Labor Day speech and unemployment...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke I did not watch the Obama speech. I'm at the point where it seems political speeches (no matter who it is) just tell people what they want to hear, but rarely does anything come out of it. I wish we had more presidential choices too rather than the usual 2 or 3 people we always end up with. Blah.

More choices, I can totally agree with. Obama's speechiness has gone bland for me since, oh, about the 2004 speech. The only time I find him interesting these days is when he castigates Congress for behaving like children -- which they do do, I think we can all agree.

Ron Paul is more interesting in his speeches, and at least they've been consistent for over 20 years. Lamestream media keeps treating him as "lame" or "crazy," and that moniker pervades society, but I always find him inspiring, even when I disagree with him.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis He owned Ossama, but he saved us from nothing. To the extent he was involved, stimulus spending was like 33% of what it should have been (so much went to bailouts of companies that should have been allowed to fail under laissez faire economics), and over 50% of that was wasted. Google it up and see the number of critical infrastructure fixes this country needs -- there were plenty of FDR style shovel-ready jobs that actually needed doing, and only a fraction got money, got ideas, and got done. Those projects were the easiest way to get people employed -- the lowest hanging fruit. And, to boot they were a security issue. Why did they not get done? From levees to bridges to more mundane roads, our 2-generations-old infrastructure needs a huge overhaul, and it seems to me to be the most efficient and obvious way to boost jobs.

With that said, The Sherman Minton bridge was closed today, due to a crack in it's load bearing structure.

http://newsandtribune.com/x107845496...-bridge-closed

[Ladyzekke]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis More choices, I can totally agree with. Obama's speechiness has gone bland for me since, oh, about the 2004 speech. The only time I find him interesting these days is when he castigates Congress for behaving like children -- which they do do, I think we can all agree. Ron Paul is more interesting in his speeches, and at least they've been consistent for over 20 years. Lamestream media keeps treating him as "lame" or "crazy," and that moniker pervades society, but I always find him inspiring, even when I disagree with him.

Oh I agree. I voted for Obama and had high hopes for him at the time, despite the fact he seems a little inexperienced. But I thought new, younger, blood and thinking woud make a difference. I do feel he has good intentions, and good ideas, but unfortunately he does not have the power to make things happen without others agreeing. And no doubt, he started as president with a really bad economy, many out of jobs, which had nothing to do with him. And I am sure it is a tough row to hoe to fix things right now. Not sure if anyone can really. I am very ignorant re politics so rarely post in any political posts on any forum. But it seems to me the housing industry and corporations letting people overextend their credit buying stuff they could not afford, started it all. How can one fix it? No idea. Hence why I just am glad for my job and really hope somebody, somewhere, at some point, can figure it all out, if that is even possible. And I do agree that he has been bold and speaks plainly re Congress.

That is, again, why I wish we had more choices re presidents during election time. Millions of smart minds in America, who probably can fix things, but I suppose if they are unknown and do not have the money and backing, they never get there. A shame.

[Ladyzekke]

I also never decide who to vote for until the end, when they have the debates between the set-in candidates. Everything before that is just blabla to me and just slogans and hype, saying what people want to hear but never really explaining how exactly they are going to do it.

I miss Ross Pero (spelling probably wrong). He seemed to know what he was talking about, but unfortunately sounded a bit crazy and his possible VP fell asleep too much on live TV if I recall LOL. But he was very entertaining and made one want to watch politcal speeches and debates more than any other year (except for when Obama came along)

[Timber Loftis]

Check this out, Felix (and others) -- noting that it's a bit dated:
http://www.crowell.com/documents/fun...-briefings.pdf

Notably, after the recent NYC and LA (remember the "Carmageddon?") projects to fix some big thru-highway problems (also, byline credit to Boston's "Big Dig", but I still can't find I-95 going North out of the city), the most silliest and dangerous traffic blockage in the nation is the interstate interchange 4 blocks from my house. And, with 1 million more cars hitting the roadway in Chicago over the next 10 years, it only promises to get worse. Falling bridges are worse, but even our stupid Gummint realizes the roadway clogs are a significant dent on our economy -- which is much of the reason why open-road tolling has been invented and implemented (somewhat).

Don't get me wrong: open road tolling is tons better than what used to be, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. The doc I linked estimates about 1.5 T needed in infrastructure fixes, but I'd say the real number is closer to $2T. That's a lot of shovel-ready jobs begging to be done. It's employment, it's people with money to fuel economic recovery. In short, it's a start, and it's the kind of start that got us out of the Great Depression.

Say what you will about FDR and his fallacies, but Hoover before him failed to address recession appropriately, and it was much the same we see as now.

I'm with Warren Buffet in the basic notion we have to tax the rich more -- they've enjoyed 20+ years of incredibly low taxes, and trickle-down has not occurred. But, steadying the tax structure is not enough; we have to get government buying into the basic market externalities again -- such as roads, which any economic scholar knows is the textbook definition of a market externality.

If we can't get people in office who will get this stuff done, there's really not much hope. We have to spend on the basic shit, scrap the BS, lower taxes on the barely-existent middle class, raise them a bit on the rich, and get back to working like a business and not like Nepotism-opoly.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke I miss Ross Pero (spelling probably wrong). He seemed to know what he was talking about, but unfortunately sounded a bit crazy and his possible VP fell asleep too much on live TV if I recall LOL. But he was very entertaining and made one want to watch politcal speeches and debates more than any other year (except for when Obama came along)

Ross [Perot, for you spelling Nazis] had about half of it right. Calling the NAACP "you people" was his death knell. Ron Paul is Ross Perot without the stupidity and with slightly smaller ears. You should hear him out.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke Oh I agree. I voted for Obama and had high hopes for him at the time, despite the fact he seems a little inexperienced. But I thought new, younger, blood and thinking woud make a difference.

I felt all of this, which is why I voted for him -- not that my vote matters as I'm in a solidly blue state because we have a solidly blue city of millions that direct the will of a state that is actually mostly red in terms of land mass.

I do feel he has good intentions, and good ideas

I think he *had* those as a professor, but I don't see them as President.

but unfortunately he does not have the power to make things happen without others agreeing.

Don't give him a pass here. He could have forced Congress several times so far. Notably, were I in his shoes on the debt-ceiling issue, I would have dictated some parameters to Congress that were much more stringent than his, dared them to oppose me, and threatened to Veto anything that didn't comport. All he had to do was say, "If your bill doesn't remove the Bush tax cuts, I'll veto it," but he didn't.

And no doubt, he started as president with a really bad economy, many out of jobs, which had nothing to do with him.

That's true, but he had options aplenty, and he ignored them, going instead for "consensus" and "agreement," which in this Congress means Bohner hands you a buttplug and makes you his bitch.

But it seems to me the housing industry and corporations letting people overextend their credit buying stuff they could not afford, started it all. How can one fix it? No idea.

Brooksley Born, the fist female editor of the Stanford Law Review and the first female head of the CFTC had the fix figured out during Clinton's reign. It was simple: regulate the financial derivatives market (including and especially targeted toward the real estate CDO's) as if it were commodities futures, which in any intelligent person's review it is. Clinton nixxed it, based on the advice of Greenspan and others. She was a genius whose time was unheard. It would have prevented this shit. Instead, we got Wall Street deregulation -- and that got us where? We have rich WS executives and pensions in the shitter.

And I do agree that he has been bold and speaks plainly re Congress.

He has boldly said the obvious, and left unstated everything else. Congress needs to get butt-f'd. They need someone in a black leather mask to slap them around and make them behave.

That is, again, why I wish we had more choices re presidents during election time.

Oh, to dream. Register Repug like I did and champion Ron Paul, it's the most viable option I see for getting there.

But... and this is important... ■■■■ the teabaggers, they're not real conservatives, and they're not Ron Paul. They're establishment Repug shills.

SORRY TO FISK YOU LADY Z, but you had some interesting comments I wanted to chime in on.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Oh, to dream. Register Repug like I did and champion Ron Paul, it's the most viable option I see for getting there. But... and this is important... ■■■■ the teabaggers, they're not real conservatives, and they're not Ron Paul. They're establishment Repug shills.

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Check this out, Felix (and others) -- noting that it's a bit dated: http://www.crowell.com/documents/fun...-briefings.pdf Notably, after the recent NYC and LA (remember the "Carmageddon?") projects to fix some big thru-highway problems (also, byline credit to Boston's "Big Dig", but I still can't find I-95 going North out of the city), the most silliest and dangerous traffic blockage in the nation is the interstate interchange 4 blocks from my house. And, with 1 million more cars hitting the roadway in Chicago over the next 10 years, it only promises to get worse. Falling bridges are worse, but even our stupid Gummint realizes the roadway clogs are a significant dent on our economy -- which is much of the reason why open-road tolling has been invented and implemented (somewhat). Don't get me wrong: open road tolling is tons better than what used to be, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. The doc I linked estimates about 1.5 T needed in infrastructure fixes, but I'd say the real number is closer to $2T. That's a lot of shovel-ready jobs begging to be done. It's employment, it's people with money to fuel economic recovery. In short, it's a start, and it's the kind of start that got us out of the Great Depression. Say what you will about FDR and his fallacies, but Hoover before him failed to address recession appropriately, and it was much the same we see as now. I'm with Warren Buffet in the basic notion we have to tax the rich more -- they've enjoyed 20+ years of incredibly low taxes, and trickle-down has not occurred. But, steadying the tax structure is not enough; we have to get government buying into the basic market externalities again -- such as roads, which any economic scholar knows is the textbook definition of a market externality. If we can't get people in office who will get this stuff done, there's really not much hope. We have to spend on the basic shit, scrap the BS, lower taxes on the barely-existent middle class, raise them a bit on the rich, and get back to working like a business and not like Nepotism-opoly.

hrm...how fascinating. We are on exactly the same page here.

I have said before that if the government were going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars they might as well spend it on something that needs the attention like the infrastructure. I have also been a Ron Paul supporter for several years--he really is the best choice.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Azred hrm...how fascinating. We are on exactly the same page here. I have said before that if the government were going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars they might as well spend it on something that needs the attention like the infrastructure. I have also been a Ron Paul supporter for several years--he really is the best choice.

I don't know that Ron Paul is the best choice, but he definitely seems to be the better choice among the current group of Repubs.

BTW TL, I also agree on all points with your last few posts.

[Ladyzekke]

Timber, I do not mind you fisking me (although I am unfamiliar with that term, but I think I get it). I consider myself your ordinary citizen who does not keep up on politics that much, so am ignorant re a lot of the intracies and semantics involved. My posts were my honest thoughts, and probably the same thoughts for many people like me. I actually appreciate your replies and insight re the subject, as I again rarely add anything to political threads since I do not feel knowledgeable enough to add anything insightful, just my opinions on how see things on my end. I will definitely keep my ears open to any new candidates, although I tend to not decide until the end when they televise the final debates. Those I do watch because to me it kind of summarizes everyone's agenda in a nutshell.