Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-30-2009, 09:23 AM   #101
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I was watching Arnold Schwarzenegger announce yesterday that California was bankrupt and that he was going to try to stop paying welfare because they don't have the money. California has been in the forefront of taxing the wealthy and paying for all sorts of social costs like welfare, healthcare for illegal immigrants, environmental concerns, union wages and pension plans, and so on.
But, Mike: haven't you noticed that the Federal government, which has been soaking the rich with a flood of money and has use "the environment" as one big outdoor toilet, is also broke?

Both the far right conservative nation and the far left (as you would have it) state of California have gone bankrupt.

So what does that tell you?

It means that something is fundamentally wrong with the entire nation.

Several years back there was a book by some economist predicting another great depression, probably in the early 1990s, I believe. His point was that when the richest 1% of the nation owns a greater and greater share of the total wealth of the nation (and that's what it means when "the rich get richer") we naturally move toward an economic breakdown. And in the last eight years, the rich have gotten richer at a faster rate than ever in history. And behold. The economist missed the timeline, but he seems to have been right about the over-accumulation of wealth in the top 1% of citizens.

On top of that, we have developed a very fragile social situation with people driving 60 miles per day, each way, to work, in vehicles that get 10-15 mpg, living in huge McMansions that suck up utility resources like sponges. This would be pointing a finger if there were only fifty or a hundred such people in America. You could say I'm singling them out, but in fact, this is the way hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans have been living for the past many years. Our enemies grow strong on these negligent "lifestyles" and our air becomes filthy while companies profiting from it pay almost literally nothing in taxes.

And look at where it's finally gotten us.

Only extreme and bold action is going to help us out of this: and it can't be just a financial paste-over. It has to be a real re-structuring of how we operate. Nothing less will matter. McCain would have played the likeable old Calvin Coolidge of the 21st Century and Palin would have satiated the right-wingers' need for what she brings, and in four years, we would have had a new dustbowl of an economy throughout the United States. Of course, he would have kept the military up to snuff and the citizens would all stand quietly in the bread lines.

More on the rest of your comments later.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #102
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post

More on the rest of your comments later.
Er, David... unless you can pull back from the totally bizarre hyperbole, please don't bother. I wasn't addressing you, but the thread topic in general.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 08:43 PM   #103
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

[quote=David Skaggs;231341]Okay David, we know you hate Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rush, Hannity, all people conservative.[\quote]

Conservative?

None of those people are real conservatives at all. Unless you define "conservatism" as being "a right-wing nut."

As for what steps we should take to correct the current economic situation, I am sure that McCain would have taken a Herbert Hoover kind of let-nature-take-its-course strategy. Like McCain, Hoover assured Americans that the "fundamentals of the economy are sound," and he left the disaster more or less untreated for almost four years.

I think Obama's strategy is fine.

The only alternative I've seen anyone suggest was basically to follow McCain's strategy.

And the Republicans, ridiculously, obstruct Obama in favor of just keeping on doing as we've been doing for the past eight years.

So my suggestion is just to hang on and mind your business, work your butt off and save every penny you can. Got an SUV? That may be a bit of very bad luck since now they're very hard to get rid of. Live sixty miles from work? You might have a hard row ahead. But if you get your affairs in order and take care of business, you'll probably be okay until the recovery kicks in within the next couple of years. If we'd left it in McCain's hands, the recovery would have probably taken twelve years.

I think Obama is doing the right thing.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 08:48 PM   #104
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Er, David... unless you can pull back from the totally bizarre hyperbole, please don't bother. I wasn't addressing you, but the thread topic in general.
Okay, so you point out how the left-wing Californians are now broke because they're left-wing, but it's "hyperbole" for me to point out that the whole US is also broke because it's right-wing?

Are we only supposed to see the facts you present and ignore all the other just-as-potent facts? But that would mean that only your conclusion can be reached, wouldn't it?

Seems like your intent. And my hyperbole is only flying in formation with yours. So....your cherry-picking of the intelligence is pretty bizarre in itself.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:13 PM   #105
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
At some point in time it becomes unfeasible to have money and live in California, to start a business in California, or to continue doing business in California. Why invest your money in any business when there is no profit to be made?
Yet on a national level, when everything was set up on a red carpet for the exclusive benefit of big business, taxes were slashed for them and regulations were eliminated, they still "fled" by moving off-shore, where they could get even lower taxes and pay lower wages and boost their profits to the obscene level. Likewise, those that stay in the US but export all the jobs.

Normal growth is good, but growth that goes out of control is cancer and American capitalism (on the big scale) has long since become a cancer on our society and on the minds of American citizens.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
And so businesses and people have been leaving California in droves... because the "share the wealth" idea ultimately doesn't work if the wealthy are penalized for taking the risk to become wealthy.
Or is it really that they just wanted less tax, lower wages and a cancerous level of profit?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Incidentally, there is no fixed "wealthy class"... there is a constant turnover in who is wealthy at any given time. So hating "The Rich" is a bit of a joke.
It is and it isn't. People enter and leave the top 1% of wealth all the time, but that's on a fringe level. There is a hard core in that 1% that goes back to the founding of this country and there are families that haven't done any actual labor since the left England or wherever they came from. You get people like Bill Gates and Steven Jobs who become super-wealthy and stay there a long time. And there are those that come and go and maybe come back.

But as a class, the top 1%, owning a sizeable majority of all the real wealth in the nation, also own a lot of the lawmakers and judges and exert tremendous influence to bend the lesser classes to their will, very successfully. And they also have a cancerous influence on the wannabe rich who mimic their ruthless ways in the thousands of small businesses that nickel and dime their workers and cheat them out of their rightful earnings--such as pensions they pay into but never get paid back from. Right wingers always talk like class warfare is the poor against the wealthy, but the truth is that the wealthy make a constant subtle warfare against everyone poorer than themselves. So you're right, "the rich" are not always the same people, but the core of that class has been remarkably stable for many long years.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
But, if the old saying "As goes California, so goes the rest of the country" is true, then pretty soon we'll understand what the fantasy of "share the wealth" actually does.
A good point since we saw the right-wing version of that just before Bush left office, handing the largest transfer of wealth in history from poor taxpayers to the super wealthy bankers. Want to talk socialism? He's already out the door. Welcome to the aftermath of Bush.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:30 PM   #106
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,345
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
Okay David, we know you hate Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rush, Hannity, all people conservative.
My original post was about Obama asking his cabinet to cut out 100 million dollars from their budget when he is spending trillions of dollars.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/20/...s-in-pictures/

Seriously, what is your opinion of this and how is putting the country even further into debt by trillions going to help the country?

David
Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Conservative?

None of those people are real conservatives at all. Unless you define "conservatism" as being "a right-wing nut."

I think Obama's strategy is fine........

........I think Obama is doing the right thing.

David
Okay, you responded to part of my post but did not answer the rest of it. What do you think of Obama asking his cabinet to cut 100 million from their budgets while he is spending trillions and how is going deeper into debt by trillions going to help the country?

David

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 09:07 PM   #107
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
Okay, you responded to part of my post but did not answer the rest of it. What do you think of Obama asking his cabinet to cut 100 million from their budgets while he is spending trillions and how is going deeper into debt by trillions going to help the country?
He's the President. He has to make the decisions and it looks to me like he's doing fine. So what if he tells his cabinet to cut budgets and spends elsewhere?

And how is going into debt by trillions going to help the country?

Again, I ask, why didn't you carp like that while Bush was wasting the surpluses of 2000 and running up 1.4 trillion in debt? He's left so much destruction behind, and so many real costs hidden, I think borrowing is the only way to get out of it now. Sure, we could take the "conservative" approach and do nothing, and let the current trouble snowball into what would have become known as a "real McCain of a Depression" but thank God that Obama isn't waiting around and listening to the same people who caused the mess.

Actually, this is a great segue into the health care issue.

Do you realize that one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in the US is medical catastrophe? And we're not talking about people without insurance, but families with great insurance. Then one of the earning members gets cancer or some other debilitating disease. He or she has to quit work if it gets bad enough and the family is hard pressed even to pay the co-pay for treatments for that member. Then the insurance company drops the whole family.

Think it's a joke? It happens probably thousands of times per year in the US. Then any treatment the sick family member receives must be paid in full by the family and with American medical costs, the family is very soon bankrupt and possibly homeless, maybe with a cancer patient to deal with as well.

To relate that to Bush and Obama, well obviously, the US got infected with a severe cancer in the past eight years and now we have been wiped out. All of our financial systems have slowed to a crawl and many of our industries are threatened, while job losses reached epic levels before Bush made his escape.

Now Obama is handing you the bill for what it's going to take to fix this sorry situation that could have been avoided simply by letting the winner of the 2000 election hold office.

But since we got cancer, instead, now we're facing an enormous bill to recover.

Say you're in shock at the bill? Where have you been living? I've been warning for years that Bush was going to drive the nation off a cliff, and here we are in freefall. And now you choose to notice.

It's time for everyone to pay up. Sad but true.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:35 PM   #108
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,345
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
He's the President. He has to make the decisions and it looks to me like he's doing fine. So what if he tells his cabinet to cut budgets and spends elsewhere?
So what if he tells his cabinet to cut budgets (by 100 million) and spends elsewhere (by trillions).

One hundred million seconds is 3.2 years
A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.


It seems absurd.

Does anyone know how going into debt trillions of dollars will help the country.

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 06:46 AM   #109
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
One hundred million seconds is 3.2 years
A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.


It seems absurd.
What's absurd is you don't mind Bush wasting 1.4 trillion but when Obama has to clean it up, then it gets absurd?

For eight years Bush neglected the real needs of this nation while he squandered our national wealth on an unnecessary war and transferred billions from the citizens of the United States to the super wealthy via corporations. And now we're in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

And you want to go on following the people who created the disaster.

You can look up this thread again a year from now and you'll realize how absurd your own thinking is on this subject.

Meanwhile, enjoy!

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 06:55 AM   #110
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

I propose the following solution to this vexing problem. We start off with the government surplus that existed with President Clinton took office. We then calculate the difference between the deficit when President Bush left office with the surplus. We then do the following:

1) We calculate the total number of US citizens that voted for President Bush and the total number of corporations and groups that contributed to one of his campaigns.

2) We calculate the total number of US citizens that voted for President Bush and the total number of corporations and groups that contributed to both of his campaigns.

3) To group one we add a one-time surcharge to their US taxes. To group two, we add a one-time surcharge (double of group 1) to their US taxes. The total amount of the surcharge would equal the difference between the surplus when President Bush took office and the deficit when President Bush left office.

I cannot see why responsible citizens would not agree to this sound financial proposal . After all, those griping about the government spending now should FIRST live up to their previous fiscal responsible nature.

Marc Abrams

ps.- The Heritage Foundation is an ultraconservative think tank whose skewed ideas would fit well within the John Birch Society.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 07:41 AM   #111
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

I dunno. I'm not allied with right-wing conservatives, but the heavy reliance on intellectual dishonesty (maybe from depending on class-warfare statements to appeal to their 'base', which is generally ignorant?) of the left is bothersome.

Looking back in recent posts, I see a common idea where Bush's "surplus" is lost. But always when liberals mention the lost surplus they simply refuse to include any mention of the effects the 9/11 attack had on the economy. The economy went to its knees and trillions were lost. But it's never mentioned... the whole blame is placed on Bush.

Then there's the current economic disaster. The disaster was called the "Subprime Mortgage Meltdown". What that meant was that a lot of people quit paying their mortgages and because so many of those mortgages had been "securitized" as valid trading interests, they pulled everything down. Now, you can go on YouTube or do a little research on Google and the records are there that the Dems blocked (by using a spurious tactic of 60% vote to block things from getting out of committee) any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because many people saw the crisis coming and warned of it. It didn't just happen. The Dems wanted poor people to have homes and since F-Mae and F-Mac are essentially arms of the Dem party, the qualifications to get a mortgage were dropped and "subprime" (unqualified) mortgages grew in number. Now the record is still easily available to show that this happened and even some Dems admit that it happened (one U.S. Representative went on TV, puzzled that the Dems wouldn't take credit because they're the ones that did it). So the lie is that Bush did this, when it was actually the Dems. And Obama voted with the Dems. Watch how he very carefully says "different people say there were different causes for the economic collapse". Pooh. He knows. Anyone who doesn't know the sequenced of events is either ignorant or lying, because the facts are still so easily available.

So when it comes to blaming Bush, if you're going to do it, you need to at least acknowledge that the 9/11 attack brought the country to its economic knees and the currenet "subprime"-caused mess.... if you don't acknowledge the Dems' role, the role of Fannie Mae, etc., then it comes down to the pretense of high-principle again. Or low politics.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 07:59 AM   #112
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,345
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
What's absurd is you don't mind Bush wasting 1.4 trillion but when Obama has to clean it up, then it gets absurd?.....
...And you want to go on following the people who created the disaster.
If you go with your explanation of the cause of the mess then Obama is following the people who created the disaster.

You don't clean up a mess by continuing to do something that makes the mess worse. Its like pouring gas on a fire to put the fire out.

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 08:01 AM   #113
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I dunno. I'm not allied with right-wing conservatives, but the heavy reliance on intellectual dishonesty (maybe from depending on class-warfare statements to appeal to their 'base', which is generally ignorant?) of the left is bothersome.

Looking back in recent posts, I see a common idea where Bush's "surplus" is lost. But always when liberals mention the lost surplus they simply refuse to include any mention of the effects the 9/11 attack had on the economy. The economy went to its knees and trillions were lost. But it's never mentioned... the whole blame is placed on Bush.

Then there's the current economic disaster. The disaster was called the "Subprime Mortgage Meltdown". What that meant was that a lot of people quit paying their mortgages and because so many of those mortgages had been "securitized" as valid trading interests, they pulled everything down. Now, you can go on YouTube or do a little research on Google and the records are there that the Dems blocked (by using a spurious tactic of 60% vote to block things from getting out of committee) any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because many people saw the crisis coming and warned of it. It didn't just happen. The Dems wanted poor people to have homes and since F-Mae and F-Mac are essentially arms of the Dem party, the qualifications to get a mortgage were dropped and "subprime" (unqualified) mortgages grew in number. Now the record is still easily available to show that this happened and even some Dems admit that it happened (one U.S. Representative went on TV, puzzled that the Dems wouldn't take credit because they're the ones that did it). So the lie is that Bush did this, when it was actually the Dems. And Obama voted with the Dems. Watch how he very carefully says "different people say there were different causes for the economic collapse". Pooh. He knows. Anyone who doesn't know the sequenced of events is either ignorant or lying, because the facts are still so easily available.

So when it comes to blaming Bush, if you're going to do it, you need to at least acknowledge that the 9/11 attack brought the country to its economic knees and the currenet "subprime"-caused mess.... if you don't acknowledge the Dems' role, the role of Fannie Mae, etc., then it comes down to the pretense of high-principle again. Or low politics.

Mike
Mike:

The far left and far right are simply zealots. Too much hot air released and too much oxygen wasted.

No one is saying that 9/11 did not cause an economic crisis in this country. Compare that situation to the money WASTED starting a war with a country that frankly did a far better job killing and controlling fundamentalist Muslim terrorists than we did. Let us look deeper into how the Bush administration ignored, postponed, and generally minimized any of the pre- 9/11 intelligence warnings about those terrorists and we can make a reasoned conclusion that some degree of responsibility rests with that administration. The only non governmental plane in the US airspace on 9/12 was a plane allowing Saudi nationals (including Bin Laden family members) to leave this country without having been genuinely interrogated. Our country is so beholden to the Saudis that we have yet to truly explore the link between that country and the terrorists from 9/11. That is a whole other story....

As to the subprime meltdown: Yes, this process starting during the Clinton era. It went OUT OF CONTROL during the Bush administration. To blame the Democrats for this problem is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The Republicans controlled the government for SIX years. The Democrats only controlled the legislative branch for TWO years. The deregulation that went on during the Republican control along with other forms of handouts to big businesses seems to escape the attention of those who would only like to look at the last two years of the Bush administration.

Simply calculate how much money we spent in Iraq each and every month and the simple conclusion is that we were a financial wreck of a nation without the inevitable economic downturn that took place. Both political parties have so prostituted themselves out to big businesses that they each share responsibility in the economic collapse and in making it difficult to create proper governance so that we do not re-create this collapse at some point in the all-to-near future.

Frankly speaking, this is not a problem of the "left" or "right." In my opinion, the only way in which our country stands a snowballs chance in hell of truly fixing itself is if the following two political regulations are enacted:
1) All forms of lobbying are outlawed.
2) Government funds all political campaigns equally. Any and all forms of contributions are what they are- bribery.

Until these changes are enacted, we may as well make changes in our constitution to accurately reflect today's reality. The change should read "We The People, Inc..."

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 09:15 AM   #114
mathewjgano
 
mathewjgano's Avatar
Dojo: Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja Aikidojo; Himeji Shodokan Dojo
Location: Renton
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,226
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

I think I get the gist of the stimulus plan. It's basic economics: invest in order to generate wealth. Beyond that, it's mostly Greek to me.
Personally, I think the largest part of the blame for the economic situation we're in should be placed on the culture of greed and entitlement (from top to bottom). This is where the disproportion between wealth and work starts (the presumption being that you have to put in work to generate wealth). In my opinion, the wealthy generally have an inflated sense of self-value. Class warfare? Not really...just an opinion based on what little I'm able to observe. Considering the notion that it's easier for the wealthy to make money (it takes money to make money, as they say), I think they deserve higher taxes to level the field a bit. Where the line should be drawn I don't know, but they always seem to forget that much of their wealth is the product of the situation around them as much as from their own hard work...until the bottom falls out from under them and they "need" more money to stay afloat. Suddenly it's the situation's fault. I know I'm quite ignorant of economics (a thing chaotiticians like to study because it's so complex [despite so many simple "answers"]), but oil exemplifies the problem in my mind: when the cost of oil goes up to a relatively large degree they throw up their hands and say "it's the market that's making it harder to pay for gas, not us" all the while making record profits. Seems disproportionate to me...no give and take, just take and take.
Two things:
I agree with Marc that lobbying is bribery. It negates the democratic-oriented republic we're supposed to have formed because it creates a new royalty out of the wealthy. Simply put, my voice is less important than someone who can afford large contributions (ironically that somehow rarely gets called class-warfare like asking the rich to pay larger taxes).
Secondly, as unrealistic as it may be, I'd love to see the draft applied to politics. Make it like jury duty and maybe we won't have to worry as much about our leaders being out of touch with the populace.
Ok, three things, maybe four:
Like David, all my worst predictions came true when Dick and George came into power (I was willing to be proved wrong). That may be pure coincidence...I could have been right for all the wrong reasons, but god bless me if it's not a compelling reason to think I've got at least a tiny bit of insight into the nature of party politics...one party at least (they're both more or less the same, I think).
...not to imply I'm a Democrat. Like everyone else seems to be, I'm not on their team...Mongo just pawn in game of life.
And I've never known a pajorative that wasn't a form of villification.
I think I'm done here now...this is more depressing than a thousand "Aikido doesn't work in a real fight" threads...but that's politics isn't it.
Take care and may you all sort it out.
Sincerely,
Matt
p.s. I realize I'm only tangentially addressing the topic of Obama spending vs spending cuts, but my points seem to be geared toward much of the real issue here in my opinion...or so it seems so far.

Last edited by mathewjgano : 06-01-2009 at 09:19 AM.

Gambarimashyo!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 09:52 AM   #115
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,345
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
ps.- The Heritage Foundation is an ultraconservative think tank whose skewed ideas would fit well within the John Birch Society.
How about the World Socialist Website
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/ap...pers-a06.shtml

Pravada.ru
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

The Bloomberg Report
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aYgo3fufKIbI

Finicial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4...nclick_check=1

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 11:53 AM   #116
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
No one is saying that 9/11 did not cause an economic crisis in this country.
But no one mentioned it, while at the same time laying all the troubles on Bush's head. It's in the posts for everyone to read and it is quite frankly not an encouraging sign for exactly who is on the high-moral ground.
Quote:
Compare that situation to the money WASTED starting a war with a country that frankly did a far better job killing and controlling fundamentalist Muslim terrorists than we did. Let us look deeper into how the Bush administration ignored, postponed, and generally minimized any of the pre- 9/11 intelligence warnings about those terrorists and we can make a reasoned conclusion that some degree of responsibility rests with that administration.
That's all speculation and opinion. I was talking about *fact* (9/11 crippled the economy) and the idea that while speculation and opinion run rampant, the facts are often ignored in favor of a partisan position; often that deliberate not mentioning of facts appears to be simple dishonesty.
Quote:

The only non governmental plane in the US airspace on 9/12 was a plane allowing Saudi nationals (including Bin Laden family members) to leave this country without having been genuinely interrogated. Our country is so beholden to the Saudis that we have yet to truly explore the link between that country and the terrorists from 9/11. That is a whole other story....
Again, whether they hustled Arabs out of the country so no one would be lynched is interesting, but seems to be off the point I made.
Quote:
As to the subprime meltdown: Yes, this process starting during the Clinton era. It went OUT OF CONTROL during the Bush administration. To blame the Democrats for this problem is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The Republicans controlled the government for SIX years. The Democrats only controlled the legislative branch for TWO years.
Actually, the Community Reinvestment Act (which has a lot to do with ACORN, BTW) was the inception of "subprime mortgages" and it started in the late seventies. Under Clinton, the program was massively enlarged, despite reservations. The Republicans were actually in charge of the Congress during the attempts to regulate Fannie Mae, etc., but the Dems blocked every attempt to do so by using a procedural maneuver of requiring a 60% vote to get legislation out of the *committee*. I.e., they pulled a stunt (it's in the news and the Republicans objected loudly to it) that allowed a minority to block legislation from ever getting an up or down vote on the floor. The news media was helpful in not playing this trick up, so guess what... many people are unaware of the stunt. However, Google and YouTube will bring it up almost immediately. The Dems blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie, Barney Frank swore everything was solvent and fine and then boom, the bottom fell out. The Dems and the media desperately try to avoid any reference to the role the Dems had in the disaster (not saying Wall Street and others didn't take advantage of the laxity of the rules, once the Dems and Fannie and Freddie forced that laxness). Whaddya want... me to do the research? It's been on the news to some degree, so I assume rather that blaming the Republicans, any knowledgeable person is going to admit that the "subprime mortgage meltdown" came from giving too many unqualified people mortgages....and everyone knows that's been a Dem program since the late 70's.

Quote:
Frankly speaking, this is not a problem of the "left" or "right." In my opinion, the only way in which our country stands a snowballs chance in hell of truly fixing itself is if the following two political regulations are enacted:
1) All forms of lobbying are outlawed.
2) Government funds all political campaigns equally. Any and all forms of contributions are what they are- bribery.

Until these changes are enacted, we may as well make changes in our constitution to accurately reflect today's reality. The change should read "We The People, Inc..."
My comment had to do with the fact that Bush was dishonestly being blamed for 9/11's economic phenomena and the current "subprime mortgage meltdown" was being laid at Bush's feet without anyone mentioning that the Republicans were thwarted *every time* by Dem maneuvering in committee. What's bothersome to me is the consistent dishonesty in liberal positions. History keeps being re-written despite the actual facts.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 12:52 PM   #117
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Mike:

You seem to be a conservative with issues against liberals. The gutting of regulations for almost every industry clearly lies at the feet of the Bush administration. The minority members of congress bear little responsibility for that. Alan Greenspan's "faulty" philosophy also helped foster an arena of rampant greed with little to no oversight. It total, both political parties are simply corrupt and responsible for what went wrong. The Republicans were in charge. Leaders typically take responsibility for successes and failures. In Japan, leaders resign for actions and inactions that pale in comparison to what happened while under the Bush watch. Leaders are rightly judged by how they lead through good times and bad times. The Bush administration clearly failed on that account and the Obama administration is a chapter yet written.

The cost of the folly in Iraq is not speculation or opinion. Depending upon what source you want to look at, you are talking 5 to 15 BILLION dollars a month. Our economy recovered from the economic downturn from 9/11. Heck, we had a government balance sheet that helped to defray the costs and get our country back on our feet. The same could not be said for the lack of funds that were not available to help us out of this current mess. We seemed to have squandered quite a bit oversees. Then again, there are a lot of Iraqis with beautiful villas in Europe who don't see our funds as having been squandered!

Would that history that you talk about include the myth started by the Bush administration that linked Iraq to 9/11?

Bottom line has nothing to do with our opinions. The facts of where our country was before Bush took office are clear and after he took office are clear. This new administration will also be judged accordingly when President Obama leaves office.

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 01:27 PM   #118
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
You seem to be a conservative with issues against liberals.
Not really. If the press and conservatives had a large recent history of misreporting facts, I'd be all over them, too. As a matter of fact, I didn't have any qualms about raising the same issue in a local paper once about them not reporting some shenanigans a local right-wing preacher had gotten into. When someone simply lies about the facts or lies through omission while they're presenting an opinion, I'll always say something. Rest assured. Of course, let's not forget the old Armenian proverb, "He who always tells the truth must always have one foot in the stirrup.".
Quote:
The gutting of regulations for almost every industry clearly lies at the feet of the Bush administration. The minority members of congress bear little responsibility for that.
So what was the cause of the economic collapse, then, if you don't think the way the Dems blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie was? Do you think the "subprime mortgage meltdown" was not the cause of subprime mortgages not being paid? It certainly was.
Quote:
Alan Greenspan's "faulty" philosophy also helped foster an arena of rampant greed with little to no oversight. It total, both political parties are simply corrupt and responsible for what went wrong. The Republicans were in charge. Leaders typically take responsibility for successes and failures. In Japan, leaders resign for actions and inactions that pale in comparison to what happened while under the Bush watch. Leaders are rightly judged by how they lead through good times and bad times. The Bush administration clearly failed on that account and the Obama administration is a chapter yet written.
Why not just say "in my opinion" instead of "clearly this" and "clearly that"? It sounds like you're offering simple opinions as facts.
Quote:
The cost of the folly in Iraq is not speculation or opinion. Depending upon what source you want to look at, you are talking 5 to 15 BILLION dollars a month. Our economy recovered from the economic downturn from 9/11. Heck, we had a government balance sheet that helped to defray the costs and get our country back on our feet. The same could not be said for the lack of funds that were not available to help us out of this current mess. We seemed to have squandered quite a bit oversees. Then again, there are a lot of Iraqis with beautiful villas in Europe who don't see our funds as having been squandered!
Hey... please don't try to get me involved in the Iraq war. I couldn't care less. I see both sides of the issue, much in the same way I see both sides of the issue about whether we should have ever gotten involved in WWII, Vietnam, Bosnia, etc. I think we should have stayed out of all of them and to hell with any diplomatic commitments we made. I'm an isolationist. The return on our getting involved in wars while europe sits on its butt and does little in its own defense is minimal. We should simply stop and withdraw all our troops from around the world. Howzat?
Quote:
Would that history that you talk about include the myth started by the Bush administration that linked Iraq to 9/11?
What myth, exactly, did the Bush administration start? Are you sure you have a myth started by the Bush admin or is this going to be another David Orange story that omits large facts?
Quote:
Bottom line has nothing to do with our opinions. The facts of where our country was before Bush took office are clear and after he took office are clear. This new administration will also be judged accordingly when President Obama leaves office.
Oh, I dunno. The Bush admin was certainly not responsible for the "wall" that Jamie Gorelock increased, which did not allow for the flow of information between the CIA and the FBI. I notice that within the last year even more of the actual truth about her hand in the "wall" has come out and the MSM wouldn't touch it.

I don't mind pointing out things that Bush did. I never cared for him, personally. My point was that I really think even less of people who don't tell the truth, lie through omission, etc., yet who try to appear to be more morally superior than Bush et al.

One last point.... notice how the header is about Obama... yet the conversation keeps going to Bush. Obama has flip-flopped and lied more than Bush ever did, so why keep pointing at the guy who is out of office? Look at his campaign promises and how many of them he's had to "change" because he found out that what sounded good to the rubes wouldn't work out in reality. Some things were simple lies (e.g., his promises about ending NAFTA while sending an emissary to Canada to tell them not to worry because he was just lying to get votes). Obama's motto seems to be, "I cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you". Whatever it takes, eh? Chicago "machine" politics at its best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 01:35 PM   #119
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I dunno. I'm not allied with right-wing conservatives, but the heavy reliance on intellectual dishonesty...of the left is bothersome.
Yeah, but I think in your case, anything between the middle of the right wing and the far end of the left wing, including the body of the bird, is all "left wing."

[quote=Mike Sigman;231490Looking back in recent posts, I see a common idea where Bush's "surplus" is lost. But always when liberals mention the lost surplus they simply refuse to include any mention of the effects the 9/11 attack had on the economy. The economy went to its knees and trillions were lost. But it's never mentioned... the whole blame is placed on Bush.[/quote]

Of course, the blame is placed on Bush. Under Al Gore, the 9/11 attacks would not have happened because when the Clinton administration was leaving the White House, they warned Bush that Osama Bin Laden was going to be the biggest national security problem Bush would face. And Bush turned his attention to the Reagan budget-buster so fancifully called "Star Wars" and he paid no further attention to OBL, whatsoever.

In fact, when the second plane hit the WTC, my thoughts were that this was a Russian action, showing Bush "See? Your missile defense is nothing against the mighty Socialist nation of Russia! You defend against missiles? We hit you with your own airplanes!"

But then I realized, "Russians don't usually do suicide missions" and I began to realize, "This was some kind of religious nut." And, of course, from there it was an easy step to "Osama bin Laden."

I was in the Department of Epidemiology offices, watching the coverage live on a TV with bunches of other people, including a muslim woman from Eritrea, who turned to me and said, "Who could have done this?" and I said, "Osama bin Laden."

She gasped and put her hand to her mouth and said, "No! Do you really think so?"

Later, she told me, she had come to believe it, herself.

And that was the situation on 9/10, as they say, when Bush was the perfect poster child for the 9/10 Mentality.

He was as you describe the liberals today, "fat, dumb, happy" and completely unconcerned. He dismissed the intelligence Clinton passed to him, ignored Clinton's experience, the Cole bombing, all the European train bombings, AQ's propensity to turn the items of daily life into instruments of horror, and started pouring Clinton's surpluses into Star Wars and the threat from Russia.

So even without 9/11, he was going to eliminate any available money and his full intent was also to invade Iraq, come hell or high water. 9/11 just gave him the perfect opportunity and Afghanistan was nothing but a stepping stone to his real desire.

He pursued that by stirring panic, fear and anxiety in the populace but the bin Laden family were given a quick pass out of the country as soon as the airways re-opened (if not maybe before that).

So I think Bush really exacerbated the apparent losses to the economy at that time and, in any case, it was going great guns in 2003, 2004 and on up to 2006, when house prices began falling, so I don't think those losses must have been as big as was claimed.

And if they were that big? Then it puts Obama's borrowing into much better perspective. The 9/11 economic disaster had largely abated in a couple of years. So Obama, with a less war-based economy, should be able to rebalance the budget within his term in office and make a silk purse out of Bush's pig ear.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Then there's the current economic disaster. The disaster was called the "Subprime Mortgage Meltdown". What that meant was that a lot of people quit paying their mortgages and because so many of those mortgages had been "securitized" as valid trading interests, they pulled everything down.
Gravity pulled those securities down. First, deregulation allowed them to be created when they were never safe; billions were made by issuing unpayable debt to people with histories of not paying debt, and the ones who made the money on those loans profited again when they sold the loans. And the loans were then sold again and again by people taking cuts at every step until the last buyer discovered they were worthless--or that they might be worthless because, with the instruments that were created in CDOs, it's almost impossible to tell which particular mortgages you even own. And many of those CDOs are made up of 'parts' of many different mortgages. It's the craziest system anyone ever dreamed up. So home buyers were sold mortgages and paid fees and closing costs for loans that the brokers knew full well the borrower would never be able to repay. And they sold these mortgages and were paid again, know that the buyer would never get his money.

So the homeowners lost because they couldn't keep the homes they thought they were buying (having been confused by the broker into all kinds of crazy loans and having been told they could afford them).

The brokers all walked off like bandits, having profited twice on every loan they made.

The investment houses were bailed out for the very stupid investments they made in CDOs.

But the taxpayers, the home buyers and many of the investors were screwed while some already-very-wealthy people doubled their net worth in a few weeks.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Now, you can go on YouTube or do a little research on Google and the records are there that the Dems blocked (by using a spurious tactic of 60% vote to block things from getting out of committee) any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because many people saw the crisis coming and warned of it. It didn't just happen. The Dems wanted poor people to have homes and since F-Mae and F-Mac are essentially arms of the Dem party, the qualifications to get a mortgage were dropped and "subprime" (unqualified) mortgages grew in number.
But the roots run a lot deeper than that, to the banking deregulation of the Reagan era. F-Mae and F-Mac arose from that compost.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Now the record is still easily available to show that this happened and even some Dems admit that it happened (one U.S. Representative went on TV, puzzled that the Dems wouldn't take credit because they're the ones that did it). So the lie is that Bush did this, when it was actually the Dems.
No, it was Reagan and the whole financial industry that is founded in his deregulation. The subprime crisis grew like a weed in that manure. People said when Reagan deregulated the banks that he was setting the stage for a New Depression because this same kind of thing was rampant leading to the crash of 1929, but the Republicans said, "No, no. That can't happen again. There are too many safeguards." So they handed business everything they wanted and it started going down pretty quickly, when GHW Bush presided over the S&L disaster, when Neil Bush walked away with profits from the collapse of Silverado.

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bu..._and_the_s.htm

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
And Obama voted with the Dems. Watch how he very carefully says "different people say there were different causes for the economic collapse". Pooh. He knows. Anyone who doesn't know the sequenced of events is either ignorant or lying, because the facts are still so easily available.
Or maybe they're just looking at the flower and ignoring the roots in Reaganomics. Or Voodoo Economics as GHW called it.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
So when it comes to blaming Bush, if you're going to do it, you need to at least acknowledge that the 9/11 attack brought the country to its economic knees…
Yes, it did. Briefly. And Obama's debt should be pretty easy to clear up in light of that.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
...and the currenet "subprime"-caused mess.... if you don't acknowledge the Dems' role, the role of Fannie Mae, etc., then it comes down to the pretense of high-principle again. Or low politics.
Sure. The Dems are part of the mix, but the whole thing goes back to Reagan, with a focus on the wealthy and underground profit potential, and the Dem involvement focused on increasing home ownership as Credit Unions had traditionally done.

So...all in all...Obama still looks better on every level than any Republican and any other Democrat on the scene.

Cheers.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 01:39 PM   #120
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
If you go with your explanation of the cause of the mess then Obama is following the people who created the disaster.

You don't clean up a mess by continuing to do something that makes the mess worse. Its like pouring gas on a fire to put the fire out.

David
With an oil well fire, you blow up dynamite right above the well head. That's more like what Obama is doing.

The big difference is that Bush poured money down the drain and into foreign pockets, while Obama will spend it in and on this nation. So that money will come back to us. IF Bush's money comes back to us, it will be in bombs and poison gas.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 02:45 PM   #121
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,345
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
..... while Obama will spend it in and on this nation. .
"Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year. This included a $2.25 million year-end bonus handed him this past January, within weeks of his joining the Obama administration."

"David Axelrod, the Obama campaign's top strategist and now senior adviser to the president, was paid $1.55 million last year from two consulting firms he controls. He has agreed to buyouts that will garner him another $3 million over the next five years. His disclosure claims personal assets of between $7 and $10 million."

"Obama's deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, was paid $3.9 million by a Washington law firm whose major clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Apollo Management."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/ap...pers-a06.shtml

Boy, I am glad to see that the money is spent here at home.

David

Last edited by dps : 06-01-2009 at 02:54 PM.

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 03:57 PM   #122
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

David:

If those guys fix our economic woes than I see that the money was well spent.

How about ex-vp Cheney and the money that he made from Halliburton? Was that money well spent?

The financial games are played on both sides of the political aisle.

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 04:06 PM   #123
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
How about ex-vp Cheney and the money that he made from Halliburton?
What about the money he made from Halliburton? That's actually not related to political elections, even though it was a big talking point among liberals. Axelrod and others have an honest web of political connections that no liberal is calling to be tracked at all. Again, I point to the one-sidedness of people who are claiming the high moral ground.

Halliburton, BTW, is one of 3 companies in the world that can multi-task on a massive scale and that's why they're picked (often on a non-competitive contract basis) to supplement the military. The other two companies are a French company and a Russian company. Bill Clinton used Halliburton, on a non-competition contract basis for the Bosnian war (a war that we had less basis to fight in than Iraq.... but the so-called anti-war crowd uttered not a peep, showing once again that they are really simply political partisans).

But if you want to claim that Cheney had something other than a past association with Halliburton and that somehow there was corruption, please let's discuss it. Then maybe we can get back to Obama's ties to the unions and how he is muscling people in the unions' favor. I haven't seen anyone on the "anti-Bush" side say "Wow... that's troubling that Obama is obviously playing favorites with the unions". Not A Word. Moral high ground.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 04:18 PM   #124
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
What about the money he made from Halliburton? That's actually not related to political elections, even though it was a big talking point among liberals. Axelrod and others have an honest web of political connections that no liberal is calling to be tracked at all. Again, I point to the one-sidedness of people who are claiming the high moral ground.

Halliburton, BTW, is one of 3 companies in the world that can multi-task on a massive scale and that's why they're picked (often on a non-competitive contract basis) to supplement the military. The other two companies are a French company and a Russian company. Bill Clinton used Halliburton, on a non-competition contract basis for the Bosnian war (a war that we had less basis to fight in than Iraq.... but the so-called anti-war crowd uttered not a peep, showing once again that they are really simply political partisans).

But if you want to claim that Cheney had something other than a past association with Halliburton and that somehow there was corruption, please let's discuss it. Then maybe we can get back to Obama's ties to the unions and how he is muscling people in the unions' favor. I haven't seen anyone on the "anti-Bush" side say "Wow... that's troubling that Obama is obviously playing favorites with the unions". Not A Word. Moral high ground.

FWIW

Mike
Mike:

With all due respect, that is simply absurd! Halliburton had everything to do with politics. NO BID contracts, illegal activities in which investigators were stopped in their tracks. A "BLIND" trust that stood everything to gain from all of those contracts. I wish my investments were are "blindly" managed as those were.

There would be more companies if not for no-bid contracts and a whole lot of other untidy things that prevent real competition among companies. These mega corporations are knee deep in politics and keep a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle well fed.

Read my previous post about cleaning up government. Until that happens, do not expect honesty and integrity as the rule of thumb amongst politicians and big business. These companies are simply the brothels and the politicians are employed by them both during and after their "duty" as elected officials.

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 04:35 PM   #125
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
With all due respect, that is simply absurd! Halliburton had everything to do with politics. NO BID contracts, illegal activities in which investigators were stopped in their tracks. A "BLIND" trust that stood everything to gain from all of those contracts. I wish my investments were are "blindly" managed as those were.
Sorry, but I was asking for something besides a simple assertion that Cheney made money illicitly via Halliburton. Your comments don't do a single thing to support your assertion. Are you saying "maybe he made some money illicitly"? In other words, is your assertion really only an opinion being presented as a fact?

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate