Obama's Undoing

[Pete_H]

Joseph has opinions, I'm not sure about the tirades though.

[ivan]

Yup. Joseph's utilization of reason and logic pretty much confirms he isn't a right-wing religious ideolouge such as yourself.

 

yeah, just like on his tirades on climbing style

 

the dude is a kook

the tirades are at least well reasoned (and easy to breeze over if you don't feel like taking in a unabomber amount of material)

 

wtf would you know about rock clambering anyhow kk?

[prole]

 

Obama needs to start spending some more damn money. This piece is brought to you by the same guy that was raising the alarm about casino capitalism and the impending financial meltdown for ten years (to no avail):

 

In the Shadow of Hoover

By William Greider

November 23, 2009

 

Deficit-spending is a cure for our troubles, not the cause. If Obama reduces the red ink, the Great Recession could be born again.

 

While he was in China, Barack Obama made a bizarre declaration that the US government must reduce its budget deficits in order to avoid "a double-dip recession." The remark was alarming because it suggests the president may not fully understand the country's economic predicament. Deficit-spending is a cure for our troubles, not the cause. If Obama follows through and actually reduces the red ink, the Great Recession could be born- again with new fury.

 

In an interview with Fox News, the president said : "It is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the deficit, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point people could lose confidence in the US economy in a double-dip recession." Maybe he didn't mean it. Or was merely nodding to Chinese leaders, our leading creditor, who had scolded him for profligate spending.

 

Still, his backward logic gave me a chill. If Obama acts on it, he will be walking in the footsteps of Herbert Hoover, not Franklin Roosevelt, and I fear his presidency could be doomed as a result. I know that sounds too strong and brutally unfair, given the president's energetic vision for the country and his early efforts to stimulate economic recovery. But history is often unfair to leaders who do not get their priorities straight and fail to deliver what they promise.

 

Hoover was the Republican president from 1929 to 1933 and faced a far more dramatic unwinding of the economy after the 1929 stock-market crash. In popular memory, he was blamed, somewhat unfairly, for causing the Great Depression. People came to loathe him personally for the repeated pep talks--"Prosperity is just around the corner"--and Democrats ran against "Hoover" for many years after.

 

Barack Obama is a towering political talent by comparison, but also has troubling similarities. In an age of limited government, Hoover preached "volunteerism" and worked earnestly to persuade business to cooperate with labor and "do the right thing." Obama's softball approach to the financial crisis reveals a similar reluctance to use government's powers to compel results. Instead of directing bailed-out banks to lend more aggressively, Obama asked them nicely. The bankers blew him off. His economic stimulus was a good start, yet clearly insufficient.

 

If Herbert Hoover was guilty of anything, it was ambivalence and confusion of purpose. Hoover was a very intelligent technocrat who sincerely tried various sound measures to relieve the general suffering. But Hoover never found the will to follow through decisively. He was pulled in an opposite direction by failed market orthodoxy that was still influential. To his subsequent regret, Hoover heeded the steely advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." In other words, let nature takes its course. Clear away the wreckage and capitalism will heal itself.

 

In the era of big government, Obama is a far more activist president, but he has followed a less brutal version of the same conservative thinking. Pour billions first into restoring the financial system, then it can revive the real economy. That approach was backwards, as nervous members of Congress are beginning to grasp.

 

Like Hoover, Obama is pulled between opposing imperatives. Deficit hawks demand he get control over the budget deficits to restore confidence among investors (those Chinese creditors who buy our Treasury bonds). Bleeding-heart politicians, on the other hand, want him to focus on rescuing the folks (who need jobs, foreclosure relief and can renew consumer demand for businesses). Obama would like to do both, but hesitates to choose decisively.

 

Blaming this on his center-right advisors--Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel--is too easy. Obama picked them. He obviously agrees with their reluctance to go full bore in behalf of the real economy. Geither and Summers, meanwhile, are taking victory laps for saving the country. Ordinary citizens wonder what they are talking about. Obama should tell them to shut up with their self-congratulations (better still, he should replace them with more imaginative policy thinkers).

 

Piling up more government debt is undesirable and involves risk, but it is not as bad as a low-grade depression that would go on for many years without relief. In this crisis, the US is astride a fundamental disjuncture that only the federal government can repair by borrowing tons of money and spending it--force-feeding recovery, then cleaning up the balance sheet afterward.

 

The awkward truth about capitalism is the machine does not function unless someone is borrowing money and spending it. The genius of the capitalist system is that it recycles surplus wealth--savings and profits from past economic activity--by lending the wealth for new production and consumption. When nobody in the private economy can borrow and nobody will lend--neither households nor business and finance--government has to step up to the task. In a crisis like this, if the federal government declines to get things moving again by borrowing and spending, as heavily as necessary, then the economy will stumble along far below its potential (that is, higher unemployment, weaker production, more failures). If Obama decides to curtail the deficits now, he is disarming unilaterally.

 

In history, even FDR wanted to have it both ways, but New Dealers learned from painful error they could not serve both masters. In 1936, they decided the recovery was complete so they reduced federal spending and raised interest rates. The depression was resumed with new viciousness. Obama and advisers now seem to think they are out of the ditch and can safely tilt toward fiscal responsibility.

 

The truth is, nobody knows what comes next. Just as plausibly, the trouble is not over but may even get worse. Instead of cresting, unemployment could rise further for another year or more, spreading the suffering and loss more widely. If the "recovery" proves to be an illusion, then another stock-market break might follow. Uncertainty is still in the saddle.

 

Liberal-labor forces, in and out of Congress, are mounting a counter-attack on Obama's timidity and demanding major new spending for direct job creation. The president has agreed to a "jobs summit" to consider the problem.

 

This is an opening for Obama to announce a major "course correction." If he states the gravity of the situation honestly, people will not be angered by his truth-telling. They already see things are worse than officials acknowledge. If Obama opts instead for half-way measures--too little too late--then he will fall squarely under Hoover's shadow.

 

Herbert Hoover tried to emphasize the positive as the economy continued to unwind. He expressed his deep faith in the country's future and offered helpful suggestions for coping. Americans were at first reassured, then gradually they became angered as they saw the president's optimism contradicted by events. In the end, Hoover's good intentions frightened people. Hearing from the president, again and again, that things were getting better, when they knew otherwise, told them he was indifferent to their plight or, more frightening, he had lost touch with reality.

[Fairweather]

Not at all. The conversation here was gods, not LSD. That again and again that's the only comeback you seem capable of mustering just points out how weak your arguments are in general. You seem to have some fundamental problem with people having taken hallucigens or climbing on them, but again, without even the slightest notion of what you're talking about. When you've done some 5.13 climbing with (or even without ) it I'd be more inclined to consider your opinions as anything but fearful hobgoblin fluff.

 

KK YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THIS BOARD UNLESS YOU ARE A DRUG ADDLED ATHEIST WHO CAN CLIMB AT LEAST 5.13. CAN YOU CLIMB 5.13* LIKE JOSEPH? WELL?

 

(*Waivers may be granted for like-minded tools who believe firmly in the omnipotent power of government and are willing to supplant genuine charity work with in-kind contributions to the WCC.)

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

and your style of debate on several topics, including the Almighty only reinforce my suspicions.

 

 

Yup. Joseph's utilization of reason and logic pretty much confirms he isn't a right-wing religious ideolouge such as yourself.

 

Reason, logic, the intellect to communicate them, and experience, KKK. Worthy targets for your aspirations.

Edited November 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Reason, logic, the intellect to communicate them,

 

Funny, all I see from JH are the jaded, malinformed, biased rantings of a defective, drug-damaged brain. But, hey, to each his own.

 

[prole]

Reason, logic, the intellect to communicate them,

 

Funny, all I see from JH are the jaded, malinformed, biased rantings of a defective, drug-damaged brain. But, hey, to each his own.

 

Did thesaurus.com just crash?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Did thesaurus.com just crash?

 

Hey Prole. Been getting out?

[JosephH]

Not at all. The conversation here was gods, not LSD. That again and again that's the only comeback you seem capable of mustering just points out how weak your arguments are in general. You seem to have some fundamental problem with people having taken hallucigens or climbing on them, but again, without even the slightest notion of what you're talking about. When you've done some 5.13 climbing with (or even without ) it I'd be more inclined to consider your opinions as anything but fearful hobgoblin fluff.

 

KK YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THIS BOARD UNLESS YOU ARE A DRUG ADDLED ATHEIST WHO CAN CLIMB AT LEAST 5.13. CAN YOU CLIMB 5.13* LIKE JOSEPH? WELL?

 

(*Waivers may be granted for like-minded tools who believe firmly in the omnipotent power of government and are willing to to supplant genuine charity work with contributions to the WCC.)

More tragically flawed logic and poor reading comprehension. What I said is KKK is clearly not qualified to comment* about LSD or LSD and climbing. Again, under normal circumstances I would otherwise say that, like skydiving, everyone should try it once. But in KKKs case, I don't suspect either would be a wise idea. Amazing how sad the logic of the unaddled can be at times. And equally amazing that Ayn Rand, the darling of the rational right (admittedly a small and somewhat oxymoronic minority, given their spending habits), was an atheist. Could it be that she was into true independence and that wholly ruled out gods?

 

 

[Fairweather]

You're barking up the wrong tree, "professor".

[Stonehead]

I wasn't trying to bring politics into this, I was speaking purely of religious matters; clearly the two are inseparable for you. Was this paragraph copied from a conservative talk radio host's best selling manifesto?

 

Seagal, I really love it when you use those big foreign sounding words like 'manifesto'. It definitely compliments your loaded vocabulary. You got 'assault rifle' and 'compound' in there, too?

 

So are you a moron? You might get your talking points straight from Huffington Post or Daily Kos or whatever lameass blog you consume all day but I work for a living. And injectin' politics? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?

 

When you can't keep continuously projecting that arrogant latte-sippin' urban new age hipster vibe, you dim switch over to that liberal victim mode: "Eeehhhuuu...if the government doesn't protect me, I might get hurt."

 

Here, I'm dedicating this one to you, Sparky. Now, where is hell is Chuck Norris?

 

[video:youtube]5k5y3fBH9Og

[tvashtarkatena]

Manifesto destiny.

[StevenSeagal]

Wow Blockhead, sounds like I hit a nerve there. Up to now you've been pretty rational. The job you're so proud of must have been tough today; I'm sure I'd be grouchy once in awhile if I had to suck cock in the park for wine.

 

How's that for loaded vocabulary?

 

Your post proves my point...it's all politics.

 

Cool. We're back to spray.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Woah, Big Words.

[tvashtarkatena]

A reasonable voice.

[tvashtarkatena]

Fascist. Foreign, methinks.

[Stonehead]

Nope not grouchy. That job in the park sounds like your trick. So you want to bring alternate lifestyles into this too?

[StevenSeagal]

So you want to bring alternate lifestyles into this too?

 

 

Why? Did your mom get a better offer?

[ivan]

hell could very well be a desert island where all you had to read was a print-out of this shitty little thread and even that was too rough to wipe your ass w/

[prole]

The job you're so proud of must have been tough today; I'm sure I'd be grouchy once in awhile if I had to suck cock in the park for wine.

 

[Stonehead]

Liberals and conservatives aren't born. They're created. Those ideologies are social constructs augmented by developmental influences. Both sides have some factual basis but at the heart of their ideologies is social conditioning.

 

"Nothing is true". Is that what you're saying?

[ivan]

Prole. Steven. Why don't you two get a room already so you both cact out Steven's secret fantasy?

'cuz then you couldn't be part of ours you silly little man

[Stonehead]

I feel all dirty now. baa

[tvashtarkatena]

See Scottp for a douching.

[j_b]

“The underlying assumption that religion and morality are interrelated is simply untenable. For example, Freud suggested that religion served to undermine moral responsibility while promoting fanaticism. He contended that people who behave morally only out of fear of supernatural penalty would be unlikely to respect and care for others from an altruistic perspective. This argument receives support from the theory of moral reasoning developed by the late Lawrence Kohlberg.”

 

“By moral reasoning, Kohlberg (1981) meant the process behind the conceptualisation of the rights and obligations that define an individual's relation to others and to society as a whole. He recognized that moral growth, like cognitive growth, is developmental in nature. Maturation proceeds from a desire to enhance one's self by any means as long as one escapes penalties (stage 1), to a willingness to do for others if there is a clear reciprocation (stage 2), to a need to conform to peer expectations (stage 3), to a need to follow the law uncritically (stage 4), and finally to concern for the rights and humanity of every person that is not bounded by conditions (stages 5 and 6). At the highest "post conventional level," (5&6) moral judgments must be justified on rational-moral grounds rather than by appeal to the order of nature or to religious authority or revelation. Healthy people normally move from one stage to the next, progressing as each stage is understood. In studies involving various cultures, researchers have found that individuals work through these stages between early childhood and young adulthood, although they estimate that only about 20 percent of the population reaches the post conventional levels of stage 5 or 6. What does this research say about the role that religion plays in moral growth? Clouse (1985) summarizes, ‘It would appear from the literature that adults who accept the basic doctrines of the Christian faith are less apt to reason at Kohlberg's highest stages than those who do not accept the Christian faith’ (1992).”

 

“While Kohlberg never explicitly examined whether religion could arrest moral development, a study he conducted in Turkey found individuals in a strict Muslim community demonstrated no ‘post conventional’ thinking. Clouse's assessment of the relationship between Christianity and moral growth finds confirmation in the circumstances surrounding the quick religious conversions and renewals of prisoners that result from moral reasoning on Kohlberg's lowest levels. The prime motivation is to assure pleasant circumstances in an afterlife, an incentive that has nothing to do with examining one's relationship to others. Accepting ‘Jesus Christ’ as your ‘Lord and Saviour’ under these conditions is an example of a stage 2 ‘deal with God’. Most religious texts are concerned with defining human-to-God relationships. Four of the Ten Commandments dictate rules of behaviour toward [YHWH], not other humans.”

 

how-religion-impedes-moral-development