The lady joins good company

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have read that the actuarial odds of McCain dying in the next four years are between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7. As one columnist put it, that's approximately the probability of your birthday falling on a Wednesday.

Hi Nill,

In fact my birthday (March 25th) will fall on an Wednesday in 2009!
Now I'm worried even more ...

Bart

 

[Nill Toulme]

"Barack Obama & Friends Caused U.S. Economic Crisis"

Yeah if Hannity says it, it's sure to be true. I can't wait to find out how Obama is to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq too. Probably his fault we haven't caught bin Laden yet also. What else can we blame on him? Was the memo warning about 9/11 stuck on his desk? Bound to have been.

What a tricky guy, to wreak all that havoc behind the scenes while the Republicans held the White House for the last eight years, and the Congress for most of it. You have to give him credit... that's impressive.

And here I thought all this was Clinton's fault. What a relief to find out Obama was behind it all the time.

Sigh.

Nill

 

[Nill Toulme]

For a more nuanced analysis of the recent history of the mortgage meltdown, see this article. (I say recent because it only goes back to 2004, not 2000 when Sen. Phil Gramm — one of McCain's chief economic advisors and until a few months ago his campaign manager — blocked efforts to regulate the new mortgage-backed securities markets similar to the regulation of the stock and bond markets that has been in place since the Depression.)

Nill

 

[Jack_Flesher]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW hit a record high of 14,000 +
5) Many American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacationing (spending money and boosting economies) in foreign countries.

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democrat Senate with already a Democrat-led Congress and yes, we got 'CHANGE'. Since THAT change, we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) Gasoline rise to over $4 a gallon;
3) Unemployment up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) And home equity drop by $12 TRILLION Dollars;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, the DOW is probing another low for ~~$2.5 TRILLION Dollars of lost wealth.

So in 2006 America voted for change and we got it -- but we got it from the Democrat led congress, not the Republican President. The President has no impact on any of the above, but your Congress does; it is the function of congress to make and enforce laws AND to regulate business and protect the public from corporate greed, not the President's...

So just how much more of the type of "CHANGE" we've had over the past two years can you take? You'll surely get more of it if the Dems are in charge of everything...

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Hi Jack,

apart from political views, where we would differ I guess <grin>, just on the economics front....

Budget deficit

2007 = USD 162 bn
2008 = USD 367 bn

Are we witnessing the end of the american dream? From where I am standing, it looks the part!

The average median household income in the US in 2007 was $50,233. Those in the top 10% earned $136,000 or more, while the bottom 10% had a median income of $12,200. The national poverty line for a family of 2 adults and 2 children was $21, 027, and 37.3m people lived in poverty on that definition.

45.7 million are not covered by health insurance. Then there is the problem of income concentration in the US, which causes further inequality and problems on the social front in the near future. EPI calculates that 90% of the growth in the economy between 1989 and 2006 went to the top 10%.

Now the "Palin Targets", Joe Six Pack and Hockey Moms are asked to pay the price?

....How much more?....

Prices of key items, such as energy and food, are rising much more quickly than average inflation, and more to the point, much faster than their earnings. These weaknesses are also leading to the net loss of jobs, and payrolls are down by over 400,000 so far this year

http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/20080723-bernstein-jec-testimony-squeeze.pdf

 

[Nill Toulme]

Bill Clinton left us with a balanced budget.

Jack, you can't have it both ways. Everything that went wrong early in the Bush years was blamed on Clinton (e.g., notably, 9/11). Saying that eight or more years of Republican financial excess and market-be-all deregulation gave us nirvana which was spoiled by a mere year and half of a Democratic-weighted (but hardly controlled, witness recent events) Congress, with a veto-prone President in the White House, is simply absurd.

Nill

 

[Jack_Flesher]

Well if you want a break from politics, here's a movie to check out. For whatever reason I had missed this one when it was in the theaters: a Coen brothers film starring Billy Bob Thornton titled "The Man Who Wasn't There."

Lots of good actors and while the story line is decent, it isn't what I'd call outstanding; I liked it, but suspect not everybody will. IMO the real benefit of this film is spectacular cinematography and lighting. Shot entirely in B&W and done 'film noir' style, the cinematography is phenomenal; essentially being a coherent collection of beautifully framed and composed stills, along with exquisite lighting for each set. I cannot imagine any "street photographer" not appreciating it for those qualities alone.

imdb overview: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243133/

Hope y'all like it ,

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Shirley Temple

I think that the movie of the day will be some old classic Shirley Temple. Maybe the Good Ship Lollipop or Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. Those were made during the depression and gave people a nice daydream and even some hope. Either that or I am going to go read one of my most cherished possessions - "The Glad Book - Pollyanna" signed by my mother as a gift for my 10th birthday.

 

[Colleen Vermillion]

I guess you must be one of those people, in that small percentage, that thinks that Bush is doing a fine job, that there really were weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry, I thought we were going to have an intellectual discussion of the issues so I shared my honest answer to the serious question Nill asked. I wasted more time than I should have trying to be specific in the interest of trying to lift the tone and all I get in response is "I can't believe there are morons out there that aren't going to vote for Obama". It feels exactly like the rhetoric the fringe religious evangelicals use to condemn the non-believers. There's no substance to it.

I didn't say I supported Palin, I said the only reason she's interesting is because she is potentially in line for a Presidential nomination. You don't think it would be interesting to have a woman on the presidential ticket in the top spot, especially after she was VP for four years so you could see how she operates in the executive branch? In fact I went out of my way to say that McCain (and by implication Palin) has no effect on my opinion of Obama. You've just summed up what's wrong with the current state of the union (in my opinion) in one remark. You don't want to understand my perspective, you just want to accuse me of being one of "Them". Frankly I'm having a hard time seeing you as someone who has a reasoned opinion when you're so quick to try to shove me in the "Bush/war/republican supporter" cubbyhole.

Well at least now I know my original decision to not talk politics for the rest of the year was the correct one. The hatefulness and bigotry is just sucking the life out of me. How can we hope for peace in the world when we as some of the wealthiest, safest, and most free people in the world can't even talk to each other without getting so vile? This dichotomy is an illusion - people can't be classified as just "this or that". It's depressing that people don't realize how much limiting a political choice to republican or democrat hurts this country. Y'all want real change? Vote for the independents, or the libertarians or the green party, or form your own party. Make your representative work for your support. The only reason elections are too close to call is because there are only two choices. You should demand better from your government. How many choices do you have in news sources? How many choices for lunch? How many choices in vehicle? How many choices in cameras? Why should you only have two for President?

-Colleen

 

[Nill Toulme]

...I shared my honest answer to the serious question Nill asked. I wasted more time than I should have trying to be specific in the interest of trying to lift the tone and all I get in response is "I can't believe there are morons out there that aren't going to vote for Obama". ...

Now Colleen, that's not all you got. You also got my reply (#16) in which I said (with regard to a certain point), "you're absolutely right." ;-)

I do think the issue of how to vote with respect to third party candidates is an interesting and important one.

...Well at least now I know my original decision to not talk politics for the rest of the year was the correct one. The hatefulness and bigotry is just sucking the life out of me. How can we hope for peace in the world when we as some of the wealthiest, safest, and most free people in the world can't even talk to each other without getting so vile?

I share your pain on that score, notwithstanding no doubt my being as bad an offender as anyone. But if the reasonable, loving and unprejudiced abandon the field, that leaves only the hateful and bigoted to discuss these things — and these things do assuredly warrant discussion.

Nill

 

[Colleen Vermillion]

Now Colleen, that's not all you got. You also got my reply (#16) in which I said (with regard to a certain point), "you're absolutely right." ;-)

Mea culpa - "all", "never", and "always" are such dangerous words.

-Colleen

 

[Nill Toulme]

No worries. And I just added a paragraph to that last response, which you might have missed given that you've already replied to it.

Nill

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Sorry, I thought we were going to have an intellectual discussion of the issues so I shared my honest answer to the serious question Nill asked. I wasted more time than I should have trying to be specific in the interest of trying to lift the tone and all I get in response is "I can't believe there are morons out there that aren't going to vote for Obama". It feels exactly like the rhetoric the fringe religious evangelicals use to condemn the non-believers. There's no substance to it.

Hi Colleen,

The Germans (and from a historical (WWII) point of view you'd have to factor in some reserve coming from a Dutch guy) have a great saying: "Was sich liebt, das neckt sich". It veeery loosely translates into, "Those who love/care, will care enough to argue (about it)". The translation is not perfect (how could it be?), translation is interpretation.

Bart

 

[Colleen Vermillion]

The Germans (and from a historical (WWII) point of view you'd have to factor in some reserve coming from a Dutch guy) have a great saying: "Was sich liebt, das neckt sich". It veeery loosely translates into, "Those who love/care, will care enough to argue (about it)". The translation is not perfect (how could it be?), translation is interpretation.

That is true enough, but around here we've got a saying "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig". I've reached the point where I've made up my mind and no matter how much effort you put into it, you're not going to teach me to "sing" I don't believe a word either campaign is saying, so I don't know what discussing it will accomplish other than raising my blood pressure. Seriously, they've been campaigning for 2 years - is there anyone that's given half a thought to it that doesn't know where they stand on the issues? The office of the President doesn't have the power to deliver 90% of what they're promising they'll do and nobody seems to care.

I find settling for one bad choice over another to be an act of despair, but the only aspect of this election people want to talk about is are you for the democrats or for the republicans. If I say "not Obama" then I get jumped on for being a war mongering Bush supporter. If I say, no not McCain, I get jumped on for being a nanny state socialist (and I mean in general, not here in this thread). I don't find the argument very useful or stimulating.

Before I was just voting against incumbents, now I won't even consider voting for another republican or democrat until this nonsense stops.

-Colleen

 

[Nill Toulme]

...around here we've got a saying "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".

I love it. But as someone said recently, perhaps here, "Don't anthropomorphize animals. They hate it when you do that." ;-)

...is there anyone that's given half a thought to it that doesn't know where they stand on the issues?

Well, apparently there's still the 7-to-10% of "undecideds" in the middle, who are the ones who are actually going to determine the outcome.

It's going to get uglier, as the McCain campaign announced over the weekend that they are going to go heavily negative, and the Obama campaign announced that they are prepared to retaliate. Sigh.

One campaign operative was quoted this morning as saying, "The last week of a campaign is always like a knife fight in a telephone booth." :-(

Nill

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

I have read that the actuarial odds of McCain dying in the next four years are between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7. As one columnist put it, that's approximately the probability of your birthday falling on a Wednesday.

Nill

BS his mother is 96 good genes