55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:55 pm
Just curious, anybody out there seen any info as to what charity Obama has donated his Nobel Peace Prize proceeds ($1,400,000.00) to? Has any charity reported such receipts? I think it is important to maintain his promise of transparency, at least in regard to all those who, so convinced, voted for him on this issue (transparency), you know, like the CSPAN total live coverage of congressional (sausage making like/this is how the legislative process works) negotiations of Obamacare. Is this another thing where Obama needs the pitch fork of voter concern before he actually feels forced to do the 'right thing'?

JM
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:58 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

Just curious, anybody out there seen any info as to what charity Obama has donated his Nobel Peace Prize proceeds ($1,400,000.00) to? Has any charity reported such receipts? I think it is important to maintain his promise of transparency, at least in regard to all those who, so convinced, voted for him on this issue (transparency), you know, like the CSPAN total live coverage of congressional (sausage making like/this is how the legislative process works) negotiations of Obamacare. Is this another thing where Obama needs the pitch fork of voter concern before he actually feels forced to do the 'right thing'?

JM


I saw Okie ask the same question, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Right Wing blogosphere is currently riding a new hobby-horse this week.

You guys crack me up

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:58 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Yup, he'd better donate that money. Ya can't have Obama feeling beholden to the Nobel Committee. No tellin' what they might want America to do.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:02 pm
@ican711nm,
ICAN Thanks for the info. Much Obliged!

JM
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's not proof; all you have done is cut and paste numbers without the explanations necessary to prove your point. You ignore the increase in our population, and how the world economy was operating. By ignoring these important points (I'm sure there are others), you have essentially done nothing to explain why those situations occurred.

Neither of us--or anyone else for that matter--has proven anything the entire time we have been participating on A2K!

I have provided some evidence to support my opinions. You have provided zero evidence to support your opinions, while demanding I prove my opinions.

What evidence do you have that the increase in USA population has contributed to a reduction in total USA jobs?

The world economy was doing fine untiil the USA economy began to fall. The USA is one of the biggest customers of many national economies when our economy is healthy. When our economy has fallen, the world's economy becomes unhealthy (e.g., Roosevelt's ecoonomy 1933 to 1940).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:19 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote:

What evidence do you have that the increase in USA population has contributed to a reduction in total USA jobs?


I always assumed that pilots had to have some knowledge about math before being given a license to fly. There are some things too spacial for people like you who doesn't understand what happens when a population increases more than job creation.

e.g.:
Year: 2000. Population: 1,000 Employed: 100 Rate: 10% employed.

Year: 2010: Population 2,000 Employed 150 Rate: 7.5%

The rate of employed dropped from 10% to 7.5% - even though the numbers of workers increased by 50%.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This is a graph that shows what happened to job loss from January 2008 to November 2009:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/economics/joblossjan08tonov09.png

Based on GWBush's administration, they were responsible for the financial crisis and the loss of jobs.

The trend in job loss into 2009 should be self-explanatory; as the economy continued to constrict into December of 2008, more people lost jobs, and job loss increased to over 600,000 after Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

We know you conservatives loved to call Obama "messiah," and expected miracles from him to put a complete brake on job loss, but alas, he is human - born in Hawaii.

He did the next best thing; he stopped the bleeding of jobs of hundreds of thousands every month down to under 100,000.

Even with this miracle, you conservatives stopped calling him messiah.

Do you, your family and friends still have jobs? Pray to your messiah, and thank him.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your post cice, is an opinion about population affecting unemployment rate.

I did not ask that. Again, I asked: What evidence do you have that the increase in USA population has contributed to a reduction in total USA jobs?

The unemployment rate--ratio of total employed to total number of people seeking jobs--is not my index of the health of the USA economy.

My index is the growth or decline of THE TOTAL NUMBER OF USA JOBS. It's my opinion that population increases generally tend to help increase AND not decrease TOTAL NUMBER OF USA JOBS.

So again: What evidence do you have that the increase in USA population has contributed to a reduction in TOTAL NUMBER OF USA JOBS?
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I saw Okie ask the same question, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Right Wing blogosphere is currently riding a new hobby-horse this week.

You guys crack me up


Such efforts at Non Sequitur and feeble attempts towards a delegitimation of the question aside, does anybody have an answer to my 3 part question as originally posed? ( http://able2know.org/topic/113196-913 )

JM
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:54 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Well, it is an illegitimate question. The truth is that he won the award money and who he decides to donate it to is really none of your business. 'Transparency' in governance does not demand that Obama fill you in on the details of every decision he makes - especially those which do not concern either domestic or foreign policy.

Perhaps he hasn't actually been given the money yet, or hasn't decided where to donate it yet. It doesn't really matter; the overall point is that you really don't give a **** about this at all, it's just another way for you to attack a president that your party hates and fears.

Given the fact that Obama has taken as many steps - in fact, I would be comfortable saying more steps - to promote transparency as any president in modern history, your criticism falls rather flat.

I re-iterate that you didn't come up with this idea on your own, but are parroting what you have read in right-wing media sources. Watching these memes propagate amongst the right-wing is amusing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
He did the next best thing; he stopped the bleeding of jobs of hundreds of thousands every month down to under 100,000.


Yes, the bleeding of jobs of hundreds of thousands every month ended in November with an increase of jobs of 139,000. And that's certainly better than worse monthly decreases. However, the people who have lost jobs and not found replacements are no better off as a result of that decrease in the rate of job bleeding. I hope the monthly decreasing rate resumes its decrease in January. However the decrease in December was greater than the increase in November:
Quote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
October 2009 = 138,242,000
November 2009 = 138,381,000
December 2009 = 137,792,000.


November-- actually an increase in total jobs of 139,000.
December--actually a decrease in total jobs of 589,000.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:08 pm
In 2008, the Obama's gave $172,000 to charities. 6.5% of their income. You can easily, as easily as I did, find out to whom those donations were made.
There is a bit of a problem, as an aside, with the $1.4m Peace prize. Some say that the money comes from a foreign government (Norway) and President Obama can not accept it. Rather it goes to the U.S. Treasury.
I am surprised that the right wing hasn't howled about that.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:13 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
I am surprised that the right wing hasn't howled about that.


Hasn't reached the meme machine yet.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:18 pm
@JTT,
Did you know that when Teddy Roosevelt won the Peace prize, he asked Congress for permission to donate the money to charity?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:22 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote:
Yes, the bleeding of jobs of hundreds of thousands every month ended in November with an increase of jobs of 139,000.


You really don't understand this subject on employment/unemployment. FACTS: a) Bush was the worst producer of jobs since Hoover, b) our country needs 1,500,000 jobs every month just to meet demand, and c) 139,000 "increase in jobs" in November only proves that Bush failed to meet demand for new jobs by 1.36 million jobs, and that's only for one month. Look at Bush's job creation from January 2001 to January 2009, and compare those numbers with how many jobs are needed to meet our country's demand for jobs from high school and college grads.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Ooops! That should be 250,000 jobs per month to meet demand, not 1.5 million jobs.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 10:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes I do understand this subject on employment/unemployment.
Yes Bush was the worst producer of jobs since Hoover--before Obama.
You blame Bush for all the job losses.
I don't! To me that's just plain silly.

I blame Obama for allowing and/or making the job losses worse.
Obama has has clearly won the title of the worst producer of jobs since Bush.

But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether what Obama says he plans to do is going to make jobs more or less scarce than they are already. We can debate that if you wish.

You already know my evidence for what I think:
Quote:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000 (peak total employment in the USA)
December 2008 = 143,338,000
January 2009 = 142,099,000
December 2009 = 137,792,000

Quote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
October 2009 = 138,242,000
November 2009 = 138,381,000
December 2009 = 137,792,000

Total Employment Losses:
December 2007 to December 2008 = 2,709,000
December 2007 to January 2009 = 3,948,000
December 2008 to January 2009 = 1,239,000[/quote]
December 2008 to December 2009 = 5,546,000
January 2009 to December 2009 = 4,307,000

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:56 am
Quote:
Federal Spending & Budget Issues
HOW TO GUARD AGAINST STIMULUS FRAUD
Based on experience, the cost of fraud involving federal government stimulus outlays could easily reach $100 billion, says Daniel J. Castleman, a former chief assistant Manhattan district attorney, and current managing director at FTI Consulting...
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Health Issues
HOPE AND DELUSION IN HEALTH CARE
The Senate health "reform" bill is very similar to the reform laws in Massachusetts, where an average family of four pays more than $13,000 in premiums -- the highest in the nation, says Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients' Rights...
WASHINGTON TIMES

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:59 am
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote:
I blame Obama for allowing and/or making the job losses worse.
Obama has has clearly won the title of the worst producer of jobs since Bush.


You still don't understand the slide analogy. Your ignorance is noted.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:02 pm
Quote:
The special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy is next Tuesday, January 19 in Massachusetts.

By now, I am sure that you are aware that Scott Brown, who is running as a Republican, is in a tight race against Martha Coakley, the Democratic insider. A month ago, the Democrat led by 30 points. However, a Rasmussen poll released Wednesday found that 49 percent of likely voters prefer Coakley, while 47 percent back Brown.

Brown is on the record as saying he will vote AGAINST HEALTH CARE takeover by the government. This would give Senate Republicans a critical 41st vote - and the power to block the legislation altogether (Washington Post 1/15).

Brown is also against more stimulus bills, as well as being against Cap and Trade. He is for lower taxes and he is a fiscal conservative.

If you live in Massachusetts, make sure your voice is heard. Remember to go out and VOTE. You have a great opportunity to help shape the direction of this country.

If you live in another state but have friends and family in Massachusetts, please remind and encourage them to VOTE on Tuesday. Thanks and the HITM Wagon rolls on...

HITM Head Coach,
Herman Cain

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 08:51:19