(03-14-2009 07:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2009 07:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If everything is as bad as everyone says, then why the hell are we even playing college athletics? I don't mean just Rice, I mean all D1 schools.
I'm serious here. No one spent serious money on sports in the 30's.
Rice won't be the first school to pack it in as far as sports goes, but some school with limited resources will bite the bullet and just say we can't afford to lose 2 million on football this fall and 5 million for the year.
All the doom and gloomers here need to be realistic about this possibliity. D1 athletics in C-USA is on life support.

Good observations.

In particular, if the limits on charitable deductions go through, college athletics may be hardest hit of all. College athletics are probably more dependent on large contributions from wealthy donors (who will be hardest hit by the change) and less on large numbers of $5 and $10 donations than almost any other non-profit activity. Given how divorced from reality much of college athletics has become, this might not be a bad thing.

Obama's advisors have proposed lots of insanity-- from "confiscating" 401k's, to cutting the mortgage interest deduction, etc. And now this.

Charlie Rangel is Chairman of House Ways and Means. He is crazy enough to pass this through his Committee. I'll get worried when any of these proposals hit the floor of the House. Then Pelosi can railroad it through at 2 AM. But introducing it and voting for any of it is political suicide.

The Democrats are setting themselves up for a fall in 2010. Poof goes the Senate and 30 seats in the House.

I don't believe 30 would be enough to turn the house, and the senate seats up this time are such that it would be difficult to turn over enough to change control. But if we're where I think we'll be by then, there may be no such thing as a safe democrat seat.

But first the republicans need to get a message. And it needs to be about fiscal responsibility, not anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-war.

Shrub legitimized mushrooming government. Now the republicans have to battle against that legacy.

(03-15-2009 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't believe 30 would be enough to turn the house, and the senate seats up this time are such that it would be difficult to turn over enough to change control. But if we're where I think we'll be by then, there may be no such thing as a safe democrat seat.

But first the republicans need to get a message. And it needs to be about fiscal responsibility, not anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-war.

Shrub legitimized mushrooming government. Now the republicans have to battle against that legacy.

Hey, when Obama says stuff like this, you are right, there won't be a "safe Democrat seat" in Congress. Obama has "One Term and Done" written all over him. I think I see where this is headed... if you go through the Government system, your Health Care isn't taxed. If you go through Private Insurers, its taxed.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for an overhaul of the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Barack Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is strongly opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In millions of dollars worth of television advertisements last fall, Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The ads did not note that McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

Won’t oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6311649.html

(03-14-2009 03:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  But I saw you at the ballpark last Sunday and you weren't wearing green and yellow.

Actually I prefer the change kit--blue jersey and white shorts--to the more familiar green and yellow.

(03-10-2009 06:55 PM)texd Wrote:  Nor am I exactly an expert in economics.

Nor is anyone in the current administration apparently.

(03-14-2009 03:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I just don't think many Americans are going to turn their back on this country. We've been in a lot worse situations than this.

Then why do we need to spend 2 trillion dollars this time?

WW II cost the U.S. $288 billion dollars. In today's money, that's 5 trillion dollars. I would say that was still a much worse situation than what we're facing today (and money well spent btw).

(03-17-2009 05:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  WW II cost the U.S. $288 billion dollars. In today's money, that's 5 trillion dollars. I would say that was still a much worse situation than what we're facing today (and money well spent btw).

Then you're defending Bush's Iraq spending, not the stimulus. I'm talking economics. AIG is not threatening to invade, as far as I can tell.

Stick a fork in the USA.

We're done.

And we ain't coming back. I see absolutely no reason for optimism. If you can, I'd like to know about it. I could use some cheering up.

Well, I could start with the cheery observation that the world cannot afford the good ole US of A to go in the crapper about consumption. They'll continue to try to prop this thing up, instead of letting good ole creative destruction do its proper role, doubling down each time **it hits the fan.

That said, the Mayan end of days is less than 4 years away. If you were looking to head in that direction, you might want to get a little further away.

(03-30-2009 09:09 PM)gsloth Wrote:  the world cannot afford the good ole US of A to go in the crapper about consumption.

We're too big to fail.

(03-31-2009 01:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2009 09:09 PM)gsloth Wrote:  the world cannot afford the good ole US of A to go in the crapper about consumption.

We're too big to fail.

Yup, although I'm not sure that's a good thing in the end. Not that failing wouldn't be painful for us.

I'm wondering when the social unrest starts to pick up. And I say that with a sad heart, but it's the normal course.

(03-31-2009 05:32 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(03-31-2009 01:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2009 09:09 PM)gsloth Wrote:  the world cannot afford the good ole US of A to go in the crapper about consumption.

We're too big to fail.

Yup, although I'm not sure that's a good thing in the end. Not that failing wouldn't be painful for us.

I'm wondering when the social unrest starts to pick up. And I say that with a sad heart, but it's the normal course.

It won't be like "Soylent Green" but there well may be a "social dislocation"

How many of you know firearms use/safety? It might be time to learn.

(03-30-2009 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Stick a fork in the USA.
We're done.
And we ain't coming back. I see absolutely no reason for optimism. If you can, I'd like to know about it. I could use some cheering up.

Someone actually gave me an optimistic scenario today. It's one I've thought about a bit, and may have even mentioned it before on here.

12-14 months from now, it starts to become obvious that this isn't working. Obama is more concerned about his legacy than sticking to his socialist principles, so he backs off and lets things move back to the center. I don't know how he gets Pelosi, and especially Reid, onboard, but maybe he doesn't have to.

Don't know, but it is at least a possibility. And that's the most likely path to a non-catastrophic outcome that I've seen.

(04-03-2009 10:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2009 07:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Stick a fork in the USA.
We're done.
And we ain't coming back. I see absolutely no reason for optimism. If you can, I'd like to know about it. I could use some cheering up.

Someone actually gave me an optimistic scenario today. It's one I've thought about a bit, and may have even mentioned it before on here.

12-14 months from now, it starts to become obvious that this isn't working. Obama is more concerned about his legacy than sticking to his socialist principles, so he backs off and lets things move back to the center. I don't know how he gets Pelosi, and especially Reid, onboard, but maybe he doesn't have to.

Don't know, but it is at least a possibility. And that's the most likely path to a non-catastrophic outcome that I've seen.

After the G^*damn insane Budget vote today, I see the Democrats pouring on with the "cap and trade" garbage and additonal energy taxes.. and in 12-14 months (in the middle of an election cycle) its too late for the Democrats to run from their previous votes.

I'll give you a hint as to Republican strategy in 2010: "Its the Economy Stupid'.. and all the "cultural conservatives" are exiled to the nearest basement..(hopefully mine--because I'd never let them out)

Ok - just curious. Where are all the Obama supporters? There was no trouble finding them in September.

(04-04-2009 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ok - just curious. Where are all the Obama supporters? There was no trouble finding them in September.

There are some out there. And according to this poll 27% of the "Republicans" approve of his performance. This poll must be loaded with "Republican" respondents from New England.. or a bunch of liars. 27% sounds insane.


"Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era"

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polariz...l-historic

I was really referring to the ones who used to support him here on the Quad. During the campaign they vigorously supported him, his plans, his programs, and joyfully explained away every problem. Now there are concrete actions to explain, choices and statements both made and not made, problems ignored, promises kept and promises broken, and the Obamans are nowhere to be found, whether to attack or defend, or even just to comment.

I think there are more than a few of them (now speaking of the entire Obama electorate) who are now saying "This is NOT what i thought I was getting when i voted for him. I thought he meant _________ by change, not this." There is some dismay and disillusionment. His numbers are still high, but dropping. Pretty much what i expected, just not this much, this quickly. I know several people who liked him better last week than this week. Next week? Who knows?

So far I would say that he has been exactly what I expected. I cannot think of anything that he has done that has surprised me. That is why I could not and did not vote for him.

He will probably get an uptick in his favorability rating following the fawning news coverage of his trip. But the troubling thing to his followers has to be that his negatives seem to continue to be rising. If that trend is not blunted, eventually it will have to start eating away at his positives.

I wish he would surprise me, but so far he has not.

(04-07-2009 12:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was really referring to the ones who used to support him here on the Quad. During the campaign they vigorously supported him, his plans, his programs, and joyfully explained away every problem. Now there are concrete actions to explain, choices and statements both made and not made, problems ignored, promises kept and promises broken, and the Obamans are nowhere to be found, whether to attack or defend, or even just to comment.

As I pointed out in the post that started this thread, there are some Obama supporters to whom policy success is irrelevant:

Quote:I realize that for some proponents, actual success doesn't matter -- or more accurately, success is DEFINED as the mere fact of confiscating, allocating, and regulating, so that the "success" of such a policy is automatic. Such a policy is also brilliantly unfalsifiable -- it can never fail, and if it is ever accused of not accomplishing more meaningful results, the inevitable rejoinder is that more of the same is needed, because obviously there wasn't enough the first time.

That might explain some of his continued support. Or perhaps people are supporting him because of his foreign policy; after all, if anyone can promise peace in our time, certainly he can. A previous politician who did so was slim, well-dressed, popular with the elites, fawned over by the media, and smart enough to realize (unlike his boorish opponents) that threats to peace were really of our own making. As I recall, everything worked out great.