Election Day

[Irvinecommuter]

If Iraq refused to get invaded by US in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq in 2003.  If UN disagreed to invade Iraq in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq.

The US just set up the government in Iraq...you want them to basically ignore that and keep troops there?  Seems pretty insane to me.

the question is who gave the right to US in 2003 to set up an Iraq Govt??

US went in to take out Saddam..I would argue without much justification but based upon the old UN resolution regarding chemical/biological weapon ban.  Remember Colin Powell?

Two questions:
1. Did UN authorize an attack on Iraq in 2003?
2. Did US find chemical/biological weapon?

No on both but there were existing UN resolutions about the use of arms against Iraq if there were biological/chemical weapons.  But of course, the legality of US invasion in 2003 is highly debatable and probably shouldn't be the legal/moral basis for future actions.

I have no idea what that has to do with an agreement signed with the Iraqi government to have US troops leave Iraq by 2011.  Are you saying that Obama should have ignore that agreement and keep troops in Iraq over their objections?

that's correct.  the foreign policy rule is simple.  Whoever has a bigger bat, write the rule of foreign policy.  Thus pulling out troops from Iraq because their govt refused is  just BULLSHIT.

That's why I try to vote for qwerty in this Irvine election because he has a bigger bat.

Oh okay...19th century England called and would like its foreign policy back.  Also,  the keeping troop in a foreign country over the objections of the populace worked out well for US in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Personally, I'm for recognizing the sovereignty of other countries but if Putin is your foreign policy model, go for it.

 

[eyephone]

In regards to Obamacare, a lot of people have an issue regarding his promise. The "campaign promise" to keep the same doctor and plan. Health care companies are canceling the plans people had before because they don't meet the Obama coverage criteria. Health care companies increasing the prices.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keep-doctor-obamacare-promise/2014/03/14/id/559637/


Also, people have issue regarding the "death panels." They will decide on your fate.

 

[zubs]

The Keynsian multiplier effect has been twisted & corrupted by government officials looking to garner votes from the poors.  The $1 that the government gives in food stamps is borrowed.  Keynes was all for the $1 give away, but it was suppose to be from savings during prosperous times.  The crazy borrowing the US government is implementing to pay for it's programs was not forseen.  You can't just take 1 part of an economic theory that suits your purpose.  You need to do the whole program.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

In regards to Obamacare, a lot of people have an issue regarding his promise. The "campaign promise" to keep the same doctor and plan. Health care companies are canceling the plans people had before because they don't meet the Obama coverage criteria. Health care companies increasing the prices.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keep-doctor-obamacare-promise/2014/03/14/id/559637/


Also, people have issue regarding the "death panels." They will decide on your fate.

I would agree that the "same doctors/same plan" part was a total oversell.  But really, both that and the "death panel" already existed in the pre-ACA world.  Insurance companies were decided on what to or not to pay for depending on your plan and their bottom line.  Also, plans were getting more expensive and with fewer and fewer doctors every year way before the ACA was enacted.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The Keynsian multiplier effect has been twisted & corrupted by government officials looking to garner votes from the poors.  The $1 that the government gives in food stamps is borrowed.  Keynes was all for the $1 give away, but it was suppose to be from savings during prosperous times.  The crazy borrowing the US government is implementing to pay for it's programs was not forseen.  You can't just take 1 part of an economic theory that suits your purpose.  You need to do the whole program.

I didn't realize that Moody's was a government official.  As for borrowing, why would single out food stamp as the portion being borrowed?  What about defense spending or oil company subsidies?  They're also parts of the budget.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Private companies also go bankrupt and do a lot of bad things.  JPMorgan Chase lost $2 billion because of one guy.  They can also be very inefficient and thus fall behind or go belly up. 

Private companies can also underrate risk and longterm growth for shortterm profits and stockholder appeal.  In fact, the entire financial crisis resulted from shortterm thinking/profit taking and complete lack of appreciation of risk.

Yes. That's what I said. You proved my point. Gov't is even more inefficient than private/public companies and that's scary.

I don't know every poor person and every unemployed person but why I should gear policy and action based upon the potential wrongdoing of a few bad apples?  Why should not be concerned about the vast majority of good people that benefit from welfare system?

I think you need to fact check on the state of the welfare system, it's more than just a few bad apples. And it's not specifically the poor, wasn't there some link that qwerter or someone posted about how illegals will do the work that citizens won't. That behavior of entitlement is an issue and is sometime enabled by welfare programs (in my opinion).

The use of the term welfare mentality is basically a reflection of how you think of people on welfare.

Is that how you argue in court, by putting words in the other side's mouth?

I used the term "welfare state" and it is a specific term that describes a type of government. I don't begrudge people for being on welfare, we were probably close to it when I was a kid. But I think if the gov't invested more in programs that helped people get off welfare, they would be better off.

You have a house and are dependent on the mortgage deduction...do you have a "mortgage deduction mentality?"

I'm not dependent on it. Of course I like it because I want to pay as little tax as possible because I know how inefficient the gov't is with it. But if they took it away, I could still pay my mortgage (and I actually don't think I benefit as much from it because of AMT).

 

[qwerty]

defense spending is way out of control. tons of inefficiencies in DOD spending.

 

[eyephone]

In regards to Obamacare, a lot of people have an issue regarding his promise. The "campaign promise" to keep the same doctor and plan. Health care companies are canceling the plans people had before because they don't meet the Obama coverage criteria. Health care companies increasing the prices.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keep-doctor-obamacare-promise/2014/03/14/id/559637/


Also, people have issue regarding the "death panels." They will decide on your fate.

I would agree that the "same doctors/same plan" part was a total oversell.  But really, both that and the "death panel" already existed in the pre-ACA world.  Insurance companies were decided on what to or not to pay for depending on your plan and their bottom line.  Also, plans were getting more expensive and with fewer and fewer doctors every year way before the ACA was enacted.

The point is: don't lie/mislead/misguide (what ever you want to call it) and use it as a campaign slogan you can keep your plan and doctor. But in reality, you can't.

 

[zubs]

The Keynsian multiplier effect has been twisted & corrupted by government officials looking to garner votes from the poors.  The $1 that the government gives in food stamps is borrowed.  Keynes was all for the $1 give away, but it was suppose to be from savings during prosperous times.  The crazy borrowing the US government is implementing to pay for it's programs was not forseen.  You can't just take 1 part of an economic theory that suits your purpose.  You need to do the whole program.

I didn't realize that Moody's was a government official.  As for borrowing, why would single out food stamp as the portion being borrowed?  What about defense spending or oil company subsidies?  They're also parts of the budget.

I don't know if the multiplier effect works.  I dislike politicians using John Maynard Keyne's ideas for their own political gain and then only picking parts that work for them.  I didn't know why moody's is only publishing the multiplier effect part of the fix.  The other part of the fix...where the money comes from is equally important.

Here is Pelosi saying food stamps creates jobs:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-fires-back-at-gingrich-over-food-stamps/

FYI: I voted yes on Prop 2

 

[adventurous]

defense spending is way out of control. tons of inefficiencies in DOD spending.

It's a good example of how effective the government is