Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (571048)	6/12/2010 3:55:44 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578930

THE IDEOLOGICAL HITCH TO THE GOP'S SPILL CRITICISM.... President Obama chatted with Politico's Roger Simon yesterday, and the original headline on the piece was pretty misleading: "Obama to Politico: Congress shares the blame for BP." The revised headline was a little more specific, but still missed the point: "Obama to Politico: GOP shares the blame for spill." I haven't seen the entire transcript, but based on what the magazine published, that doesn't appear to be the point the president made in the interview. In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: "I think it's fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending." The president also implied that anti-big government types such as Tea Party activists were being hypocritical on the issue. "Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying 'do something' are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much," Obama said. "Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms." This doesn't sound like a president trying to extend blame, so much as it's Obama taking note of the fatal flaw in Republicans' attacks. And can anyone seriously disagree with his analysis? Imagine if, before the April 20 explosion, the White House had announced its desire to expand government regulation of the oil industry, impose new safety and emergency mandates, and spend taxpayer money on equipment and technology. Is there any doubt what we'd hear from Republicans, their lobbyist allies, and the media that's been trained to be on the lookout for "big government"? It often goes unsaid -- which is why I'm glad Obama said it -- but this simple truth is the problem that underscores the right's criticism of the administration's response. Conservatives are dissatisfied with the president's actions to date, but what they tend to downplay is that they'd be even more dissatisfied with the kind of steps that would have prevented the disaster in the first place. It's why GOP arguments have taken on a child-like quality: the disaster happened, Obama's president, therefore blame the disaster on Obama. The Politico headline notwithstanding, this isn't about the president assigning blame; it's about drawing attention to the fact that government regulation and spending can prevent catastrophes like these -- and the critics on the right can't have it both ways.

To: TimF who wrote (571048)	6/12/2010 4:00:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578930

No one in the world spends nearly as much as on the military than the king of capitalism, the US. No one in the world has an economy nearly as big as ours. Quite a few countries devote a larger percentage of their resources to the military than the US does. North Korea being the most obvious example, spending 5 to 10 times as much. When there was a USSR they spent at various times, somewhere in the neighborhood of half again to eight times as large of portion of their economy than the US spent (the large range being because it varied over time, and also because the unreliability of data from communist countries). Tim, it doesn't matter how big our economy is.........we are spending more on the military than our economy can afford. When will you get that fact? Besides the USSR having spent a much large portion of its wealth on its military than the US, the other Warsaw Pact countries also spent a larger portion than the other NATO countries. And what happened to those countries? They collapsed from the weight of all that military spending. If you measure is absolute spending rather than portions of the economy, the reason that more capitalist countries spend more on defense is that they have more to spend, since their economy is less damaged by socialism. Trust me, capitalist countries like Germany, Canada, France and Spain spend nothing compared to what we spend. And I bet the Scandanavian countries spend even less. And popular winger fiction notwithstanding, all those countries have capitalist economies. I bet the soviet ocuntries that spend the most on the military bordered capitalist countries like NK vs SK. You are implying the reverse correlation. The main reason the capitalist countries spent so much was because of the threat from the socialist countries. Really, Tim? Who decided to invade Vietnam? Who decided to invade Iraq? Who decided to invade Afghanistan? Who encouraged/incited the overthrow of gov'ts in the Eastern Bloc?