Jump to content

Is the jig up?


Recommended Posts

Here's the thing, retro.....

 

What has changed? Have things improved at all......a little bit.......ANY?

 

We are still "mired down", and as far as I can tell we have accelerated the pace of jacking up the credit card balance since this guy took office. True, you can blame Bush for the need for some things, but not all.

 

You can't blame Bush for some bogus climate change bill, that won't do anything (to the environment) but increase the tax load on everyone. You can't blame Bush for a $1.6 trillion healthcare bill that doesn't accomplish its intended purpose. You can't blame Bush for sinking ever more money into two losing companies, undermining the rules of bankruptcy along the way, handing one of them to a foreign company, and eliminating all product liability. You can't blame Bush for impeding charitable donations.......I could go on if you wish, but you get the point. Do you believe those are America's values, and that's how things should be?

 

Those aren't partisan points. Those are facts. Can you honestly say to yourself (and the rest of us) that you are happy with the way things are, and expect to see rapid improvement resulting from the growth of government power these people have already achieved, and will be further attempting? May I remind you that $787 Billion was supposed to buy 8% unemployment, and we're already above 9%, headed north of 10%?

 

You are free to believe your 8-year nightmare has ended, but as far as I'm concerned you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

You really did say something I can relate to though, "Misery loves company". Obama, with help from his buddies in Congress, is spreading the misery (as opposed to wealth) quite nicely.

 

Schadenfreude is equally unbecoming on either side.

 

We are 5 months and a few days into Obama's first term. That's 3 months less than Bush was in office when 9/11 happened, but Clinton still got blamed for that (from some quarters), so it must be ok to keep pointing the finger at Bush for the current mess at least for another 3 months, right? Here is my take on the several things you mention:

 

Starting with the big picture:

 

Americans had high hopes for a new direction that would address some outstanding problems: health care, The situation in Iraq, our crumbling and neglected infrastructure, persistent trade and budget deficits, energy policy for the future, the excesses of a rogue financial system, America's standing in world public opinion (and thus our long-term strategic health). Awhile back, I posted a picture of a clapped out demolition derby racer and drew the metaphor of Bush turning over the keys to Obama. The U.S. that Obama inherited from Bush was in infinitely worse shape than the U.S. that Bush took over from Clinton. It comes with an ill grace for anyone who supported, apologized and made excuses for the previous administration for 8 years to criticize the Obama administration for the hard choices it has had to make since taking office. The country they inherited was a wreck. The poor choices of the previous administration (and admittedly the several before it) have made it difficult to impossible for the current administration to accomplish any of the tasks that Americans were hoping for it to, the magnitude of the financial mess having been made painfully clear in the months since. As one British newspaper put it after Obama took office: "Now that the U.S. economy is seen to be under adult supervision..." because it wasn't seen that way before - at least not in the world at large. Are you serious that you expected the free-fall in employment to be turned around by now?

 

Health care:

 

We have the highest per capita expenditures for health care in the world, yet our life expectancy is #41. Every other country in the advanced world has some sort of nationalized heath care - yet we persist with the childish myth that "the market" will provide the ultimate solution. I have experience with our private insurance, private providers. I also have personal experience with the single payer system in place in Japan (and know others who do), and I can tell you that it is an absolute wonder compared to our system here. I have yet - on this forum or anywhere else - to hear someone who is actually familiar with both systems compare ours favorably. I hear a lot of people bloviating about how great our system is, how we just need more "free market" solutions, and how utterly poor "socialized" medicine is, how there will be rationing etc. (none yet in my experience - and my father-in-law was just sent out for a CT scan and an MRI yesterday) - but nobody who claims first-hand knowledge. But of course, since we are in the biggest financial melt-down since the Great Depression, I suppose we will have to wait.

 

Auto company bail-out:

 

I will not address the specific problems that you mention. I think the auto company mess stems from decades of bad trade policy and no industrial policy - in other words, from the philosophy that "the market" (you know, that hodge-podge amalgam of historical accident, human intention be it mercantile or altruistic, legal, commercial, and political expediency that is our financial and market system) that this market has some kind of inherent wisdom and will automatically produce the most beneficial outcome if left to its own devices - free from intention, intervention, or control. In other words, laissez faire. This is an outlandishly naive notion - but one that many cling to with the fervor of starry-eyed true believers. If - for better or for worse - it has been decided that the government - i.e. the U.S. taxpayer, is going to advance money to these companies, then I think the government has every right to dictate terms. When I took out the loan to build my house, I had to provide what the bank deemed to be a marketable house in the end - regardless of whether it was what I would have deemed most useful to me and my family. That was the deal.

 

The bank bail-out:

 

As to whether it was necessary to save us from food riots and darkness, I will leave that to the experts. Having instituted it, I am dismayed that so many of the banks - rather than fostering the credit liquidity that it was intended to produce - have opted for an early repayment of the TARP funds - evidently so that they can be free once again to offer exorbitant executive compensation to remain "competitive". Funny, when my company (or the auto makers) wants to remain "competitive" they go in for the salary cuts. As for whether it should have been provided in the first place, a couple of things:

- There should be no companies - none whatsoever - in the private sector that are "too big to fail". The fact that there are are the result of decades (not just under Bush - but largely since Reagan) of dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcement of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Massive consolidation in the banking industry (as well as aerospace, broadcasting, IT, and many other sectors) was allowed to proceed unimpeded.

- The cancerous growth of the (basically parasitic) derivatives and securities sectors should have been regulated. It was not. Again, the laissez faire mindset careening toward the inevitable train wreck.

- The derivatives market had evidently "leveraged" American debt out to about 38x its actual value. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that it would have been more effective to leverage the remedy as well, by applying it at the source of the problem: buy up the bad mortgages, and reschedule them, or evict and re-sell. It seems to me, we could have accomplished the same thing with 1/38 the expenditure. But that would have been too immediate a help to the little people, wouldn't it? Thus, yes, I am suspicious about the whole approach and who it is intended to benefit.

 

Effect on the economy:

 

Personally, I expect we will experience inflation as a result of the printing of money and the devaluation of the dollar. The dollar was beginning it's death spiral more than a year ago as a result of accumulating debt. There are countervailing tendencies that make some economists rather fear a deflationary spiral. I lived through inflation - through stagflation. It just doesn't scare me that much (unless it reaches Zimbabwean proportions). One of the causes of hand-wringing about inflation during the Carter years was that it screwed people on fixed incomes. Well, I know plenty of people on fixed incomes right now watching their assets burst that are feeling every bit as threatened as during those days.

 

Climate Change legislation:

 

Getting off foreign oil is not going to hurt us. Manufacturing and erecting windmills and solar arrays should provide just as many good jobs and put as many dollars back into the economy as manufacturing Bradley fighting vehicles, and has a much better chance of creating net worth (by extracting it from the sun and wind) for the economy. Notwithstanding the very vocal (and very active on the internet, where as has been pointed out, anybody can post anything) doubters, the scientific consensus stands to this day. Please consider me open to the possibility that the consensus is wrong.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Starting with the big picture:

 

Are you serious that you expected the free-fall in employment to be turned around by now?

Remember, the 8% unemployment I quoted was Obama's number, not mine. Here's what his projections were, along with the actual results.

stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif

So, what do you conclude here? He got what he wanted ($787 Billion) Was Obama's economic team wrong or not?

Health care:

Without getting into a "battle of the statistics" here, just answer one question (using your own intuition):

When you increase demand (by eliminating the cost of acquisition) for a finite resource (Healthcare),

what happens to the price and (by extension) availability?

 

In one version of the Healthcare bill, a company that does not provide health insurance must pay an 8% (of total payroll) penalty. Do you believe the company will choose the cheaper option? In my company's case, that will be to pay the 8%, and dump all our people onto the government healthcare program.

 

In another version, healthcare benefits are taxed as regular income to pay for the government program. Someone will be getting the same free ride they are already getting, except now those costs will increase at a faster pace, since the consumers NOT paying will demand more from the system than they are already getting.

 

In another version, union healthcare benefits are exempted from taxation. Is that fair?

 

It's getting very complicated and very expensive....very fast. "The Government will take care of everything" is going to work for so long.

Auto company bail-out:

 

The bank bail-out:

Need I remind you that you ARE expected to pay the money back? Chrysler has already been forgiven their obligation. GM won't be far behind.

 

Companies like Citigroup and Bank of America are already suffering a "brain-drain" as a result of the salary caps imposed by the Government. If you're happy with that, there's little I can say. I'm not.

 

We don't need to rehash the whole bank bailout thing, since you and I aren't that far apart in the first place.

Effect on the economy:

If you remember the Carter years, then you also remember the crushing interest rates. No one will be able to buy anything, and since there is little interest in the difference between a "secured" or "unsecured" creditor, you can look forward to more stagnation.

Climate Change legislation:

The Climate change bill isn't about getting off foreign oil. It's about getting off ALL oil (supposedly). Otherwise, they'd be encouraging domestic production. But they aren't. They also aren't for encouraging the single biggest impactor on carbon emissions -- nuclear power.

 

I won't debate the consensus (we already have a thread for that)....but how about this:

 

An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million

 

According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama could have been born on the moon, on live television, seen by millions, and it doesn't matter so long as his mother is an American citizen!

 

God, I wish people would get off this birth certificate crap. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN. HIS MOTHER IS A CITIZEN, THEREFORE OBAMA IS A CITIZEN!

 

It's just as much a distraction from the legitimate reasons for opposing this man's agenda, unfortunately.

 

Not true Ranger.

 

At the time of his birth, his mother was too young of age to confer American citizenship upon her son born in a foreign country according to law. Also, according to the constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

Since Obama was not born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that leaves "natural born Citizen" as the only route for eligibility.

Someone born in a foreign county is not a "natural born citizen". Nor was Obama naturalized for citizenship if he was born in Kenya according to searchers finding no records of this. This would lead to the fact he truly in not even an American Citizen.

 

For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]

 

1. One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;

2. The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;

3. A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

 

 

Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad

By United States Dept. of State

http://books.google.com/books?id=zdENAAAAY...lt&resnum=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true Ranger.

 

At the time of his birth, his mother was too young of age to confer American citizenship upon her son born in a foreign country according to law.

With all due respect, Sprinter...

 

I'm not sure what law you are quoting, but here is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

....(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

Also, this is from Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1409

( c ) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effect on the economy:

 

Personally, I expect we will experience inflation as a result of the printing of money and the devaluation of the dollar. The dollar was beginning it's death spiral more than a year ago as a result of accumulating debt. There are countervailing tendencies that make some economists rather fear a deflationary spiral. I lived through inflation - through stagflation. It just doesn't scare me that much (unless it reaches Zimbabwean proportions).

 

Coming from someone who has repeatedly complained on this forum about the high cost of living and the purchasing power of the dollar vs. years past, I find your latter statement that [inflation] "just doesn't scare me that much" to be fraught with contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from someone who has repeatedly complained on this forum about the high cost of living and the purchasing power of the dollar vs. years past, I find your latter statement that [inflation] "just doesn't scare me that much" to be fraught with contradiction.

Somebody actually read what I wrote, and retained it past the stinging riposte! I'm flattered. Ok, so I'm not a paragon of consistency. My general criticism of the economy has to do with several things I mentioned above: the out of control growth of the parasitic financial sector, the unregulated growth of monopolies that crush true competition (and, let's include corporate welfare tax giveaways as states strive to attract and retain businesses, like the multi-billion $ package Boeing got from the State of Washington not to move 787 production to some lower wage state: the rest of our state's taxpayers have to step in and pick up the slack - this effectively amounts to a giant tax giveaway to Boeing's shareholders, which are by and large wealthy anyway), some general social trends that make the greedy and unethical look "savvy" and hardworking regular folk look like dupes - a de-valuing of work, a sickening polarization of wealth, and last but not least, the whole race to the bottom triggered by globalization, wherein we pit American workers against the lowest wage, lowest worker safety and environmental countries in the world, and call it "competition". It's not competition, it's a wipe-out of the American middle class and American industrial infrastructure, with corporate shareholders walking away with the spoils and on to the next slash and burn. In my book all of these things (all pro-business on the face of it - but short-term only I would argue) have contributed to the hollowing out of the American economy, which having been so hollowed, is now collapsing in on itself. A book I've mentioned several times on here: "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten, although 10 years old now, offers the best criticism of our economy. I should point out that the title belies the real theme of the book, which is criticism of globalization, and a "rogue financial system" (that's where I got the term) that makes it virtually impossible for good corporations to do the right thing.

 

So, having said that, my belief is that we are dealing with the cumulative effects of this economic foolishness. We are heading towards reduced circumstances no matter what (so get your blame Obama slogans ready). We are resetting the clock - if we are lucky our national output and real income will settle somewhere around 1958 levels. This is not scientific or based on any economic reading - just on my gut perception about the productive vitality of the America I spent my childhood in vs. the one I live in now. If we are not lucky, it might be more like 1934. At any rate, we are in for a reckoning, and inflation will be the least of our worries. And this reckoning is about more than just "de-leveraging": it's about 30 years of piss-poor trade and labor policy. [/pontification]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the 8% unemployment I quoted was Obama's number, not mine. Here's what his projections were, along with the actual results.

stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif

So, what do you conclude here? He got what he wanted ($787 Billion) Was Obama's economic team wrong or not?

Yes, they were wrong. They were unduly optimistic about the depth of the mess, or unduly optimistic in their representation of that to the American people. This has nothing to do with whether or not stimulus, further tax cuts (like that would have helped the deficit) or simply hands-off would have been the better approach. Do I feel betrayed? No, not yet. Am I positive they have done everything right? No. Do I think a McCain Palin administration would have dealt more effectively with the situation? Nope. Still don't think so.

 

Without getting into a "battle of the statistics" here, just answer one question (using your own intuition):

When you increase demand (by eliminating the cost of acquisition) for a finite resource (Healthcare),

what happens to the price and (by extension) availability?

 

In one version of the Healthcare bill, a company that does not provide health insurance must pay an 8% (of total payroll) penalty. Do you believe the company will choose the cheaper option? In my company's case, that will be to pay the 8%, and dump all our people onto the government healthcare program.

 

In another version, healthcare benefits are taxed as regular income to pay for the government program. Someone will be getting the same free ride they are already getting, except now those costs will increase at a faster pace, since the consumers NOT paying will demand more from the system than they are already getting.

 

In another version, union healthcare benefits are exempted from taxation. Is that fair?

 

It's getting very complicated and very expensive....very fast. "The Government will take care of everything" is going to work for so long.

You are talking hypotheticals and economic theory here. Speaking pragmatically, what I can tell you with 100% certainty is this: THEIR SYSTEM WORKS BETTER THAN OURS. And the entire rest of the industrialized world seems to agree. Dropping all pre-conceived and ideologically based notions for a second, could it just possibly be that they are all onto something?

 

Need I remind you that you ARE expected to pay the money back? Chrysler has already been forgiven their obligation. GM won't be far behind.
Then theoretically, the government will be out of it, correct?

 

Companies like Citigroup and Bank of America are already suffering a "brain-drain" as a result of the salary caps imposed by the Government. If you're happy with that, there's little I can say. I'm not.
Oh boo hoo. These are the same "brains" that helped create this mess, right? As far as I'm concerned, if their type of "competition" results in higher wages following a record of spectacular failure, while everybody else's competition results in lower wages, then the system is broken, or the game is rigged, or both. I suspect both.

 

We don't need to rehash the whole bank bailout thing, since you and I aren't that far apart in the first place.
Perhaps so.

 

If you remember the Carter years, then you also remember the crushing interest rates. No one will be able to buy anything, and since there is little interest in the difference between a "secured" or "unsecured" creditor, you can look forward to more stagnation.
My needs were simpler. I have a feeling, simpler needs will be an important coping skill during the coming years - and for the reasons I outlined above, not because of Obama's policies. It is not too far revisionist to say that I predicted all of this, here on BON, years ago. This shit has been brewing. No telling when it was going to hit, or exactly what the triggering factor(s) would be, but we were left vulnerable by a generation of bad policy and misplaced values. This is more than a normal cycle.

 

The Climate change bill isn't about getting off foreign oil. It's about getting off ALL oil (supposedly). Otherwise, they'd be encouraging domestic production. But they aren't. They also aren't for encouraging the single biggest impactor on carbon emissions -- nuclear power.
With significant reservations (like waste that has to be isolated from human contact for 200,000 years - talk about an "administrative challenge"), I have to agree with you on that.

 

I won't debate the consensus (we already have a thread for that)....but how about this:

 

An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million

 

According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

Perhaps all true (though I hardly regard the Heritage Foundation as an unbiased source). Like I said, my mind is open to new information. Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking Obama to show more is like Bush asking Saddam to prove that he didn't have WMDs or he'd come in and bomb. His mind was already made up (and he was wrong)

 

Obama's citizenship really ought to be publically verifiable.

 

As for Bush, Sadam & WMD, sorry, but Sadam did have some, and he was trying to make more. He also had Al-Quada training camps in his country.

 

If he didn't, he really ought to have proved it to the UN, but he chose otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they were wrong. They were unduly optimistic about the depth of the mess, or unduly optimistic in their representation of that to the American people. This has nothing to do with whether or not stimulus, further tax cuts (like that would have helped the deficit) or simply hands-off would have been the better approach. Do I feel betrayed? No, not yet. Am I positive they have done everything right? No. Do I think a McCain Palin administration would have dealt more effectively with the situation? Nope. Still don't think so.

Two things. First, I think it's wonderful that you think they were "overly optimistic". I seem to recall many (including you?) were not so soft in their assessment of the previous administration. Case in point, it seems the word "incompetent" suddenly fell out of the lexicon. Pelosi et al have been in power since January 2007, yet you ascribe the Democrat's status as being the newcomers. Obama is the rubber stamp they didn't have before.

 

Second. In addition to being wrong,

? What would that make him?
You are talking hypotheticals and economic theory here. Speaking pragmatically, what I can tell you with 100% certainty is this: THEIR SYSTEM WORKS BETTER THAN OURS. And the entire rest of the industrialized world seems to agree. Dropping all pre-conceived and ideologically based notions for a second, could it just possibly be that they are all onto something?

Perhaps, we are too.

Then theoretically, the government will be out of it, correct?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly what I would characterize as being "out of it", unless you are referring to the nonchalant way Americans respond to this blatant favortism.

Oh boo hoo. These are the same "brains" that helped create this mess, right? As far as I'm concerned, if their type of "competition" results in higher wages following a record of spectacular failure, while everybody else's competition results in lower wages, then the system is broken, or the game is rigged, or both. I suspect both.

Actually, the people they are losing are the one's who were successful, valuable employees and not the "bad apples" to whom you refer. Losing them is collateral damage, and represents the wheat, not the chaffe.

 

My needs were simpler. I have a feeling, simpler needs will be an important coping skill during the coming years - and for the reasons I outlined above, not because of Obama's policies. It is not too far revisionist to say that I predicted all of this, here on BON, years ago. This shit has been brewing. No telling when it was going to hit, or exactly what the triggering factor(s) would be, but we were left vulnerable by a generation of bad policy and misplaced values. This is more than a normal cycle.

And yet, with the adults (to paraphrase you) in power, they want to repeat the same mistakes.

Perhaps all true (though I hardly regard the Heritage Foundation as an unbiased source). Like I said, my mind is open to new information.

If your mind is truly open; rather than focusing on the group from where the data was reported, I'd say you should consider the validity of the data itself.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Sprinter...

 

I'm not sure what law you are quoting, but here is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401

 

Also, this is from Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1409

 

 

Under today's current laws the correct example to use for Obama's birth is subsection (e):

 

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United

States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States

who has been physically present in the United States or one of

its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at

any time prior to the birth of such person;

 

BO's father was not a "National of the United States" as defined in the Definitions and would eliminate subsection (d)

 

Sec. 1101. Definitions

 

(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent

allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen

of the United States, or ('B') a person who, though not a citizen of

the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

But remember these are today's laws and have been changed numerous time since BO's birth. And if you read further in Part III you will see that only (a) and ('B') are retroactive due to the 1994 amendment.

 

 

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF 1994 AMENDMENT

Section 101© of Pub. L. 103-416 provided that:

"(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and

nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons

born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act

[Oct. 25, 1994]) as though the amendment made by subsection (a)

[amending this section], and subsection ('B') [enacting provisions

set out above], had been in effect as of the date of their birth,

except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that

subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone

who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised

Statutes [former 8 U.S.C. 6] (as in effect before the enactment of

the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).

 

 

So basically one needs to interpret the law in this case as it was at the time of his birth. I have tried to interpret the past changes/amendments myself as they are stated, and it's real confusing. But that appears to be what the lawyers who have filed are attempting.

Edited by sprinter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically one needs to interpret the law in this case as it was at the time of his birth. I have tried to interpret the past changes/amendments myself as they are stated, and it's real confusing. But that appears to be what the lawyers who have filed are attempting.

The law at the time of Obama's birth (for foreign-born children) was the 1952 (Immigration Act)

 

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.

 

BO's mother was born on November 29, 1942, and BO was born on August 4, 1961. You could argue that because his mother was under 19, that BO could not be considered a citizen at the time, however IMO that law would seem to apply to "naturalized citizens", and not "natural-born citizens". Earlier statute established that children of natural-born citizens had the same status (particularly after 1934, IIRC)

 

But this obviously assumes that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

 

Given that as far as I can tell Obama WAS born in Hawaii, he is eligible to be, and rightfully, the President (unfortunately).

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law at the time of Obama's birth (for foreign-born children) was the 1952 (Immigration Act)

 

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.

 

BO's mother was born on November 29, 1942, and BO was born on August 4, 1961. You could argue that because his mother was under 19, that BO could not be considered a citizen at the time, however IMO that law would seem to apply to "naturalized citizens", and not "natural-born citizens". Earlier statute established that children of natural-born citizens had the same status (particularly after 1934, IIRC)

 

But this obviously assumes that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

 

Given that as far as I can tell Obama WAS born in Hawaii, he is eligible to be, and rightfully, the President (unfortunately).

 

Then you have a copy of his the long form certificate showing doctor and hospital of birth? Otherwise, the copy that BO has provided could have been obtained by his grandparents in Hawaii while he was actually born in Kenya.

Edited by sprinter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have a copy of his the long form certificate showing doctor and hospital of birth? Otherwise, the copy that BO has provided could have been obtained by his grandparents in Hawaii while he was actually born in Kenya.

 

Ok, without getting into Birth Certificates and such.......Congress can easily pass a law that states the current laws retroactively apply to all children born since January 1, 1961, thereby making Obama a natural-born citizen.

 

That would make it legal. Would that satisfy you?

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, without getting into Birth Certificates and such.......Congress can easily pass a law that states the current laws retroactively apply to all children born since January 1, 1961, thereby making Obama a natural-born citizen.

 

That would make it legal. Would that satisfy you?

 

Not really.

 

McCain's right to run for Pres. was challenged

He was born to two US citizens.

He was born on a US military base over seas

The legal process found him to be Naturalized

Proving his right to run for pres

 

Obam's right to run for Pres. was challenged

His father was a Kenyan or a British citizen, his mother was a US citizen

He was born in Hawaii or Kenya

Obama has spent ~$1 million keeping his records private and out of court and no legal process has been able to get to the courts

Proving nothing at this point

 

Peace and Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

Honestly Mac, aren't there better reasons for opposing him (as President) than this whole birth certificate thing?

 

It's not like Biden wouldn't be the same rubber stamp (for Pelosi-Reid) that Obama is.

 

It's the policy that's the problem, not the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Mac, aren't there better reasons for opposing him (as President) than this whole birth certificate thing?

 

It's not like Biden wouldn't be the same rubber stamp (for Pelosi-Reid) that Obama is.

 

It's the policy that's the problem, not the man.

 

Better reasons? I don't know. When I look at what he is doing yes. But what he is doing is not something that can remove him from office. But if she should never have been their in the first place? So when I really stop and think about it no.

 

McCain was challenged, but Obama can not be.

This is the man that talked about running the most transparent office ever.

He has spent ~1 million fighting this. Who the heck spends ~$1 million over a long form BC?

This is the office of the President of the United States.

People have been found working as surgeons and what not with no actual education, training, or credentials.

Mardoff :(

Then comes all the reasons you and I might oppose him and his actions taken as president.

 

What he is doing as president, how he handles things, and what direction he may go I may greatly disagree with. But he is president.

 

What irks me and flat out causes me to distrust the man and the party is that historically both sides always bitch and moan until the other sides candidate releases medical, and other personal records. Obama said he was going to run the most transparent office ever. Yet he has done so much to the opposite including threatening lawyers over his BC. I now personally do not trust the man. I never felt that way about Clinton or Carter. But Obama's responses thus far on it plus the different positions of his own family members causes me great concern. I don't want to find out we had a Mardoff in office. That is my real concern. Having a certifiable narcissist or worse in office.

 

Peace and Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is no theory Obama is hiding his past. He will not release this information, I assume, because it would eliminate him from being president. McCain release his school/military and other records, something no one would be proud of.

 

Now I am asking you, IF Obama was indeed born in Kenya, should he be allowed to continue as president even thou it conflicts with our Constitution? IF you think he should, then you must think all the cover ups, lies and the withholding of information are acceptable since he is democratic/black? But on the other hand Republicans that lie are totally unacceptable?

Man I can't beleive McCain wouldn't be all over this, as it would basically give him a Clear road to the Presidency....wonder why the IDIOT didn't pursue this angle, after all what MORON wouldn't if it was right here in black and white before our very eyes...DORK, friggin McCain, well if he's that IGNORANT not to pursue blatantly obvious FACTS such as these then perhaps the CLUELESS chutney head doesn't deserve the position.......man, beyond me how STUPID some people are when its right there in the media for all to observe....hey...is that bat-boy?..........

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean, Do you feel better now?

 

I suspect that Barry used his mixed heritage to his benefit then, just as he does so now. This will, from time to time, come back to haunt him. It would not surprise me to see college application papers show up where he claims to be a Barry Soweto, if that is what it took to get the scholarship, or admissions people to look more favorably upon him. Frankly, I don't care.

 

There are so many people that prattle on about how they vote for the man, not the party. He was the right man at the right time. Can you imagine how dysfunctional things would be had he lost, and we ended up with a Democrat legislature, and a Republican President?

 

My fondest hope was that we would end up with a Republican legislature, and a Democrat President. It worked prety well in the Clinton administration. I think we will get there pretty soon too. If the Democrats keep passing massive bills that they never read, it is almost a guarantee. Just sit back, and watch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean, Do you feel better now?

 

I suspect that Barry used his mixed heritage to his benefit then, just as he does so now. This will, from time to time, come back to haunt him. It would not surprise me to see college application papers show up where he claims to be a Barry Soweto, if that is what it took to get the scholarship, or admissions people to look more favorably upon him. Frankly, I don't care.

 

There are so many people that prattle on about how they vote for the man, not the party. He was the right man at the right time. Can you imagine how dysfunctional things would be had he lost, and we ended up with a Democrat legislature, and a Republican President?

 

My fondest hope was that we would end up with a Republican legislature, and a Democrat President. It worked prety well in the Clinton administration. I think we will get there pretty soon too. If the Democrats keep passing massive bills that they never read, it is almost a guarantee. Just sit back, and watch...

snicker....just reminds me of Orson Wells and War of the Worlds.....my dig was at the people that beleive EVERYTHING they read...as you can tell I don't hold the media in a very high regard...and some that beleive this tripe even less...i mean come on...if this WAS an issue it would have already been adressed and used as a weapon/ tool during the election or before he took office...McCain IS a smart man...this would have been an absolute Trump card...instead we constantly have to put up with someones BS agenda and conspiracy theory that those lacking common sense take ver batum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, without getting into Birth Certificates and such.......Congress can easily pass a law that states the current laws retroactively apply to all children born since January 1, 1961, thereby making Obama a natural-born citizen.

 

That would make it legal. Would that satisfy you?

 

 

They could do that, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it. I would not be happy of the outcome if passed but he then would be a US Citizen according to law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man I can't beleive McCain wouldn't be all over this, as it would basically give him a Clear road to the Presidency....wonder why the IDIOT didn't pursue this angle, after all what MORON wouldn't if it was right here in black and white before our very eyes...DORK, friggin McCain, well if he's that IGNORANT not to pursue blatantly obvious FACTS such as these then perhaps the CLUELESS chutney head doesn't deserve the position.......man, beyond me how STUPID some people are when its right there in the media for all to observe....hey...is that bat-boy?..........

 

 

He was third from the bottom of his graduation class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things. First, I think it's wonderful that you think they were "overly optimistic". I seem to recall many (including you?) were not so soft in their assessment of the previous administration. Case in point, it seems the word "incompetent" suddenly fell out of the lexicon. Pelosi et al have been in power since January 2007, yet you ascribe the Democrat's status as being the newcomers. Obama is the rubber stamp they didn't have before.

 

Second. In addition to being wrong,

? What would that make him?
Hey, when Obama lied, nobody died.

Ok. It is true that our system has its achievements. I believe the CT scan and the MRI that my father-in-law had (without any delay I might add) were U.S. innovations. As usual, the link is pretty Euro-centric. Of overseas, single-payer systems, I'm only familiar with Japan's: a network of private and public hospitals and clinics, and private doctors and pharmacies, who all bill the government for services rendered. I've heard that France has one of the best systems in Europe, but its not mentioned in the article. However, just looking at the countries mentioned in the article: Canada (81.16), UK (78.85), Germany (79.1), Netherlands (79.25), Norway (79.81), Switzerland (80.74), and Italy (80.07), every last one has a longer average life expectancy than the United States (78.14 - hmmm, looks liked we've slipped to number 47 since last time I looked). Yet, we spend more ($6,096.20) per capita than any of those countries. Only Switzerland and Norway approach 90% of our per capita. The others are all 60% or less. Italy and Canada less than half. So, if the proof is in the pudding, our pudding ain't that great. Unless you're insured I guess. Which about 47,000,000 Americans (more than the population of any of those countries above, except Germany and the UK) aren't. So, what is your ideal system anyway? The one we have? How would you change it?

 

 

Actually, the people they are losing are the one's who were successful, valuable employees and not the "bad apples" to whom you refer. Losing them is collateral damage, and represents the wheat, not the chaffe.
Again I say, "boo hoo". Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retro, C'mon, you know how to fix it, every reasonably smart sixth grader can figure it out. It simple, every one HAS to participate in PAYING not just consuming. Everybody has to put their money in the pot, and a few will get a lot and most will get less than what they put in.

 

Insurance companies make money off the float, the time between when the money is collected, and when it is paid out. If you look at the insurance business, you will see that in some cases they actually pay out more than take in in premiums, but a lot less than what they are making on the investments. Government won't do this, but they will pay less for the services they cover. Ask anybody in a VA hospital or on Medicare how that effects care. You get what you pay for.

 

The doctors are not stupid, they realize that a desperate patient will spend the insurance company's money like it was falling from the sky. Make it all "free" and you will have people who seek care just to make sure they are getting their "fair share".

 

Please don't fall for the life expectancy trap every time. When you remove accidental death and homicide from the numbers Americans are still on top. Nowhere else in the world do find so many drunks riding motorcycles with out helmets or 16 year old kids with drivers licenses. And yes, the fact that we do these things drives up the amount we spend per capita on medical care. We also have more money to spend on medical care. There are enough fake boob jobs in Scottsdale alone to pay for the health care needs of some third world nations. We spend more on soft drinks and video games, than other countries, because we can, why should health care be any different. I can't speak for you, but if I am going under the knife, I want the best, not the cheapest. Can you really brag about saving on health care as a dead man?

 

The simple answer, and I believe Obama is going to get there on this is that health insurance needs to be decoupled from employment, which means either it is taxed as income, or becomes tax exempt for every one. There will be a government sponsored group that every one can join. Every one will be required to participate (pay) for some type of coverage. The government plan will be cheap enough that it will be affordable, and also not expensive enough to cover the most expensive of procedures. Since the poor are already receiving benefits and not paying, they will not be effected. The people that currently have insurance will not be effected. The group that will see the biggest increase is the the young healthy working middle class that has previously opted to take their chances and buy no coverage at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Every one will be required to participate (pay) for some type of coverage. The government plan will be cheap enough that it will be affordable, and also not expensive enough to cover the most expensive of procedures. Since the poor are already receiving benefits and not paying, they will not be effected. The people that currently have insurance will not be effected. The group that will see the biggest increase is the the young healthy working middle class that has previously opted to take their chances and buy no coverage at all.

 

Providing ins. to the age group least in need, but making them pay the most?

 

Peace and Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, when Obama lied, nobody died.

Your belief is that the President was lying (proclaiming as true, what he knew to be false at the time he said it). Somehow this simpleton fooled the country and Congress into voting his way, based on the same information that the Congressional intelligence committees had access to, but only by using he power of his intellect to twist the information.

 

You're better than resorting to trite statements.

Which about 47,000,000 Americans (more than the population of any of those countries above, except Germany and the UK) aren't. So, what is your ideal system anyway? The one we have? How would you change it?

Give me a break about 47,000,000. You KNOW that includes illegals, and insurance "transients" (people who only lack insurance by virtue of being between jobs and yet don't utilize COBRA.), and overstates the problem.

 

The ways to change the system (NOTE: This is done at the State level, not Federal)......

 

First, bring the consumer BACK (ie closer) to the acquisition and actual cost of healthcare. Make insurance what it ought to be; coverage for catastrophic care, not merely a payment plan. Think Auto Insurance. If the Auto Insurance business were operated like the Health Insurance business, you would have a co-pay when you go to Jiffy-Lube, and would cease to consider going to Zip-Lube, Wal-Mart, or some other lower-cost option that provides the same service.

 

Second, eliminate Government-mandated requirements for specific coverages. Allow ME to choose what I will be covered for (except for certain very basic requirements). Don't need pap smears? Won't be having any more children? Don't need psychiatric care? Why be forced to pay to cover yourself for it? BUT, for this to be viable, people will have to be responsible for not obtaining that coverage, as well.

 

OR another alternative, allow people to seek coverage across State lines. If a policy available elsewhere is more suitable to my needs, it should not be against the law for me to acquire it. Again, I would be responsible for any deficiencies in my coverage.

 

Third, REQUIRE people to carry insurance and make it either tax deductible, or possibly a non-refundable tax credit (I'll have to think more on that). People are required to carry Auto Insurance if they own a car; Flood Insurance if they build a house in a certain location; Home Owner's Insurance if they have a mortgage. (NOTE: That is not intended to be a contradiction to the "Second" item above. It's only a requirement for catastrophic coverage)

 

A benefit to requiring insurance is that a couple of insurance associations have stated publicly their members would eliminate the difference in premiums between persons.

The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems.

 

The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key senators.

 

In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.

 

Fourth, while I am NOT in favor of what many refer to as "tort reform" (limiting the amounts received in malpractice litigation), I AM in favor of what some call "loser pays". Essentially, the loser in a malpractice suit pays the court costs of both sides. That would effectively eliminate all but the truly egregious or negligent cases. No more suing for what amounts to misfortune. That should help reduce overhead to doctors/hospitals.

 

Fifth, allow small businesses who choose to provide health coverage for their workers to pool their resources. Right now it commonly requires 10 or more persons to obtain a group rate, and many small businesses don't meet this requirement. Essentially make it possible to obtain a group rate by virtue of association.

 

Sixth, eliminate all but emergent care for foreign nationals, OR negotiate treaties with foreign governments for reimbursement of care provided to their nationals. If a foreign country doesn't want to take care of their own people, why should we? Obviously if the foreigner has his own insurance, this would not apply. By extension, I would also eliminate the concept of "anchor" babies; persons born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally are granted automatic citizenship. Not really a healthcare issue, but related in a crime doesn't (and shouldn't) pay sort of way.

 

Seventh (and I really haven't formulated an opinion on this, yet), it should be seriously considered whether or not companies who provide health insurance to their employees should be allowed to "self-insure". I take this view based on a story from another member of BOF(ford4v429) In his case, he was not notified of his company's health plan problems within what I would consider a reasonable amount of time. One thing I know for sure is that any obligations he may (or may not) have should be strictly limited to what the insurance would have been obligated to, but that doesn't really address the underlying problem.

Again I say, "boo hoo".

I can understand your feelings, since you hold everyone in those companies equally accountable, but I also believe you're taking the narrow view.

 

Somehow, I don't think you would feel the same way about the (UAW) workers at GM/Chrysler, because I think you would hold management solely at fault. I realize that we're speaking of someone making $500K/year and not $30/hr, but if it isn't right for one, it isn't right for all.

 

When the government tells you/your company how much you can/could be paid, your feelings may change. If not you, then maybe your children.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...