinds of Republicans:
1) Christian Fundamentalists who want all Muslims dead
2) Supporters of 1980's Economic Theory such as the Trickle-Down Effect

For the life of me (and it may come down to that someday), I can't understand why so many Republicans don't want healthcare to be reformed. Perhaps you could shed a bit of light on that. I apologize if this gives you a disadvantaged stance to start off from (since my explanations may tend to be slanted to make my side sound better).