Gyroscopic Investing

Thank you, Univision for asking the Prez some tough questions. Finally! And, of course he failed miserably. He actually, as an incumbent president, said that you can't change Washington from the inside. Almost sounds like he was saying to vote for Romney.

Then when asked why he didn't keep his word about submitting immigration reform in his first year in office as he had promised he actually blamed Republicans even though he controlled the House and the Senate overwhelmingly and never submitted a bill. Chutzpah!

BTW, O's administration finally admitted today that the murder of our ambassador in Libya was a terrorist attack. It only took them nine days to admit the obvious and stop lying to us. Do they think that we are all stupid?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... ml?hp=t1_3

Now, for a more important political message:

Storm based on the democrats track record "fully paid for" means smoke and mirrors.  The democrats have zero credibility that they are capable of ever actually decreasing spending on almost anything.  They are however really good at making it appear as if they have so ads your like yours can make them seem reasonable.

Not that many of the repubicans are much better at decreasing spending. 

Reub wrote: Thank you, Univision for asking the Prez some tough questions. Finally! And, of course he failed miserably. He actually, as an incumbent president, said that you can't change Washington from the inside. Almost sounds like he was saying to vote for Romney.

Then when asked why he didn't keep his word about submitting immigration reform in his first year in office as he had promised he actually blamed Republicans even though he controlled the House and the Senate overwhelmingly and never submitted a bill. Chutzpah!

BTW, O's administration finally admitted today that the murder of our ambassador in Libya was a terrorist attack. It only took them nine days to admit the obvious and stop lying to us. Do they think that we are all stupid?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... ml?hp=t1_3

Yes....and most voting people continue to vote D or R...so they may be onto something.

Simonjester wrote: if everybody in the country votes their principals… and we still get evil, then we get what we deserve (the majority of us voted for it)

if everybody votes the lesser of two evils you guarantee we get evil (and show that we damn well do deserve it)

but if everybody votes their principals.. then maybe, just maybe, we restore the country to what it’s supposed to be… and get the constitutional Representative republic that we are supposed to have

i am in California and my vote in national elections doesn't really count this time around.
no politician or platform will ever be perfect and voting principals in a local election seems to have the best shot at causing change.
voting principals in a national election wont work until everybody does it but we have to start somewhere, even if i lived in a swing state i would have a hard time convincing myself that a republicrat victory will make any difference over a demican one, we are headed in the same direction either way.. it really comes down to which issues you prefer your pro big government, rampant spending and freedoms lost to....

If you just focus on government spending, you won't see the whole picture. It's more complicated than that. Our money supply is a combination of money created from public debt and private credit. When private credit vaporizes, the government feels the need to step in and fill the hole. If government doesn't fill the private credit hole with deficit dollars, the economy tanks and politicians get thrown out of office. As you can see, private credit took a big hit after 2008 — it's pretty much broken when you compare it to what it used to be...

[align=center][/align]

So, while politicians and pundits are trying to get you to cringe at the "exploding" public debt, what most people fail to realize is that the public debt provides the private sector with much needed (risk free) liquidity when private credit is in the toilet. It's just filling the hole.

I definitely appreciate that people worry about government spending — I agree that we certainly don't want the government getting involved in our lives any more than they have to. But, to spread fear about raw debt numbers — as if it could possibly be interpreted as inherently good or bad — does people little good without looking at private credit and the bigger picture.

Over the next few weeks, politicians will talk about how we need to lower the national debt and increase personal saving. But, what they won't tell you is that the private sector can't "save" while simultaneously paying down public debt in a debt-based monetary system. (Though, one could argue that ramping up private credit creates savings, but ramping up private credit to increase savings is highly unstable and what caused the 2008 crisis in the first place). All of the political posturing is engineered to get you riled up about something that neither side has any intention of "fixing." When all money (except coins) comes from public or private debt, you can't expect anything politicians say to be truthful about this subject.

Simonjester wrote:

Reub wrote: I don't think that Romney is "evil" in any way. He seems like a very good, competent man. The other guy personifies evil and he is using it to help destroy this country. At the very least, it is clear that he had his chance and failed miserably. You should be very, very scared. I think that the choice is clear. Do not throw away your vote on an outlier like Johnson.

i am very very scared and i concur with your assessment of Obama's failure, Romney may not be evil (and probably isn't as an individual) but the bush/obama plan doesn't become in any way better just because it is now the Bush/Obama/Romney plan, which is what you get if Romney wins, their plan is fundamentally flawed and if you consider loss of constitutional freedom evil it will end up being evil. much like a sail boat tacking against the wind, it doesn't matter if you tack to the left or to the right you still end up in the same place (moving in the opposite direction the winds of liberty are blowing in..)

i wouldn't hold it against somebody living in a swing state or a red state voting for Romney out of fear of Obama, but don't let a republican president or candidate lull you back to sleep with feel good talking points that sound like conservative American principals when they don't actually hold them or live up to them in office.

the "two party = one party system" is headed in the wrong direction and it makes little difference to me which name is "officially" in power when they run us all aground...

Reub wrote: I get "riled up" when the President tells me again and again that the terrorist killing of a US ambassador was simply a spontaneous reaction to a movie that no one saw so as to remove any culpability to himself.

I know to expect that obama will shift all responsibility & always look for a convenient scapegoat for his failed policies (such as permitting inadequate security in hostile nations on such a symbolic date)...so I don't get "riled up"

Reub wrote: He also lied this week in his infamous and possibly fatal Univision interview about Fast and Furious beginning under Bush:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... istration/

i find it interesting that the MSM is now starting to call out the BS. I view his presidency as more and more untenable by the day.

Reub wrote: I get "riled up" when the President tells me again and again that the terrorist killing of a US ambassador was simply a spontaneous reaction to a movie that no one saw so as to remove any culpability to himself.

Nope... it absolutely had nothing to do with the video... it had to do with too many people like yourself running U.S. foreign policy in an area of the world with too many hard-lined religious extremists that are willing to raise holy hell and kill thousands of citizens in the name of their god.

Aiding Israel in a huge land dispute for 60 years, if not part of what was outlined above, alone, stands as probably the single largest reason for the riots in the Middle East, not to mention most of our other problems there.

Sorry for getting personal, but you did suggest that we employ dictators of our choice to effectively enslave billions of people.

moda0306 wrote:

Reub wrote: I get "riled up" when the President tells me again and again that the terrorist killing of a US ambassador was simply a spontaneous reaction to a movie that no one saw so as to remove any culpability to himself.

Nope... it absolutely had nothing to do with the video... it had to do with too many people like yourself running U.S. foreign policy in an area of the world with too many hard-lined religious extremists that are willing to raise holy hell and kill thousands of citizens in the name of their god.

Joseph Campbell provided a great shorthand definition of mythology.

He said that mythology is other people's religion.

I think Obama's interference in Libya was a bad idea, and I think most here would agree. But at least he didn't start a ground war! We now look back at his interference because it's in the past, not an ongoing war involving American servicemen getting blown up for no benefit.

Reub wrote: "We now look back at his interference because it's in the past, not an ongoing war involving American servicemen getting blown up for no benefit."

You mean like his war in Afghanistan?

BTW, the repercussions of his meddling in Libya and Egypt have just begun.

HIS war in Afghanistan?

I'm no Obama apologist. I think he's a terrible president. I hate his policies and I hope he gets defeated. But let's get real here. Bush started that war, and he started the one in Iraq too. I'll blame Obama all day long for taking too long to end the war in Iraq (and leaving troops there, no less) and continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan. But calling the war in Afghanistan "his war" is risible. It's no more his than World War II was Truman's.

Yes, let's get out of Afghanistan. Let's hammer Obama for not doing that. But that war is not "his war". It is Bush's war, and from the start, it was incompetently planned and lacked an exit strategy or even a solid victory condition. Do you really believe that former presidents lose all responsibility for ongoing actions that they initiated while they were in office? If Romney beats Obama, will the war in Afghanistan be "Romney's war"?

Reub wrote: "We now look back at his interference because it's in the past, not an ongoing war involving American servicemen getting blown up for no benefit."

You mean like his war in Afghanistan?

BTW, the repercussions of his meddling in Libya and Egypt have just begun.

What should the U.S. have done in Libya?  I like the option of nothing, but it is true that Qaddafi was a terrorist for decades before he met his end (and U.S. citizens died in operations he authorized).  If we're fighting a war against terrorism (which I assume we are), it makes sense to me to help the people who are struggling against the tyrant/dictator/terrorist, right?

I'm not understanding whether you think the U.S. did too much or too little in Libya.  Are we supposed to go in and occupy Libya?  I don't think that the brave rebels who stood up to Qaddafi would appreciate that. 

If France had announced to the U.S. colonists that it was going to occupy the U.S. after the Revolutionary War I don't think the Founding Fathers would have appreciated that too much either, even if France had assured them that it was for their own good.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: "We now look back at his interference because it's in the past, not an ongoing war involving American servicemen getting blown up for no benefit."

You mean like his war in Afghanistan?

BTW, the repercussions of his meddling in Libya and Egypt have just begun.

HIS war in Afghanistan?

I'm no Obama apologist. I think he's a terrible president. I hate his policies and I hope he gets defeated. But let's get real here. Bush started that war, and he started the one in Iraq too. I'll blame Obama all day long for taking too long to end the war in Iraq (and leaving troops there, no less) and continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan. But calling the war in Afghanistan "his war" is risible. It's no more his than World War II was Truman's.

Yes, let's get out of Afghanistan. Let's hammer Obama for not doing that. But that war is not "his war". It is Bush's war, and from the start, it was incompetently planned and lacked an exit strategy or even a solid victory condition. Do you really believe that former presidents lose all responsibility for ongoing actions that they initiated while they were in office? If Romney beats Obama, will the war in Afghanistan be "Romney's war"?

is it Pinocchio's war or Geppetto's? or if Geppetto has a different puppet on the strings does it really make sense to argue which puppet owns the war?

it seems to detract from taking a deeper look to the real causes/party's responsible to argue it is either of these presidents wars, the military industrial complex, bad foreign policy that has gone on for decades, lack of real leadership etc etc, are contributing to a long chain of bad decisions made by presidents,

Yes, that's a good point, Simon. I love your Pinocchio metaphor! It just annoys me I guess when partisans blame the other side for doing what their side just did. I should just accept that this is the nature of political partisanship.

Reub wrote: What I am looking for is a little consistency. Either you are for meddling overseas or you aren't. And that's true whether Bush was the meddler or Obama.

I am not for meddling, regardless of who does it.

Reub wrote: If you are in favor of freeing the oppressed, then you would be in favor of intervening in Iran and Syria. Right?

I am not in favor of freeing the oppressed using military intervention. Maybe the only exception I would make is when they explicitly ask for it in no uncertain terms, and even then, I would be wary about involving ourselves in a situation we don't fully understand.

Reub wrote: If you are against senseless wars, then you would be against the war in Afghanistan that Obama has continued for close to four additional years.

I am against senseless wars, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both when the Commander-in-Chief was bush and now that it is Obama.

Reub wrote: You can't have it both ways.

That's why I don't. 

I'm fairly certain I'll be voting for Obama, floppiness notwithstanding.
I never refrain from voting, and I'm not going to pick an unknown.
Like they said in an early episode of South Park, the choice is often between a douche and a turd sandwich.

craigr wrote:

dualstow wrote: Like they said in an early episode of South Park, the choice is often between a douche and a turd sandwich.

Why not choose just not to eat?

That's always a tempting option. Maybe it's like investing- no action is the hardest action.

Simonjester wrote: is it Pinocchio's war or Geppetto's?   or if Geppetto has a different puppet on the strings does it really make sense to argue which puppet owns the war?

it seems to detract from taking a deeper look to the real causes/party's responsible to argue it is either of these presidents wars,   the military industrial complex, bad foreign policy that has gone on for decades, lack of real leadership etc etc, are contributing to a long chain of bad decisions made by presidents, 

I sure am glad I watched all seven seasons in a row of The West Wing.  It was exhausting, but by damn, I'm now a political genius!

Reub wrote: If you are in favor of freeing the oppressed, then you would be in favor of intervening in Iran and Syria. Right?

Hey, what happened to North Korea?  I don't give two shits about Iran or Syria.  Those people aren't even remotely oppressed compared to Jong's Orwellian Animal Farm Gulag.  Give me a break!

[align=center][/align]

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Yes, that's a good point, Simon. I love your Pinocchio metaphor! It just annoys me I guess when partisans blame the other side for doing what their side just did. I should just accept that this is the nature of political partisanship.

partisan politics sure do seem to create an endless stream of emotionally charged distraction. it gets me down when i see just how much cognitive dissidence partisans on both sides seem perfectly comfortable living with, perhaps it is just a personal idiosyncrasy but it drives me batty when i realize i hold views that are inconsistent with each other and it sends me into a frenzy of rethinking and searching for a broader perspective.

That's why I subscribe to Permanent Politics.  I vote Democrat 25% of the time, Republican 25%, Independent 25%, and I don't vote 25%.  No matter which party happens to be doing well/poorly at the moment, I get to say I did/didn't vote for them.  This frees up a lot of time bickering on the Internet that I can spend living life.