When Does It Stop Being Bush's Fault?

[3rdnlng]

Sorry dude, not ignoring you...I just can't get this link to open.

 

Just the end of the article. I didn't post the whole thing because it would be the length of an average OCinBuffalo comment.

 

 

"Obama is, by all accounts, a personally religious man, but his political appeal skews strongly toward Americans who are not religious.

 

 

These data on religion and Republicanism include black Americans, who are anomalous in that they are both very religious and very Democratic. Looking only at non-Hispanic whites, we find that Obama’s position goes from an extraordinary -46 among weekly white church attenders to -25 among almost-weekly/monthly white church attenders to -2 among whites who seldom or never attend church. So the gap swing among all Americans from weekly church attenders to seldom/never church attenders is 32 points. The gap swing among white Americans from weekly church attenders to seldom/never church attenders is a significantly larger 44 points.

 

From a demographic standpoint, therefore, we see that Obama's political strength is among Americans who are not white, who are not married, who are not religious, and who are young.

 

 

Just to underscore the power of these demographic variables, I put together two groups of voters (based on our April 11-15 five-day rolling average):

 

Married, weekly-church-attending, whites: 17% for Obama, 73% for Romney

Non-married, seldom/never-church-attending, non-whites: 86% for Obama, 8% for Romney"

[IDBillzFan]

This is all you need to know.

[DC Tom]

This is all you need to know.

 

28% of people rate "gay marriage" as "very important"?

 

Can we just disenfranchise those people?

[Jim in Anchorage]

28% of people rate "gay marriage" as "very important"?

 

Can we just disenfranchise those people?

Well we can figure their not part of the 34% that think birth control is "very important" anyway.

[Jauronimo]

Fair enough. And you bring up good points. But what is so troubling, to me, about Romney, his track record (some of which I admire, I don't hate the guy) is so inchoerent with the things he says now, trying to win an election. And I get,like I said to Chef, a lot of it is just playing politics. But he is painting himself into a pretty tight corner, as far as I am concerned.

 

Romney reportedly gave a doozey of a speech a few nights ago, to his largest donors, where he made some pretty big promises about new tax loopholes, cutting programs like HUD (wasn't that his daddy's old outfit?), making further cuts in education...he seems to adhere to the "trickle down" theory, which has never really worked.

 

I am not against cutting federal programs, and making government more efficient. The social "safety net" for the poor represents a relatively small part of our economy. I am sure there are cuts that can be made, and I am sure there are abuses...but I am also sure abuses exist, and cuts can be made elsewhere as well. Seeing and hearing the fervor of the audiences at the GOP debates when the topic of the poor, social programs (whatever term you want to use for these things, they all have their slanted implications, one way or antoher), was, frankly, disgusting. There seems to be this perception that anyone who receives government assistance is a no good, free-loader, drug addict...except for themselves, and anyone in their families who receive benefits of any kind.

 

And, it wasn't that long ago that universal healthcare was a Republican tenet. Nixon was a big proponent...it might be a B word to get it implemented (and maybe this is the wrong time), but would have a positive long range impact on the economy in the long run...you know, doing what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Something I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember the source, though I am sure someone will try to get me to find it!) said that one third of meidical expenses incurred in the US are done so by the uninsured. Which directly affects the cost of services that we all pay, and the cost of health inusurace for those who have insurance. So, in effect, healthcare in the US, pre-Obamacare, is one of the costlier entitlement programs out there.

Trickle down isn't an economic theory. Its a term made up by satirist during the Great Depression, that was revived to dismiss supply side economics and pander to the ignorant. If tax cuts were exclusively granted to the rich under Reagan, then maybe that term would have some merit. Since thats not the case, trickle down is nothing more than a sassy comeback for people who nothing about economics.

 

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are this country's largest expenditure and are on pace to drive this country into bankruptcy, and I don't doubt that the uninsured are a major drag on the system. I just don't know how waving the wand and saying "voila, you're insured" is going to relieve that problem. No matter what you call it, you still have to fund it.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't identify myself as a "progressive", that seems to be something LA has bestowed upon me. I honestly don't even know what that term means, politically. As you define "progressive", I just don't think I (or anyone I know) really fits into that. What is the opposite of a "progressive"? A "regressive"? You know, the ones who insist that any cuts in military bloat will "weaken the empire", or leave us vulnerable, or paying any additional taxes will only discourage them from wanting to do business in America?

Yeah. Basically.

 

Hey, I'm not the clown running around calling myself a progressive. If you have issues with these people bastardizing the meaning of the word "progress", but not actually supporting real progress, you should take it up with them.

 

Fundamentally, a progressive is supposed to look for improvement via REFORM, and that reform is supposed to come via new ideas/technologies. However, reform doesn't necessarily mean destroy. In terms of progressives, it means improvement through intellectually sound change.

 

So, yeah, if we need change in military spending, ideally the progressive looks for ways to improve the military by spending less on the existing stuff, and finding new/cheaper weapons, ways to deploy troops, ships, etc. Hell the Joint Strike Fighter is a fine example of what happens with progressive thinking is applied to the military (Cue DC_Tom talking about how stupid that is) What? The JSF is cheaper, applicable to every service, therefore easier to maintain, and therefore an intellectually sound change....

 

Look, the military is not the same as Medicare. And treating them as though they are, is folly. Medicare is a bureaucratic schema that is fundamentally based on liberal opinion. There are a ton of approaches to accomplish Medicare's scope. A real progressive would identify the problems with it, and seek to reform it. Period.

 

In contrast, the military is based on facts that have been with us since we were cavemen. There really is only 2 approaches to the military: defend the walls and stay isolated, or, defend our ability to trade elsewhere.

 

Medicare and the rest of the entitlements are liberal constructs, and therefore, we have every right to demand that they fix them when they break.

The military is based on a reality that is not subject to interpretation or the opinion of a political party. If there is a single thing in our government that is not broken, it is the military.

Edited April 19, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

So, yeah, if we need change in military spending, ideally the progressive looks for ways to improve the military by spending less on the existing stuff, and finding new/cheaper weapons, ways to deploy troops, ships, etc. Hell the Joint Strike Fighter is a fine example of what happens with progressive thinking is applied to the military (Cue DC_Tom talking about how stupid that is) What? The JSF is cheaper, applicable to every service, therefore easier to maintain, and therefore an intellectually sound change....

 

No, it CLAIMS to be cheaper, supports everyone's mission, and easier to maintain. In truth...expensive a ****, satisfies no mission particularly well, and the different versions lack commonality to a degree that maintenance is a nightmare. It's how you'd design a failed program.

 

In other words...yes, a fine example of progressive thinking applied to the military.

[OCinBuffalo]

No, it CLAIMS to be cheaper, supports everyone's mission, and easier to maintain. In truth...expensive a ****, satisfies no mission particularly well, and the different versions lack commonality to a degree that maintenance is a nightmare. It's how you'd design a failed program.

 

In other words...yes, a fine example of progressive thinking applied to the military.

Yeah...I should have put that part in quotes...so that you could see I was speaking as a 3rd party....as in "What?" As in: "why is Tom calling me an idiot again? Having a single fighter that everybody can share....is good. Sharing is good. This is progress, and we are smart because we thought of it. Now, let's go praise ourselves for being smarter than those people who never want to cut the defense budget."

 

-----------------------

 

This is the fundamental problem with progressive "thinking". It never provides for performance measures or change management or exits if it fails. It always assumes the entire, one-step solution, as theory, is not only feasible, but is easily deployed and maintained, with very little testing or step-wise prototyping. See: Obamacare.

 

This is an impossible approach to solving problems and puts far too much faith in the originators of the theory. As such, the fundamental flaw of progressives is....ego, or laziness, or most likely both.

 

I mean seriously I would love to see how the decision to fund Solyndra evolved. I bet a college class could be designed just around that, and I bet it would be fascinating.

[DC Tom]

I mean seriously I would love to see how the decision to fund Solyndra evolved. I bet a college class could be designed just around that, and I bet it would be fascinating.

 

A college class? A B-school class, maybe...but the entire content of a college course on Solyndra would be "The class enemies of Obama - the wealthy and Fox News - conspired to make Solyndra fail, to increase their control over the American consumer."

[Chef Jim]

 

I mean seriously I would love to see how the decision to fund Solyndra evolved. I bet a college class could be designed just around that, and I bet it would be fascinating.

 

Evolved?!?! Seriously? It probably went something like this.

 

"We have a company that makes solar panels that has applied for a guaranteed loan."

 

"I'm sorry...they make what?"

 

"Solar panels"

 

"Solar panels?"

 

"Yes solar panels!"

 

"Holy crap......that"s fantastic. This will make us look so cool and "progressive!". Give them whatever they want!!"

[OCinBuffalo]

A college class? A B-school class, maybe...but the entire content of a college course on Solyndra would be "The class enemies of Obama - the wealthy and Fox News - conspired to make Solyndra fail, to increase their control over the American consumer."

Exactly. Organizational theory....which is just putting a business face on behavioral psychology.

 

Oh, yeah....I see....yeah, it would really be a shame if we really are that far gone. Part of one my management classes was studying the 1st Shuttle disaster. That was fascinating. I would hate to think that "we can't teach that, because we only teach about private sector failure here" has made it impossible to learn the best/most important things in college.

[3rdnlng]

Evolved?!?! Seriously? It probably went something like this.

 

"We have a company that makes solar panels that has applied for a guaranteed loan."

 

"I'm sorry...they make what?"

 

"Solar panels"

 

"Solar panels?"

 

"Yes solar panels!"

 

"Holy crap......that"s fantastic. This will make us look so cool and "progressive!". Give them whatever they want!!"

 

 

And give it to them by tomorrow, because we need a good photo-op.

[OCinBuffalo]

Evolved?!?! Seriously? It probably went something like this.

 

"We have a company that makes solar panels that has applied for a guaranteed loan."

 

"I'm sorry...they make what?"

 

"Solar panels"

 

"Solar panels?"

 

"Yes solar panels!"

 

"Holy crap......that"s fantastic. This will make us look so cool and "progressive!". Give them whatever they want!!"

Kidding aside....the depth of...what?...depravity...delusion....let's be nice an call it affectation.....it takes to arrive at these decisions, as an organization, without any readily apparent recognition of the risks involved and 0 contingency or mitigation? Yeah, I want to know how that happens, because that schit is fascinating.

 

Consider: if it was you, as a finance guy wouldn't you have installed a way to pull the plug, an automatic sell order, etc, something to protect your client.....long before the thing went down, or just before, if for no other reason than so you could at least say you had one? Instead, it's quite possible that the failure of these companies....just snuck up on these people, who were the primary investors, and they were deer in headlights. What kind of affectation does that require? How did they get there? Why didn't they have a single plan B, for legions of plan As?

 

Just like with what these guys did to gay people with their handling of gay marriage, they themselves have done more damage to the cause of the environment than the opposition could have done in 30 years. (as long as you remember that just like gay marriage, they forced a lot of us into unwillingly being their opposition, because they were clowns about it)

 

How do you go from day one of "Ok...we are going to invest in alternative energy because they are wrong about oil and we are going to take up the cause of the environmentalist", which, although somewhat obtuse, at least has some rationale-->to today-->where now it's "Run! They pulled out their Solyndra Strap Ons again! They are blasting every liberal/enviro they can catch in the DELMARVA! Ruuuuun!"? (I was going to draw a cartoon of Sara Palin in dominatrix gear, with a big gleeful smile on her face, wearing a strap-on shaped like a...really bad time...with the words "Solyndra" down the side...but I don't have time...still have the picture in my head tho....)

 

That's what will continue to fascinate me.

Edited April 19, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Kidding aside....the depth of...what?...depravity...delusion....let's be nice an call it affectation.....it takes to arrive at these decisions, as an organization, without any readily apparent recognition of the risks involved and 0 contingency or mitigation? Yeah, I want to know how that happens, because that schit is fascinating.

 

Simple. Money isn't real to them, it's always somebody else's, and there's always more where that came from.

[Chef Jim]

Kidding aside....the depth of...what?...depravity...delusion....let's be nice an call it affectation.....it takes to arrive at these decisions, as an organization, without any readily apparent recognition of the risks involved and 0 contingency or mitigation? Yeah, I want to know how that happens, because that schit is fascinating.

 

Consider: if it was you, as a finance guy wouldn't you have installed a way to pull the plug, an automatic sell order, etc, something to protect your client.....long before the thing went down, or just before, if for no other reason than so you could at least say you had one? Instead, it's quite possible that the failure of these companies....just snuck up on these people, who were the primary investors, and they were deer in headlights. What kind of affectation does that require? How did they get there? Why didn't they have a single plan B, for legions of plan As?

 

Just like with what these guys did to gay people with their handling of gay marriage, they themselves have done more damage to the cause of the environment than the opposition could have done in 30 years. (as long as you remember that just like gay marriage, they forced a lot of us into unwillingly being their opposition, because they were clowns about it)

 

How do you go from day one of "Ok...we are going to invest in alternative energy because they are wrong about oil and we are going to take up the cause of the environmentalist", which, although somewhat obtuse, at least has some rationale-->to today-->where now it's "Run! They pulled out their Solyndra Strap Ons again! They are blasting every liberal/enviro they can catch in the DELMARVA! Ruuuuun!"? (I was going to draw a cartoon of Sara Palin in dominatrix gear, with a big gleeful smile on her face, wearing a strap-on shaped like a...really bad time...with the words "Solyndra" down the side...but I don't have time...still have the picture in my head tho....)

 

That's what will continue to fascinate me.

 

I think you have me confused with a sleazeball stock broker. If my client came to me and wanted to invest a good chunk of money in an uproven company I'd say no. And if he insisted I'd to it as an unsolicited trade and let him take care of it when to sell.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think you have me confused with a sleazeball stock broker. If my client came to me and wanted to invest a good chunk of money in an uproven company I'd say no. And if he insisted I'd to it as an unsolicited trade and let him take care of it when to sell.

Well, I should hope so....

 

...but...I assume even you have to cover your ass some of the time, right? Or, at least deem it worthy to spend a little time on what if X happens?

 

What I don't understand, and would like to, is the notion that says..."I don't have to do that, even though I am in a purely political job, and the political risk involved is great enough to get me removed from said job, but I feel powerful? enough to ignore it."

 

Simple. Money isn't real to them, it's always somebody else's, and there's always more where that came from.

 

That's certainly a plausible explanation. But do you think that's the whole explanation?

[TheMadCap]

Exactly. Organizational theory....which is just putting a business face on behavioral psychology.

 

Oh, yeah....I see....yeah, it would really be a shame if we really are that far gone. Part of one my management classes was studying the 1st Shuttle disaster. That was fascinating. I would hate to think that "we can't teach that, because we only teach about private sector failure here" has made it impossible to learn the best/most important things in college.

 

 

I'm guessing you had to read lots of Diane Vaughn, a la, "normalization of deviance" theory?

[DC Tom]

That's certainly a plausible explanation. But do you think that's the whole explanation?

 

It's the part that makes them irresponsible with money (in that they put it into an unsustainable corporation).

[Chef Jim]

Well, I should hope so....

 

...but...I assume even you have to cover your ass some of the time, right? Or, at least deem it worthy to spend a little time on what if X happens?

 

 

 

Well it's not so much covering my ass as it is doing proper planning which I guess covers my ass. The plans I create for my clients are 10,20, 30 years or more so I have to plan for all probabilities. I tell my clients that I plan for the best case scenario and worst case scenario. I plan in case they die too soon or live too long.

 

As Tom says government doesn't really plan at all seeing it's not their money.

[3rdnlng]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abc-news-investigations-year-solyndra-scandal/story?id=15199603

 

 

"By October it was clear the government would be fortunate to recover even a small fraction of the loan money -- especially because the Energy Department made the unusual decision to let private investors recover $75 million of their investments first, before any of the federal loan was repaid."

 

 

"Top Solyndra executives invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when they were called before Congress to testify."