Posts Made By: Mike Strieber

Jack Day said:

A bunny with pancakes on his head!

Just something to lighten the mood around here! 8O

Looks like a French beret. Must be a liberal bunny.

jeff catalina said:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus/index.html

Sooo, does this mean that it's a bipartisan agreement now? What happened to all of the "pork"? It went from $900 billion to $780 billion -- is that what conservatives have had their shorts in a bunch about? A measly $120 billion? I could name five banks and Wall Street firms that got that much combined in Bush's bailout.

Of course, I'm being a bit sarcastic, here. I'm aware $120 billion is a lot of money. But now that an agreement has been reached does that mean conservatives will stop calling this a "democratic" list of "pork"?

Jeff

It's not so much the amount of $120B that was bunching shorts, it was what it was being spent on. Even at that, I'm sure there's still a lot of non-stimulus (pork) in the stimulus. That's just what Democrats caved into.

"Sooo, does this mean that it's a bipartisan agreement now?"

If you consider 2 or 3 out of 250-ish Republicans voting in favor of it "bipartisan", then it certainly is. The vote tally is not in so I have no idea how many Republicans will vote in favor of it but the Democratic leadership stated "they strongly believe they need Ted Kennedy's vote to make it pass". Since they only needed 2 Republican votes in the Senate to pass it, that tells me they don't think too many Republicans are going to vote for it. Regardless, if calling it "bipartisan" makes you feel better; don't let votes get in the way. The Democrats will surely call it bipartisan. If it fails to do what it is intended to do they've got some cover, albeit extremely thin cover. Don't forget also, most American's don't agree with it. On Biden today: Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged today that Democrats could face political repercussions in 2010 for their support of the $900 billion economic stimulus package. This while Pelosi makes more friends... “Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan. Clearly this woman is out of touch with reality. That should answer your bipartisan question. How true is this? Brad Dayspring,.. “Her comment really makes one wonder whether she understands the concerns of not only the majority of struggling Americans seeking tax relief and job creation, but many members from her own party.”



Pork is pork regardless of who votes for it. I would venture to say there is some Republican biased pork in there also (maybe from the Senate since it would make no sense for a Republican Congressman to put pork in the bill in the House and not vote in favor of it).


Let's all just hope it works.
Mike

Rod Kaufman said:

Should we save the F-22 Raptor to save jobs?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jets11-2009feb11,0,165351.story
Well, with all money going down the drain, at least we will have nice airplanes.
I say keep it!

The Army cancelled the Comanche helicopter program worth billions for some of the same arguments being used against the F-22. An incredibly capable helicopter (and stealthy to boot) but conceived to fight Soviet tank hordes rolling across Europe. It would have provided none, to little capability above an Apache or Kiowa Warrior in an Iraq scenario (at least post-invasion). Is it worth keeping the production line open for the sake of jobs? I guess it's as worthy as Frisbee golf courses. I'm with you....keep it.
Mike

Fred Dase said:

I read the article that you linked. I've always felt reading comprehension was one of my stronger points, so I'd like to address things.

1)"Last week, both Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs canceled corporate junkets scheduled to take place here in Las Vegas."

Is a junket the same as a learning convention in the corporate world ? They're not according to the dictionary.

2)"Gaming revenues fell every month last year and they were down nearly 19% in December which is a drop of 9.7% for all of 2008.
That is the worst gaming revenue decline in Nevada's history."

It stands to reason that as the economy has gotten worse people have less money to waste gambling. The article states nothing about
revenues related to the convention industry there. While I'll agree that the two are connected in such that the less people that come
to Las Vegas the less people there are to gamble obviously its not a one to one tradeoff.

For your premise to be correct Obama's comment would have had to affect Las Vegas retroactively which is impossible. With Decembers numbers being down 19% vs down 9.7% for the year we can surmise that revenue went down more each month during 2008. The only true test as to the whether Obama's words have hurt Las Vegas will be if those revenue numbers decline at a steeper rate in the months following that comment than they did before.

Fred Dase

Just to be clear Fred. Goldman-Sachs didn't cancel their convention, they moved it to San Francisco. That tells me it's perception based, the same perception message the Mayor of Las Vegas is concerned other "non-recepients of bail-out money" corporations have received. So if one's argument is they shouldn't be having conventions because they took TARP money then Las Vegas should have nothing to do with it. In fact they paid a $600,000 penalty (with taxpayers money I guess) to the Mandalay Bay Hotel for cancelling....and they'll still spend the money on the convention elsewhere.

Jason Higley said:

I'm not the first to do it, but I made the following movie (~4.7 megs) using online images of Galileo's drawings of sunspots in the summer of 1612

http://setisociety.org/Galileo-Sunspot-Movie.wmv

Happy 400th birthday of the telescope!

Regards, Jason H.

That's cool Jason, thanks. If only he knew what he was missing by not having a Ha scope!
Mike

James C Chandler Jr said:

Watching off'n'on with the sound off. I want some of what Pelosi is smoking.

At least he can talk. Bush could talk for an hour and say nothing....or when he did open his mouth it was only to change feet. I'm certainly no Obamabot nor agree with all his policies but it's refreshing to have a President who can articulate a thought.

Rod Kaufman said:

Er, ah, I think the Obama administration needs to re-think this one:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90049

What the....? This does nothing but reinforce my feelings that Obama lacks seriously when it comes to judgement. In the face of his history with administration picks how could he even consider a guy like this? Does he not read anything? What are his advisor's telling him?

As bad as the book this guy pushed is, that's nothing compared to this...
"Freeman has financial ties to the infamous bin Laden family – including dealings he defended after Sept. 11, 2001."

You know, I like Obama but man it's stuff like this that makes me wonder about his reasoning skills when it comes to his agenda and policy choices also. He clearly doesn't recognize "danger" before it smacks him in the face.

Mike

James McSheehy said:

A popular theme these days is the notion of taxing wealthy Americans because they got an undeserved tax cut and now they should pay "their fair share". Never mind the fact that many of these wealthy folks actually represent small businesses and their "income" is inflated because they file taxes as S-corporations or LLCs.

The political rhetoric treats these people as fixed targets, and politicians assume they will just stand there, grab their ankles, and take whatever tax increases are handed down. The reality is the wealthiest 1% can live wherever they choose, and many will simply leave the tax base if the federal government heaps enough abuse on them. The next level, not quite as wealthy, may not have unlimited mobility, but they will alter their behavior to avoid paying taxes. They will lay off employees, close businesses, retire early, etc., rather than pay Uncle Sam's high taxes.

So what you say? Well consider this, the upper 1% already pay about 40% of income taxes, and the upper 5% of earners pay a total of 60% of the total. The bottom half, 50%, of income earners only pay 3-frikkin'-% of income taxes! If only one tenth of the upper 1% of taxpayers leave the tax base (a few thousand people), income taxes on the bottom 50% will have to DOUBLE to make up the difference.

So go ahead and cheer 'em on as they go after the wealthiest Americans. Your taxes are going up. They could afford it, can you?

Very well put James. Unfortunately it might be too late. The class-envy hordes with their pitchforks and torches are already massing. Little do they recognize the smoke of the wealthy American they burn at the stake also carries with it their jobs and government "benefits". Barriers constructed in logic will not impede their pursuit of "justice".
Mike

Paul Kammueller said:

How bad will it get?

Well, if the political right on this forum are turning to Kremlin thinkers for their modern economic wisdom, I'd say it's gotten pretty bad, for one political party at least!

I think the article is bs but referencing a "Kremlin thinker" is a little better than electing one, don't you think?

Jim Moscheck said:

Not anymore. I can't waste my time reading the drivel being posted here. It's one thing to be the "loyal opposition" but I see nothing loyal or even patriotic with the relentless attacks by our favorite ex-mercenary/government soldier/Dittohead/GOP poster boy. I used to look forward to when he'd pop in and disrupt things and then go away. I miss those days.

Ok so you have a couple of folks that might fit your description of the "opposition". Were you equally repulsed over the 20 or so forum contributors over the last year or so that offered daily relentless drivel in the form of stupid, idiot, war-criminal, Nazi-Bush attacks; old geezer-senile-McCain attacks; McCain is spineless traitor because he “broke” under duress in a Viet Nam prison camp; Cindy McCain the "whore" attacks; racism accusations for not supporting Obama; sexist attacks on Palin; accusations of stupidity or racism for voting for Bush or McCain; denigration of soldiers (you know those "ex-mercenary/government soldier" types); Olbermann/Maddow Dittoheads; DailyKos poster boys, outlandish claims of Cheney personally authorizing the rape of Iraqi children (of course by those same "government soldiers"), etc. These are actual examples of things that were really said here on pretty much a daily basis; if I was motivated enough I could go back and find all the links to them. Jim B. can say some things over the top on occasion but for the most part I find it rather benign compared to the crap I've seen posted from those on the left in this forum. I rarely, if ever, see him personally attacking other posters in this forum. I too became disillusioned over the constant attacks and got sick of being called a racist, war-monger and stupid because I didn't agree with all of Obama's policies. I walked away from it for a while but like someone said it's like a car accident....hard to turn away at times. This forum doesn't drive my life, values, or philosophy...I look at it as entertainment.
Mike