US Politics Group Featured Member - cztheday

Right? What was the name of the 18-24 month rule again?

Thank you, current89. I was truly honored that you asked me to be your first guest...but to be honest, I kind of wondered about just this sort of thing. I can certainly take incoming fire -- I do it every day -- but a wide-ranging interview does kind of leave one open to pot shots. Nonetheless, I really DO think you are on to something with this idea, and I look forward to seeing the responses from your NEXT guest...

This is not a competition why can't people just be happy for another? Congrats cztheday!

i can guess that i wont be a "featured member" anytime soon.

I dont understand why we must elevate one person over another

Well put, MfT (and thank you kindly...)

Yeah...that was my first thought when I saw the title....whether or not the thread would be used as a chopping block.

I'm still working my way through, so we'll see how it's turned out. I'm guessing pretty bad with 96 comments.

Thanks. Even if you don't agree with the person can't people just learn to take things as they are? I hate how some people are just jumping to criticize.

You can follow economics and monetary cycles all you want, you can also be right about them once in a while. The fact is though, no one knows precisely what is going to happen, there are to many independent variables to reliably calculate jack, and you throw in good old human ingenuity into the mix... anyone that says they know for certain what is going to happen can be written off as ignorant, a liar, or an asshole, maybe all three at once.

If you truly make over the 310k a year that you claim and you write quarterly personal checks you really are as big of a fool as CZ claimed you to be... you should have incorporated your self 210k ago and bought a few cows to shelter your taxes with if you are that worried about it... but then again, some of us are good at preaching and not at doing... what is that phrase again... those who can teach, those who can do... damn...

More importantly though, if you make that much money you owe it to your fellow man to give back to the community... if you do not want to pay 'federal' taxes, start donating to causes that you believe in, and write it off. Personally I prefer the double edged sword... donate money to projects that are endorsed by politicians of my choosing, this way I get to support who I want to get office by making them look good, and I get a tax write off.

As I said to a new friend recently, I seem to recall a short bit of wisdom to the effect of: when the wind passes over the grass, the grass bends. Be like the grass.

I probably botched the proper word order, but that is my recollection.

I don't always succeed, but I try. I want to advance the dialogue when possible, but I don't always sense an open mind on the other side...which makes things difficult of course.

Thank you, allknowis...I greatly value your opinion and appreciate your comment.

A bit luke warm if u ask me.

I can't believe you did, either.

He didn't because he really can't read!

That makes me eligible to be a US Congressman.

JohnA, normally I have no respect for you or anything you say, but I have to agree with your points that Obama is not doing a great job, plus that bit about not reading qualifying you for the congress... that was the best turnaround on an insult I've seen in a while.

Kudos.

My contentions to these arguments... Obama is doing a stellar job on the topics he has put his staff to work on. The ones he has ignored are stinking up the White House as bad as a rotten rat in the wall...

I find myself defending Obama far too often...as has already been noted here. I most certainly have my own "beefs" with him. Given my bacground you might expect, for example, that I am a little impatient to see quality men and women established in the many vacant positions in the federal judiciary. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to have good people INTERPRETING all this federal law people want to see enacted, repealed or amended. Interpretation of a vague or ambiguous statute can really make all the difference in people's rights. BUT (you HAD to be expecting a big BUTT from me, right?) Obama is one man. As a long-time CEO I can attest to the accuracy of the proposition that one is only as good as his people (witness Bush and his people at FEMA during Katrina...and I am sure that many were competent...but too many were not). Obama has a few week reeds. Please identify a President who did not.

*The following are excerpts from WSJ opinions "Change Nobody Believes In"
Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations.

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week.

From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. "Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills," Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that it is doubtful the President really believes it.

Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so "substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance" that companies like WellPoint might need to "be considered part of the federal budget."

Never in memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control.

*cz, regarding your MOC, - "You know: that notion that the country NEEDS them, that they are irreplaceable and that therefore any means are justified to continue their "public service." Once a MOC has turned in that direction, I have never seen one return to that place of balance and integrity they occupied when they arrived. It is really tragic to watch...especially up close..."

That goes well beyond just a few MOC's imho, cztheday

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and the rights of others occurring since the age of 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

YOUR CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT AT WORK!

Whompus,

The fundamental tension, of course, is between the obvious opportunities for improper influence and the freedoms of expression (including contributing to the campaign(s) of those candidates who appear to best represent your interests). For example, my largest donation had nothing to do with my work and was to Governor Schweitzer, whom you may have heard at the Democratic Convention. Many reviews called his speech the best and most moving of the event up until Obama took the stage to accept the nomination.

Personally, I would like to see the limits established on direct campaign contributions extended to so-called "soft" contributions, i.e., to the party or on so-called "issue" advertising that clearly supports a certain candidate. I realize there may have to be a case-by-case analysis for a while...and the courts have found such limitations thus far to be unconstitutional. But I find that legal analysis to be inconsistent. To find one limit constitutional and the other unconstitutional is, in my opinion, a legal charade on the part of some of our courts of appeal.

But I am hopeful that the judges appointed by Obama during his two terms and by his Democratic successor will overturn the decisions against limitations on soft contributions. : )

My own issue is with the fact that corporations and other big businesses essentially have the ability to 'buy' a candidacy, which insures that regardless of which party or candidate you support, and regardless of who wins an election, that corporate interests are ALWAYS represented by the office. In order to even mounta reasonable campaign, you basically HAVE to have corporate approval. It seems to me the biggest problem facing american politics, and makes it essentially impossible for a candidate to truly represent the people. And from my experience this seems to be the case on every level of government.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to limit corporate finance or remove it altogether?

Any thoughts?

Not looking for an argument, but genuinely interested to hear what you have to say. I also recognize that your job may preclude your ability to offer an honest response. Feel free not to respond.

Whompus,

I'm sorry, but I intended my earlier comment to cover corporate giving as well. Perhaps I am mistaken (happens pretty much hourly), but my understanding was that it was illegal for a corporation to contribute directly to a political campaign. That is the point of the "soft money" issue and this advertising issue before the Supreme Court.

A corporation CAN pay to advertise, for example, an anti-abortion ad that calls for Congressional action, so long as they don't mention the name of a candidate. Well, if the Republican candidate for senator is anti-abortion and the Democrat is pro right to choose, in my view that is a political contribution...but the courts have said that it is not.

What also DOES happen is that the top ten execs in a corporation will all donate their maximum $2,000 to one candidate for a total of $20,000. That has an effect, surely, but nothing compared to what the effect would be if the corporation could write a check for any amount...say $250,000.

Also re: this being a problem at every level. I don't know from what part of the country you hail, but in our local elections and even in many of our state legislative elections, the campaign war chests are quite often below ten thousand dollars...and often below TWO thousand dollars. In those contests, corporations are rarely a factor in my experience because they can't contribute directly.

Am I mistaken?

Ok, I see what you're getting at. Yes, I was aware of the restriction, but obviously it's regularly circumnavigated. That's exactly what I was talking about as well. If you don't have the corporations to buy your advertising, you basically don't have a campaign. You really can't run for office without their support.

I can't say for certain that ALL politicians are 'on the take' as it were, but it always seems they or their relations always have something to gain (either family, business, or otherwise) from being in office, and always act to support their own business interests even when such interests are in conflict with the common good.

I see it in our city all the time. Only certain people get contracts to develop certain things and often those projects are flatly outside of the common people's interest, often totally ridiculous really, and they only benefit the business' taking part in such projects. Often the officials are executives from the industries they support, and push through legislation that simply gives money to their colleagues. Basically just like the federal government in other words, just on a smaller scale. And this has been just as true in small town america as it has been in large urban areas.

I have a number of friends in Congress whose integrity I trust. But I would surely be lying if I did not add that I have watched with great sadness as several have become caught in the jaw of the "wolves" as I call them. The slick yes men who work for any client who will hire them and go about flattering the MOCs. Some have pefected it to an art form and more than a few God complexes have resulted. You know: that notion that the country NEEDS them, that they are irreplaceable and that therefore any means are justified to continue their "public service. Once a MOC has turned in that direction, I have never seen one return to that place of balance and integrity they occupied when they arrived. It is really tragic to watch...especially up close...

I'm sure.

I'll make sure to tag the articles I submit on Cuba with "IR"... Thanks.

Of the rare occasion I half disagree with something you have said CZ. Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan for that matter are all multinational effort because groups that reside there have to say the least, influenced attacks on both us and multiple European Countries. We may not be in open wars in those other three... well two counties, but if you care to read between the lines the signals are obvious.
Economically speaking... we can not afford to drop the UN on its face in Afghanistan... because Afghanistan despite common knowledge is a UN action, not a US war.

You are, as usual, quite correct, Milch. I hope you will trust me when I say that I was aware of that fact but was simply recognizing the equally valid fact that the force is OVERWHELMINGLY dominated by both US troops and US command, control and supply. Our contribution of men, women, material and treasure dwarfs the contributions of the others. But because the others have had the courage to contribute and because many other countries have lost lives -- even if just a handful in comparison to our losses -- I must most assuredly concede (and welcome) your point, old friend.