President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Sava]

Ming, take a Sociology class please... there are a lot of fallacies about welfare. I'm sorry, but I've seen too many statistics in my Sociology classes saying they do work.

Perhaps I did forget... sorry

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Ming, take a Sociology class please... there are a lot of fallacies about welfare. I'm sorry, but I've seen too many statistics in my Sociology classes saying they do work.

Perhaps I did forget... sorry

Ah yes... you are taking "A" class... so that makes you an expert

I took Spanish in school... and that doesn't mean I'm an expert in it

Go out into the poor sections of a major city, and do your own personal survery and ask people if they think Welfare is working for them...

[Sava]

No, it simply means I'm more informed than the average person...

Go to the poor sections of a city? Sure, if I wanted a survey that simply reflected the results of a small portion of people that are chronically poor. My dad received disability when he had a stroke. That is welfare. He went through physical therapy and went back to work.

The fact is Ming, the vast majority of people that receive welfare aren't chronically poor. They are middle-class people who fall under tough times. But again, its easy to forget about those who receive welfare and get back on their feet; and focus on those who are chronically poor.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
No, it simply means I'm more informed than the average person...

The use of the rolleyes after your statement sums up what I think of your comment as well

The fact is Ming, the vast majority of people that receive welfare aren't chronically poor.

It depends on your definition of "welfare"... If you are talking about food stamp programs... then you are correct. But if you remove food stamp programs from the equation, your statement is incorrect

[DinoDoc]

You people must enjoy torturing the mentally deficient.

[Sava]

Welfare is any sort of money or compensation given to somebody for free. If you are talking about a certain welfare program, then specify it. Aren't you always saying that generalizing is bad, Ming?

DD:

[Ming]

But you are doing the same... you are trying to give the impression that the majority of people who get welfare checks are middle class... and that is just not even close to being the truth... As I said, it depends on your definition

[Sava]

But, the majority of people that receive welfare are middle class... (sigh)... I'll start a new thread and provide some info, mkay? Semantical arguments will get us nowhere.

[Ming]

I always love how when somebody disagrees with you it's a semantical argument... but when somebody uses that line on you, you just roll your eyes

No need for a new thread... but let me see the stats that show that the majority of people that get welfare checks are middle class. And again, I'm not talking food stamps... we are talking about welfare checks, not all money give aways by the government.

[Ned]

Sava, I see nothing inconsistent with providing a social safety net and also providing a free market economy. But in other posts, you also seem to argue against a free market economy by attacking corporations. In the end, what you want is pure socialism - state control of means of production and a welfare state.

The problem with such systems is that they are highly inefficient. They lead to rough equality, but a a very low economy level - poor but equal.

I think sometimes the people who like capitalism and the people who like socialism never communicate because their objectives are entirely different. The people who like socialism want equality of results. The people who like capitalism want freedom to succeed and need inequality of results. The two objective are dramatically opposed.

As I said before, I like the free market, but I do support a social safety net. This is the best system, IMHO.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ned

[Lars-E]

"I don't suppose a one data point with questionable motives (i.e. sour grapes that his business isn't bigger) is reason for condemnation of all businesses in the US. Naah your right Lars."

You thought I was thinking this was statistically significant, level let's say 5%? You must be joking!!

Just an example from a guy who has crisscrossed the USA and shaken thousands of hands. Again I am not saying this is statistically significant if you still don't get it.

What is more worrying is that you don't listen to the news. You have obvioulsy not heard of the corruption scandals in your country. Enron, AA, etc. Now this is worrying.

[GePap]

Well, lets see:

My Dubya scorecard:

Domestic Policy: ON geting what he wanted: A-, on how good it is for the nation: C-.

Bush got what he wanted most, the Tax cut, so he is happy. The congress got a few things it wanted out of the way, and it deserves as much as the president for anything done with education. Bush economic team is not very good (at the minimum, they are utter failures at good self-publicity) and he hasd done little in terms of economic policies aftre the tax cut.

War on terrorism:

War in Afghanistan: B-
Defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda with minimal US loss or cost (though this is hardly such an accomplishment) and has helped create a nucleaus government in Kabul with some hope. BUt failed to round up the top leadership of Al Qaeda as promised, and has refused to extend our help to this nucleaus government outside of Kabul.

Departemnt of Homeland Security:F
A departemn with Customs and the Coast Guard in it, but not the FBI or CIA? Every and any department that might have a very tenous, round-about connection to stopping terrorism but without enough political support to maintain its own sovereignty was rounded up an cobbled into this monstorsity. YOu guys talk about wasteful government spending? Lookie here.

War on Iraq: F
My statements on this policy are plentyful. I won't repeat them.

War on Al Qaeda: B
THe security establishment has been good at stopping new atatcks and tracking individuals.

Overall scorecard: For himself, the Republican party, and gettin re-elected in 2004, B+.
For everyone else: C-.


As for the ongoing Capitalism debate:

One thing is vital for Capitalism to work: information. An individual would have to know several things to then be able to make an intelligent and reasoned decision based on teh cost/benefit annalysis of an action. Unfortunitelly the average person does not have a way to get enough information to make a good reasoned guess, so that most time, people's choices are still based on hunches or whims, since they can hardly do better. Then there is the problem of interested parties making up, or giving out misleading information, which is why controlling and regulating the chanels of information is so vital to make the system work: if rampant lying occurs then the market fails.

Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors. Not everyone can be rich, period. That is impossible. Now, at the same time, Capitalism is great at creating wealth. But this creates the problem of relative comparisons. People do not judge their standing on an absolute plain: they judge how they are doing based on other in the system. This is not only true for cost of lfe issues (a working poor person in the US is FAR FAR better of that poor working people in the 3rd world) but also in how one defines success. Thus capitalism breeds unhappiness not because it fails to create wealth (this it does fantastically) but because as everyone rises, everyone devalues it, and wants more and more, to equal those that have won, even though they can't, for the systm won't allow it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Departemnt of Homeland Security:F
A departemn with Customs and the Coast Guard in it, but not the FBI or CIA? Every and any department that might have a very tenous, round-about connection to stopping terrorism but without enough political support to maintain its own sovereignty was rounded up an cobbled into this monstorsity. YOu guys talk about wasteful government spending? Lookie here.

The Department of Homeland Security IS going to have the FBI and CIA under it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors.

Well for right now... there are tons of people HAPPY to be doing those jobs. They are called illegal alliens. They are making far more money then they could at home in their poorer countries. However, this will be a problem when those countries start catching up with the US in terms of overall standard of living.

Also, many of the jobs, such as bus boys and fast food workers can be done by students and older people. Young people will get their chance after they finish college and join the real work force... Older people have already done their thing, and are looking to keep themselves busy, or supplement their fixed income.

And yes... some people will make that decision not to go to college... a bad choice, but theirs to make. They will also be doing these kind of jobs.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Lars-E
"I don't suppose a one data point with questionable motives (i.e. sour grapes that his business isn't bigger) is reason for condemnation of all businesses in the US. Naah your right Lars."

You thought I was thinking this was statistically significant, level let's say 5%? You must be joking!!

Just an example from a guy who has crisscrossed the USA and shaken thousands of hands. Again I am not saying this is statistically significant if you still don't get it.

What is more worrying is that you don't listen to the news. You have obvioulsy not heard of the corruption scandals in your country. Enron, AA, etc. Now this is worrying.

I question your close relatives objectivity/motives.

I question the validity of the assessment that a few corps who participated in grey accounting practices is an inditement of the entire corporate sector.

I question sensationalist politico aspects of the media coverage on the above cases.

In short, I prefer to reserve judgement on these things rather than jump to snap judgements, I would recommend you consider the same approach.

In my 20 years of industry experience, I can say without a doubt I have most certainly heard plenty of rumor and innuendo. I also realize it better to follow the sage words of advice "Better to say nothing than to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool." or words to that effect.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Department of Homeland Security IS going to have the FBI and CIA under it.

Since when is that part of the plan ?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Again with the attack against industry. Look at the consumer if you want meaningful pollution reduduction. OTOH, you want to drive industry away, thats your choice. Check out EPA stats and you'll see the contribution to pollution by sector. Fig 8-3 36% is industry of all flavors contriuting to greenhouse gasses. Fully 49% is contributed to by the public at large in the form of residential use and transportation. 15% remains as pollution caused via commercial enterprises.[/q]

This is the most misleading post I have ever seen simply because you offer the link to prove just how misleading it is. Transportation is put at 30% but this isn't specified as domestic or public transportation. Airlines, trucking and any number of other forms are included. Whats more environmentalists would push industries who manufacture these forms of transportation to research technologies so transportation greenhouse gases will be reduced. Residential use is put at 19% and again these emissions are from products created by industry. Strictly industrial emissions come in at a whopping 36% compared to those two. :LOL: This is the funniest post I've ever seen.

Target the evil corps at all costs Sava, b/c afterall they're the ones who actually provide any meaningful employment (and no not low paying jobs). Clinton was absolutely wrong in signing the Kyoto accord. He overstepped his bounds without Senate ratification. He willingly signed up for something he knew he could blame onthe next guy when the consequences came due.

The idea is you sign in the hopes your government will ratify, thats the way it works.

If it were Gore, we would have lived by the accord most likely and thank God we didn't have to. For the first time ever the Joe public would have been asked to bear the consequences of enviro regulation (of which Joe public is the largest polluters). But what I can guarantee is that the public outcry would have been "Why should I as a single entity have to do xyz to deal with pollution. Its the big industry thats to blame. Shut them down if need be." And guess what you shut down all industry and you still haven't made a dent.

So... now you've got a polluted planet and a bunch of out of work folk.

Target the right areas PLEASE and get off industry's case. Consumers continue to be the largest single cause of pollution. [/QUOTE]

At some point someone will have to bear the consequences, lets just put it off for another decade. There is no reason to believe that Gore, who is almost as pro-commerce as Bush Jr., would send the economy into ruin for the benefit of Kyoto. The price will be paid sooner or later though. The sooner the better.

[Lars-E]

"I question the validity of the assessment that a few corps who participated in grey accounting practices is an inditement of the entire corporate sector."

That's your assessment not mine.

"In short, I prefer to reserve judgement on these things rather than jump to snap judgements, I would recommend you consider the same approach. "

My assessment was that corruption was an issue in America. I see you disagree.

"I also realize it better to follow the sage words of advice "Better to say nothing than to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool." or words to that effect."

Like a thornbush in a drunkard's hand is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.

Was this meant for me? If so you failed miserably. Your quote is from the Bible. I see you quote what I have quoted a few times in this forum.

Here are more proverbs for you to meditate on:

The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception.

If you still think corruption is not an issue in America you are deceiving yourself.

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

A fool's lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.

It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe.

Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools.

A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him.

If you have played the fool and exalted yourself, or if you have planned evil, clap your hand over your mouth!

Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

And with those words I rest my case.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Gsmoove,

Did you happen to read the report? Did you happen to see how power was already apportioned to Industry and not so for residential users tho'? Did you happen to see that the residential greenhouse, industrial, and transportation are a direct result of consumer demand?

You are implying that all industry/government need do is dictate to the market you will do X and live with it.

The point is there are alternatives out there for greener industries. Take for example the deregulated power companies. There are alternatives for people who wish to source their power from green sources. Truth be told tho' most industry is not going to be a first mover on providing products and services at a higher cost in order to promote their greenness. If their was such a hue and cry for these things it would be a decided market advantage, no?

No we would rather demonize industry (an industry that has by the way already cut emissions by 49% from 88 to 94) and say its industry's fault. We would rather say this, legislate this, and export what remaining industry we have to foreign shores and import goods and services from areas with little to no regard to environment.

I got news for you unless the demand is curbed or consumers want to pay for greener goods and services all your doing is shifting pollution 'round the globe as I can guarantee we are on par if not cleaner wrt industry than the foreign competition.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

Done and done.

[gsmoove23]

Ogie, consumers are working in a framework where they can only use the products that are offered to them on the market. Policies which push research into 'green industries' and greener alternatives are part and parcel with Kyoto. As for outcry, there is outcry, Kyoto is the response and will it have a measurable effect on all, YES. Industries are not singled out but they are the providers of technologies and they are being pushed to research new technologies. There are also quite extensive education programs which teach the local actions individuals can take on a local scale, recycling, conserving energy, etc... I'm frequently demonized by my flatmates because I forget to turn off lights when I leave a room.

If industry is demonized it is because they have the lobbyists to protect their interests. They stifle green legislation, research on new technologies and so on. If they believe that Kyoto is bad they have the money to convince you it is or at least the current administration. Industries for the most part create their own demand with massive advertising campaigns or are you forgetting when rail lost to automobiles in this country, winning huge subsidies for the auto industries.

[gsmoove23]

Also, talking of welfare, it is industries that receive the lion's share of welfare in this country with massive subsidies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Ogie, consumers are working in a framework where they can only use the products that are offered to them on the market. Policies which push research into 'green industries' and greener alternatives are part and parcel with Kyoto. As for outcry, there is outcry, Kyoto is the response and will it have a measurable effect on all, YES. Industries are not singled out but they are the providers of technologies and they are being pushed to research new technologies. There are also quite extensive education programs which teach the local actions individuals can take on a local scale, recycling, conserving energy, etc... I'm frequently demonized by my flatmates because I forget to turn off lights when I leave a room.

See your the exactly the wasteful consumer I spoke of. LOL

Seriously, I agree with your sentiments wrt Industry, that they are the producers with technologies of their choosing. But don't forget all the costs that went into establishing those technology. Sunken R&D, capital costs, etc all could very well be thrown out the door in an instant causing the need for a replication of effort and potential disruption to business.

I for one would love to see the advent and elmination of petro dependence for fuels for enviro as well as geopolitical reasons. I also realize though that the market ultimately determines the value of products and services and if the value of green produced products and services is not deemed sufficient then alternative suppliers of these same services will be sought out. The Kyoto accord is to be signed on for the industrialized nations of the world. And while we marvel at the efficiency of the Japanese with respect to per capita/per unit production emissions, we sit in despair as we watch 3rd world nations debautch their own backyards. The emerging industrialized nations will ultimately be the playgrounds of the cheap nongreen products that the market will demand, a simple sifting of sand and to my mind one that works against the Kyoto accord as transport costs/emissions will be greater for import, production will be more wasteful IMHO than here in the US, spoilage and shrinkage are bound to be higher requiring greater amounts of production verses domestic produced, etc.

If industry is demonized it is because they have the lobbyists to protect their interests. They stifle green legislation, research on new technologies and so on. If they believe that Kyoto is bad they have the money to convince you it is or at least the current administration. Industries for the most part create their own demand with massive advertising campaigns or are you forgetting when rail lost to automobiles in this country, winning huge subsidies for the auto industries.

Lobbyists obviously work on both sides of the issue. The fact that greens in this country have been painted as fanatics ala Greenpeace is a failing of their particular lobbyist machinery, not because of the effectiveness of pro-industry lobbyists again IMHO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when is that part of the plan ?

Since the beginning. The FBI and CIA report directly to the Homeland Security Director.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/20/fac...and/index.html

While the new department would not become a domestic intelligence agency, it would analyze intelligence and "legally accessible information" from multiple sources such as the CIA; National Security Agency; FBI; Drug Enforcement Administration; Department of Energy; Customs Service, and Department of Transportation.

Having the power to analyze intelligence means it basically is the boss of the FBI and CIA.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors. Not everyone can be rich, period. That is impossible. Now, at the same time, Capitalism is great at creating wealth. But this creates the problem of relative comparisons. People do not judge their standing on an absolute plain: they judge how they are doing based on other in the system. This is not only true for cost of lfe issues (a working poor person in the US is FAR FAR better of that poor working people in the 3rd world) but also in how one defines success. Thus capitalism breeds unhappiness not because it fails to create wealth (this it does fantastically) but because as everyone rises, everyone devalues it, and wants more and more, to equal those that have won, even though they can't, for the systm won't allow it.

Now we have a pyschological objection to capitalism: It doesn't make people happy.

The problem with this statement is that it does generate the opportunity for recreation and diversion. Modern captitalist countries have more of this than any society since ancient Rome.

Also, just look at how people vote with their feet. They flee socialist countries as soon as they are able. The reverse simply does not happen.

So if there is a debate about which is "better" without defining what "better" means, the empirical evidence is nearly 100% in favor of capitalism simply because more people, given a choice, prefer it. But if one starts defining better to mean "equal results," then socialism is better.

[gsmoove23]

:LOL: People are just as quick to leave struggling capitalist systems, yet nobody is clamouring to leave the more socialist democracies of 1st world Europe.

Seriously, I don't understand the discussion. The US isn't a purely capitalist sytem, I don't think there are any, and there have been no purely socialist systems either that couldn't more adequately be described as dictatorships. US has prosperred with a good amount of socialist policies. Entirely free market systems are no better then anarchy. It seems more a question of degrees, how much socialism do you like, how much capitalism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People are just as quick to leave struggling capitalist systems, yet nobody is clamouring to leave the more socialist democracies of 1st world Europe.

Social Democracies are capitalist too. Their economies are based on the market.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

People are just as quick to leave struggling capitalist systems, yet nobody is clamouring to leave the more socialist democracies of 1st world Europe.

Social Democracies are capitalist too. Their economies are based on the market.

Their economies are not based upon strictly free markets and the idea of higher taxes for social services, welfare, etc... are fairly common. There is no way you can call these countries strictly capitalist.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Done and done.

Ditto