TN NRI Corner [Archive] - SkyscraperCity

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:53 AM

If Obama is re-elected he owes Clinton a lot.

About his own speech, it definitely is not Obama's best. Compared to 4 years ago, his body language is not that confident this year. Dems started the purpose of their convention a little late with Bill Clinton on day two. That should have been the keynote address. His speech defined the platform and direction. Before that they were simply clueless (No matter what 80% of democratic media says)

Back to Obama's speech, he didn't really lay out the future plans in detail. No promises made for the next four years may be because there will be no Clinton to defend him in debates :). In addition to Clinton's outline they just attacked the lack of foreign policy experience of Romney-Ryan which is a known factor for the public. Foreign policy is not going to swing the undecided voters anymore. As long as Romney-Ryan campaign is not stupid enough to make statements like I said hi to Russians from my patio they should be fine on that front. This is probably the first election since Clinton, where foreign policy will weigh less than national issues. So not sure if this is big deal, and anyways they have Condi :) Further with all that foreign policy experience surprised that dems screwed up on God-Israel.

Both Biden and Obama essentially repeated what Clinton said yesterday and didn't bring anything new to the table. Neither did Romney on the last day of RNC. Their best speeches came in the form of Chris Christie and Condolezza Rice. Romney thanks to Ann, gained some trust among women voters (bounce as per latest polls).

All is not lost for Romney in FL yet (agreed that Obama has advantage now). Marco Rubio's popularity remains. It is still not a cakewalk for them. Add to it that seniors are polarized by faith and medicare. I think Romney-Ryan camp will try to go after hispanic vote which is where Rubio is the key now.

That leaves us with OH, VA, NC (I am assuming that CO will go dems way and IA to GOP) with OH a key battle ground state

Check this poll as well -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

I'll say 60%-40% in Obama's favor for now. Tomorrow's job report and presidential debates will clear up the rest. But I have a feeling that it wouldn't be a nail biting election like 2000. By end of the debate we should know a clear picture.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 07:03 AM

if Romney cant beat Michelle, then its difficult for him to beat Obama.

Likeability of Romney among women is always an issue. For Obama it's the opposite. Men voters tend to favor Romney. Further Obama is a great orator whereas Romney is not. Also social media trending don't necessarily turn to votes.

venkyinblr

September 7th, 2012, 07:05 AM

Good appa Aratai arangam sandai overaa...illa inga thodaruma :)

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 07:26 AM

Geico,
neenga inthe topic-le TN allatha vizhayangal pesalam. "TN-le illathavanga" ille...
so some of your posts can be in TNAA. ;)

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 07:31 AM

எவ்வளவு தமிழர்கள் ( ( வெ வா த ) எந்தெந்த நாடுகளில் வசிக்கின்றனர் என்கிற தகவல்
கிடைத்தால் நன்றாக இருக்கும்.

From wiki...
Regions with significant Tamil populations

India 60,793,814 (2008)[1]
Sri Lanka 3,092,676 (2001)[2]
Malaysia 1,892,000 (2000)[3]
South Africa 250,000 (2008)[4]
Singapore 200,000 (2008)[4]
Burma 200,000 (2008)[4]
United Kingdom 150,000 (2008)[5]
Canada 138,675 (2006)[6]
United States 132,573 (2005-2009)[7]
Mauritius 115,000 (2008)[4]
Fiji 110,000 (2008)[8]
France 100,000 (2008)[8]
Germany 50,000 (2008)[8]
Indonesia 40,000 (2011)[9]
Switzerland 40,000 (2008)[4]
Australia 30,000 (2008)[4]
Italy 25,000 (2008)[4]
Netherlands 20,000 (2008)[4]
Norway 10,000 (2008)[4]
Thailand 10,000 (2008)[4]
United Arab Emirates 10,000 (2008)[4]
Denmark 7,000 (2008)[4]
Bahrain 7,000 (2008)[4]

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 08:13 AM

Eppadi iruntha Nan, ippudi maritten..
கடந்த ஆண்டு ஏப்ரல் 10ம் தேதி பூகம்பம் மற்றும் அதை தொடர்ந்து வந்த சுனாமியால் தாக்கப்பட்டபோது, ஆட்சுசி நகரம் கிடந்த அலங்கோல நிலை முதல் படம். ஒன்றரை ஆண்டுக்குள் சுனாமியால் தாக்கப்பட்டதன் அறிகுறியே தெரியாத அளவுக்கு தற்போது உருமாறியிருக்கும் நகரத்தை இரண்டாவது படத்தில் பார்க்கலாம்.

PS: TamilNadu also recovered from 2004 Sunami in a amazing speed.
http://epaper.dinakaran.com/pdf/2012/09/07/20120907a_01210101401.jpg

Arul Murugan

September 7th, 2012, 12:01 PM

From wiki...
Regions with significant Tamil populations

India 60,793,814 (2008)[1]
Sri Lanka 3,092,676 (2001)[2]
Malaysia 1,892,000 (2000)[3]
South Africa 250,000 (2008)[4]
Singapore 200,000 (2008)[4]
Burma 200,000 (2008)[4]
United Kingdom 150,000 (2008)[5]
Canada 138,675 (2006)[6]
United States 132,573 (2005-2009)[7]
Mauritius 115,000 (2008)[4]
Fiji 110,000 (2008)[8]
France 100,000 (2008)[8]
Germany 50,000 (2008)[8]
Indonesia 40,000 (2011)[9]
Switzerland 40,000 (2008)[4]
Australia 30,000 (2008)[4]
Italy 25,000 (2008)[4]
Netherlands 20,000 (2008)[4]
Norway 10,000 (2008)[4]
Thailand 10,000 (2008)[4]
United Arab Emirates 10,000 (2008)[4]
Denmark 7,000 (2008)[4]
Bahrain 7,000 (2008)[4]

No. of quite high for Mauritius, Fiju and Indonesia than my expectation.

Seekirirama Chennai la irunthu Rangoon, Durban, Jaffna ku flight vanthudum.:nuts:

தமிழன்

September 7th, 2012, 12:19 PM

From wiki...
Regions with significant Tamil populations

India 60,793,814 (2008)[1]
Sri Lanka 3,092,676 (2001)[2]
Malaysia 1,892,000 (2000)[3]
South Africa 250,000 (2008)[4]
Singapore 200,000 (2008)[4]
Burma 200,000 (2008)[4]
United Kingdom 150,000 (2008)[5]
Canada 138,675 (2006)[6]
United States 132,573 (2005-2009)[7]
Mauritius 115,000 (2008)[4]
Fiji 110,000 (2008)[8]
France 100,000 (2008)[8]
Germany 50,000 (2008)[8]
Indonesia 40,000 (2011)[9]
Switzerland 40,000 (2008)[4]
Australia 30,000 (2008)[4]
Italy 25,000 (2008)[4]
Netherlands 20,000 (2008)[4]
Norway 10,000 (2008)[4]
Thailand 10,000 (2008)[4]
United Arab Emirates 10,000 (2008)[4]
Denmark 7,000 (2008)[4]
Bahrain 7,000 (2008)[4]

interesting numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_population_by_cities

jaish

September 7th, 2012, 12:27 PM

It will be very high in ME region. ETA will have more than what is mentioned here.

greatchennai

September 7th, 2012, 02:59 PM

interesting numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_population_by_cities

I expect around 50% are Srilankan tamil's, in particular around Europe, SE asia, Aus, etc

satishanu

September 7th, 2012, 03:06 PM

Nice thread..

Bit news..

Seevalaperi pandi brought a $1.5 million mansion (2nd home) near nashville..

staravindan

September 7th, 2012, 03:07 PM

Hello FM First Tamil FM Radio in Gulf

Since 2010 Hello FM Tamil started service in dubai(relayed from fujairah) ..... to the best of my knowledge this Tamil FM .....third indian language to hav a dedicated FM Radio in Gulf.....apart from hindi( 7) and malayalam(4).

vgraja

September 7th, 2012, 03:26 PM

மேலும் சில
1. சவுதி அரேபியா - 2,௦௦,௦௦௦ பேர்
2.குவைத் - 1,50,000 பேர்
3.கத்தார் - 3௦,000 பேர்
மற்றும் உரிய ஆவணங்கள் இல்லாமல் சுமார் பத்தாயிரம் தமிழர்கள் அரபு
நாடுகளில் இருப்பதாக கூறப்படுகிறது.

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 03:42 PM

Geico,
neenga inthe topic-le TN allatha vizhayangal pesalam. "TN-le illathavanga" ille...
so some of your posts can be in TNAA. ;)

Oru bayamthan, enga sandaku vanthuravongalonu...Namku entha Sandai ellam vera palakam illaiayia ...

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 03:50 PM

No. of quite high for Mauritius, Fiju and Indonesia than my expectation.

Seekirirama Chennai la irunthu Rangoon, Durban, Jaffna ku flight vanthudum.:nuts:

namma aallu vidalana kuda avanga viduvanga.. aaannaa,, namma AAI than (plus CG flight landing restrictions) lollu pannuthu..

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 03:52 PM

If Obama wins, he will face more Republican resistance worser than the last two years, which will make him feel why he won the second term.. which is why his body language is slacking..

More than Romney, it is Ryan who is the danger to the policies. Romney seems at least corporate like balance, but Ryan is Palin's Anna with an intellectual brain.. which is deadly combination, esp for the ideas he wants to implement.

jaish

September 7th, 2012, 03:55 PM

Oru bayamthan, enga sandaku vanthuravongalonu...Namku entha Sandai ellam vera palakam illaiayia ...

Nan than irukane thittu vangrathku neenga ean kavalaipadureenga...

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 04:34 PM

If Obama wins, he will face more Republican resistance worser than the last two years, which will make him feel why he won the second term.. which is why his body language is slacking..

All presidents irrespective of whether they are republicans or democrats had to deal with it. In fact Clinton and Obama had an advantage that none of the other presidents in recent times had, which is having their own party majority for first two years when they held office. It is a big deal for a new incumbent.

The difference is Obama failed exactly where Clinton succeeded. For remaining 6 years Clinton had to work with Republican majority and heck was even successful. Technical reson is Obama is more far left for GOP to work with. Actual reason (that I think) is Clinton had much stronger personality and leadership that provided him the ability to reach across aisle. If not for 22nd amendment he would have been the president in 2000 (and who knows even now)

More than Romney, it is Ryan who is the danger to the policies. Romney seems at least corporate like balance, but Ryan is Palin's Anna with an intellectual brain.. which is deadly combination, esp for the ideas he wants to implement.

Why? Need explanation here please.

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 04:44 PM

^^ Very true. But there is also another major shift on the so called Right. The centrists, esp. in Republicans are near extinct. Their own party is largely impacted by the more right leaning tea partyers, whose stand is NO COMPROMISE on any account. How can anyone negotiate with someone, who says there can be no talks. I am not saying Dems are saints either... With such strong polarities the room at the middle is very little.

I genuinely think Obama did make an effort. His attempt to even touch the holy cows of medicare is evidence of his compromise strategy. But that was not enough for Republicans.

I think both sides have some major flaws in their thought processes and over time, they have raised it to rally their troops. Hence the nation has got more polarized than ever. The way Romney jokes about his birth certificate even now show how much contempt they are having.

I was moved by the hollow Republican talk with no plans or policies, except throw Obama away as more Indian style politics. Cong kitta training eduthirupanga pola..

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 04:49 PM

Why? Need explanation here please.

Romney with his stint in MA as governor, showed his flip flop character. But given the corporate sense, he might have little balance prevailing, I hope. Ryan on the other hand is steeped on very right conservative ideas. He is no Biden to make gaffes nor Sarah Palin to display idiocy like she can see Putin from her home. With the tea partyers being such a strong reason why Reps enjoy a majority and also expected to put a strong showing in Nov, he will perhaps top Cheney in terms of influence on the government. He may not have the same personality like Cheney though.

To appease the right voters esp for 2014 and 2016, they will activate strong conservative measures, and his hand will be there perhaps more. Hence my fear for Ryan.

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 04:53 PM

All presidents irrespective of whether they are republicans or democrats had to deal with it. In fact Clinton and Obama had an advantage that none of the other presidents in recent times had, which is having their own party majority for first two years when they held office. It is a big deal for a new incumbent.

The difference is Obama failed exactly where Clinton succeeded. For remaining 6 years Clinton had to work with Republican majority and heck was even successful. Technical reson is Obama is more far left for GOP to work with. Actual reason (that I think) is Clinton had much stronger personality and leadership that provided him the ability to reach across aisle. If not for 22nd amendment he would have been the president in 2000 (and who knows even now)

Why? Need explanation here please.

I don't think so, the republicans has gone too far to the right, which make some of us think like that. Many policies which were supported/initiated by republicans where opposed by them when Obama supported them. Opposing Abortion even after rape has gone main stream in the GOP. This the same GOP asking for deficit reduction, which swallowed the whole surplus created by Clinton.

I think you might have read the report where GOP had some grand meeting before Obama's Oath stating that they will oppose whatever he supports. I think its because he is not a white and also many think he is a secret Muslim. They have planted this idea in such a way even a common GOP supporter believes this. My neighbor/friend believes still believe this.

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 05:10 PM

The Republicans missed a major chance to reclaim power by attacking Obama relentlessly in the last two years and not even giving a finger tip in solving issues. Not good politics. Bad Strategy. They counted on culture war. GOP was more of a Grand Obstruction Party. They forgot their core values and were hijacked by the far right crazies. Obama on the other hand did everything he could to get a compromise. Agreed he is more to the left than Clinton. But, he had to! He had to move to the left to defend the dems. He had to protect the true Democratic value that he stood for in the midst of an ambush by the tea party dimwits. They were hell bent on making Obama a one term president from day one.Poor poor strategy. Thats why I liked Ron Paul, who did not get caught in this joke. If the GOP stood true to it's values and acted on them, they would have gotten something to show to people rather than calling foul on everything Obama. It would have given them the credibility to all their attacks on the Dems. After the conventions now Obama looks FDResque, and Romney looks like Gordon Gekko (from movie Wall Street). The GOP played the good cards they had all wrong, and Obama played the bad cards he was dealt with amazingly well.

Moving ahead, if Obama wins, GOP has no other choice other than working with the Dems to solve issues, if the ever dream of winning in 2016 (against Hillary??). They cannot win if they are still obstructing progress. People are not dumb, err except the 20% or so who still think Obama is anti christ!! This what happened in the 90s with Clinton too. They had to cooperate in the second term or lose in the next election. This is what gonna happen in the next 4 years. Good times ahead, I hope!

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 05:26 PM

Satch / Geico / CY

Not everything about republicans are wrong. HINT: Look at the states that they are governing. Most of them have balanced budgets. Watch Chris Christie's speech. What he said in his RNC keynote address is real.

Another big flaw with Obama is he is giving into unions. Whether it is auto union or teachers union he just refuses to stand up to them. May be because he is ideologically aligning up with them, but that's wrong.

Example 1

Actually unions are the reasons for the failure of big 3 in Detroit. They are responsible for their own failure. Now you are bailing them out with tax payers money without structural changes. What Obama did is only strengthning them. One of my professor (an auditor) use to say this. An assembly line worker in GM gets paid $90 an hour and his job press a "red" button to stop the line in his section and "green" button to start. According to her he had been performing this act 4-5 times per hour and about 35-40 times per day for 15 years. And here is the worst part, when she questioned him why he is doing it, he couldn't offer a technical answer. Such is the power of union.

Also just check at their union benefits post retirement. I don't want my tax money going into some union slackers retirement account :lol:

Another example of strenghening union is teachers issue. Take the Democrat controlled IL for example

Example 2

Some IL school districts command highest salaries in the nation. Example Schaumburg and downtown Chicago. Even elementary school teachers command it. You know what they teach at that level. If you don't know it is an extended day-care center

http://www.illinoisloop.org/salary.html

Back to real education issue, the same site mentions that average teacher wage is around 24,000 in 2003 the same in IL Schaumburg ranges from 87k to astronomical 142k per year for few high school teachers.

Further look at http://www.illinoispolicy.org/

Look at the aid to schools vs retirement benefits -> http://www.illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=4972

This is per employee cost related to teachers (NOT salary) -> http://www.illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=4968

CBS video -> Teachers are unrealistic on contract dispute -> http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4897

Also look at who is paying the cost -> http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4457

There are several peer reviewed journals from IL policy site regarding teachers pensions and reforms. Please go through them too from all angle. Teacher unions are using their collective bargaining rights and holding tax-payers on ransom. Plain hooglianism. 71% of educational funding in the state goes to retirement benefits of teachers leaving 29% for school infrastructure (that includes salary). Is this where I want my tax money to be spent on? Is this the system I want to leave for my future generation? NO.

Unions know that husbands, wifes, and single moms all have to work and if they go on strike, parents support will be on their side because they can't afford kids come back home before one of them is back from office. That disturbs the work-life balance of adults, adds to day care costs, and disrupts their education. So obviously parents will add indirect pressure on government to givein to teachers demand. We need a decision maker who works for the tax payers and not public employees and unions that suck money out of government. We need more people like "Scott Walker", the leaders with spine to take on the rowdy unions.

Now look at republican governed states (NJ, WI, MA). Romney, Chris Christie, Scott Walker all showed middle finger to unions. All these states had more-or-less similar problems to IL. Now it's different scenario there. They insured that the funding is appropriately used for education infrastructure (and selecting right teachers) instead of giving in to unions. They showed in action what Obama is talking about. You start seeing the results now, some of the best schools are from that states. Obama is trying to bring in fed control over schools. IMO it should be state's policy.

PS> Yes Obama made the decision to go after OBL in Pakistan. Despite that he lacks the decisiveness to take bull by its horns on internal matters. On issues like the examples I mentioned here his actions are different from his words. Other than this I have some policy opinions that is drastically different from his like Immigration.

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 05:30 PM

Another reason why Clinton is more to the center than Obama is that he was the governor of Arkansas, a republican state. He has the experience of working with the conservatives right from his young years. He won and lost, came back and won again the governor position. He is a liberal with his policies, but knows what ticks the conservative voters. That's why he is so liked by all now. Heck, he won back the white house after being impeached!!! haha When he was the president, he was attacked relentlessly by the GOP, but that attack was policy based, compared to the attack on Obama -which is culture/hate based (First Black President) Clinton's attackers accepted him as president and Obama attackers do not even accept him as an american.

So there are differences between Clinton's first term and Obama's first term.

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 05:37 PM

Satch / Geico / CY

Also just check at their union benefits post retirement. I don't want my tax money going into some union slackers retirement account :lol:

.

I don't want my tax money to bail out wall street crooks who led to the disaster in the first place. And, i don't want my vote (although I don't have one at this time :) ) to go to a party which supports a complete wall street deregulation and comes to the government for money, but questions the reasons of the government to bail out ordinary people. As simple as that!

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 05:41 PM

Romney with his stint in MA as governor, showed his flip flop character. But given the corporate sense, he might have little balance prevailing, I hope. Ryan on the other hand is steeped on very right conservative ideas. He is no Biden to make gaffes nor Sarah Palin to display idiocy like she can see Putin from her home. With the tea partyers being such a strong reason why Reps enjoy a majority and also expected to put a strong showing in Nov, he will perhaps top Cheney in terms of influence on the government. He may not have the same personality like Cheney though.

To appease the right voters esp for 2014 and 2016, they will activate strong conservative measures, and his hand will be there perhaps more. Hence my fear for Ryan.

I am still not clear on your argument. What makes you think that Ryan will go Cheney way? If you cite his voting record of Iraq now it is different situation, different year. I don't think he will do similar act with Iran now. Dick Cheney is a foreign policy guy, Ryan is drastically different. His focus is internal.

I too don't agree with their abortion ideas. Irrespective of what TEA party members in GOP says that act (or rather any conservative thoughts) won't make it into an act. They just can't do it. Voters can always pressurize by calling in your local congressmen/ senator's office. Be assured that several NGO lobbies will work against it (if it comes to it).

If medicare is your concern, it is debatable. He has his points. We can have it as seperate discussion. I am just trying to understand what makes you think that Ryan is radical.

Ideal scenario in this election should have been Obama-Biden vs Ron Paul-Huntsman. But what we have is not a bad choice as it is projected to be.

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 05:51 PM

@KT - Balancing state budget - Many states like VA and MA are mandated by the state constitution to compulsorily balance the budge, which the Reps happen to be governors. Similar to Romney claim that he balanced MA budget, so is Deval patrick compelled to.

Agreed that balancing budget and keeping expenses low is a weakness of Dems (CA as example, although Arnold didnt get it fully under his belt.. maybe because he was too busy with his secret mistress.. sorry had to bash him).

Unions - As you may have observed, they are so industrial age. It is natural that somebody is fighting to keep that vote bank alive. But their numbers are on the wane. No wonder Obama wants more manufacturing (read union) jobs.

Reps are not bad. One, they like to cut taxes, atleast on paper. Usually ends up helping the rich more, but they also donate more.. hehe..

On social issues, they have been pushing too right, like in the name of defending the unborn child, they want to lead the raped woman to the gallows. Rape is not a mere incident like burglary which time can erase. It is not mere biological or emotional. Its lot deeper. On top of that if the woman is asked to birth the rapist's child. That is atrocious.

Secondly, they claim GOD, creator etc, all stories to keep their foot soldiers alive. But why not show interest in protecting God's creations (earth). Just like their fondness for supporting rapist's child, they want to rape the earth. Mere Corporatism will never protect the earth or care of envt.

I am not Dem supporter, either. If I start there, then another dozen pages I can fill. Vidu Jhoot..

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 05:58 PM

Agreed Paul-Huntsman would have been more credible to me. But the country is too polarized for them to vote for Paul or Huntsman.

I am sorry to find you so disillusioned about the conservative efforts. They will do every dirty trick in the book to get through. Just see the number of states that have enacted Voter ID laws (where there is hardly any credible evidence for fraud, even if it exits, it may be 10-20 cases per state), just to inconvenience the dem voting block. I am not saying voter id is bad idea.but the rep intent as evident from their speeches shows it all.

They can do a lot. For instance in Texas, the governor said he is ready to forego all the money from Fed. govt, just to make sure Planned parenthood, which offers lots of services, besides abortion, is kicked out.

Again it was their senator who just now took the foot off the HR3012 and also hear their rhetoric about immigration. They forgot this entire nation only had native indians as original folks, rest all ... nammala madiri vandhavanga..

sridhar_n

September 7th, 2012, 06:05 PM

Am an outsider, but have been keenly following the happenings since the primaries I thought Republicans started strong - not because of their strength but because of Obama's weakness and due to the state of the economy then. But then they started to lose the trick - not so clear policies and also the improving economy reposed faith in Obama. I keenly watched the Tampa convention and the Democrats' convention. Michelle and Barack Obama did just what was expected, nothing spectacular, but Bill Clinton's speech was awesome.

I think American's would go with the 'known devil' (Obama) over 'unknown angel' (Romney).

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:08 PM

I am sorry to find you so disillusioned about the conservative efforts. They will do every dirty trick in the book to get through. ..

Romney is not a tea party favorite. But he made it to the president ticket. So there you go, I am not completely disillusioned about the party. Yes I am saying this with disappointment that they didn't support Ron Paul

They forgot this entire nation only had native indians as original folks, rest all ... nammala madiri vandhavanga..

This was my reply to one such similar post in North American skybar

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=94822325&postcount=8519

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 06:11 PM

Nice thread..

Bit news..

Seevalaperi pandi brought a $1.5 million mansion (2nd home) near nashville..

athaaru???

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 06:13 PM

I think American's would go with the 'known devil' (Obama) over 'unknown angel' (Romney).

There is a high probability favoring Obama, only because his tally from states favoring him is higher. It is still very tight to call it as a cakewalk.

Even Wisconsin, is now in play thanks to Ryan. MI may not be weak for dems, but they cant cut the slack like in CA. Same in PA. They have to work to keep it.

Of the other states in play - CO may lean Blue, also good chance in OH.

FL, VA, IA, NH still up in air. Harder for Romney to sweep all the ones in play. Obama at present has more routes to go over 270. If anyone wins FL and OH together, then game over. Obama can still go over by retaining OH, VA and few other smaller ones and still lose FL but retain his post. Romney has to win FL, OH and preferably VA, WI to make the cut.

Vote illatha namakku(assume majority of us are not citizens) good time pass.. hehe

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 06:14 PM

If Obama wins, he will face more Republican resistance worser than the last two years, which will make him feel why he won the second term.. which is why his body language is slacking..

More than Romney, it is Ryan who is the danger to the policies. Romney seems at least corporate like balance, but Ryan is Palin's Anna with an intellectual brain.. which is deadly combination, esp for the ideas he wants to implement.

Though I favor Democrats overall, but with respect to Fiscal conservation, I believe Republicans are serious except tax cut for rich. Social Security is doomed unless they take quick action.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:14 PM

athaaru???

Nepolean

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 06:15 PM

Nan than irukane thittu vangrathku neenga ean kavalaipadureenga...

Neenga romba nallavaru :banana:

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 06:16 PM

KT, Huntsman could not even get 3% vote in the current GOP primary! shows how the party is crazy to the right! Both Ron Paul and Huntsman are remnants of the old GOP. they dont even stand a chance now. I understand you are defending the GOP/Romney-Ryan with their values, while in reality the values of the party and those of Romney-Ryan are so far right. Ideally from a philosophical stand point, Ron Paul-Huntsman would represent everything you say here.

In current reality the GOP is nothing but a party of NO. They lost their original values. They use Reagan as just a catch phrase, and not go by his philosophy. If Reagan was alive today, he'd be a Clinton democrat!!! GOP did not change with times and definitely what ever change they gone through, they gone for worse. That is costing them huge.

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 06:23 PM

Though I favor Democrats overall, but with respect to Fiscal conservation, I believe Republicans are serious except tax cut for rich. Social Security is doomed unless they take quick action.

If they were that serious how about cutting unwanted military spending.. Dems have serious issue with overspending, esp to save their populist programs. Reps on the other hand want to start with a hatchet, where a scalpel can start the work.

Social Security even if someone fixes is doomed. But so many generations have been fooled into believing by both the parties alike.

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 06:28 PM

Yeah Ron Paul - Huntsman would be appealing to centrists and lot of Democrats as well.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:29 PM

They use Reagan as just a catch phrase, and not go by his philosophy. If Reagan was alive today, he'd be a Clinton democrat!!! GOP did not change with times and definitely what ever change they gone through, they gone for worse. That is costing them huge.

I agree with you here. Romney is no Regan and Obama is no Clinton. Both parties are moving toward their extreme positions. Only that GOP got there faster than the dems. Give Obama 4 more years it will be balanced :)

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 06:31 PM

If they were that serious how about cutting unwanted military spending.. Dems have serious issue with overspending, esp to save their populist programs. Reps on the other hand want to start with a hatchet, where a scalpel can start the work.

Social Security even if someone fixes is doomed. But so many generations have been fooled into believing by both the parties alike.

I once read some where that Social Security is surviving coz of folks that work in U.S for a long term but eventually go back to their native country. Is that fair?

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 06:34 PM

I once read some where that Social Security is surviving coz of folks that work in U.S for a long term but eventually go back to their native country. Is that fair?

Inga neraya samacharam fair kedayathu..

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:37 PM

I once read some where that Social Security is surviving coz of folks that work in U.S for a long term but eventually go back to their native country. Is that fair?

That's stretching beyond imagination. Yes it is unfair that people from India, China, or Phillipines have to lose the benefit when they go back (without completing 40 credits) but that population is insignificant to hold up social security benefits to Americans for ever.

PS> People from other developed countries who choose to go back don't lose a penny no matter how much credits they earned. They can have it transferred to comparable plans in their respective countries

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 06:38 PM

I agree with you here. Romney is no Regan and Obama is no Clinton. Both parties are moving toward their extreme positions. Only that GOP got there faster than the dems. Give Obama 4 more years it will be balanced :)

aana namakku vote illaye.. hehe

If Putin could vote, Obama will be in power. Interesting how much Obama has influenced him.

I think on foreign policy Romney is definitely on backfoot like Obama said in his speech. Even if you are expert Olympic organizer, you dont put down your host, who is your best ally in public. Worse still how will you go and negotiate anything with Russia, if you declare they are #1 enemy like in cold war era.

Real dumb moves from Romney.

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 06:47 PM

I once read some where that Social Security is surviving coz of folks that work in U.S for a long term but eventually go back to their native country. Is that fair?
I read somewhere that GoI was talking to u.s govt on withholding social security money for the people, who returns to home.
but athu nadantha, yerkanave "dance" aadura economy innum koncham "trouser" kizhinchudum.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 06:50 PM

aana namakku vote illaye.. hehe

If Putin could vote, Obama will be in power. Interesting how much Obama has influenced him.

I think on foreign policy Romney is definitely on backfoot like Obama said in his speech. Even if you are expert Olympic organizer, you dont put down your host, who is your best ally in public. Worse still how will you go and negotiate anything with Russia, if you declare they are #1 enemy like in cold war era.

Real dumb moves from Romney.

Annachi Romney'kku atleast no-experience excuse irukku. Experience irukurra Joe Biden katchi karanga nadathuna platform koothu gavanikkalaya?

But they do have some best minds in Collin Powell or Condeleeza Rice (if they are interested). Romney still has an option to hire Huntsman for Hillary's job (if he has that sense)

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 06:54 PM

"good" Indian Restaurants in u.s(IMO)
1. HSB, Sunnyvale(CA)
2. Dasaprakash, Santa clara(CA)
3. Madras Cafe, San Diego(CA)
4. Hoysala in somerset(NJ)
5. Chand Palace, Parsippany(NJ)
6. Chennai Masala, Hillsboro, OR(for Dosas only)
7. Curry leaves, Bethany, OR
8. Cafetaria, Flushing temple, NY

Good restaurants in Singapore
1. Anna Lakshmi
2. Komalas
3. HSB

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 06:57 PM

"good" Indian Restaurants in u.s(IMO)

@Kris.. neenga innum samay katta vidamattenga pola..

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 06:59 PM

@Kris.. neenga innum samay katta vidamattenga pola..
Kannan sir than anthe post-lam thookittare..athunale than..:lol:
makkalukku useful-a irukkattumennu..
neengalum unge area-va podunga...(nan innum anthe area-vu ku varale..who knows...aduthathu engeyo)

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 07:00 PM

Annachi Romney'kku atleast no-experience excuse irukku. Experience irukurra Joe Biden katchi karanga nadathuna platform koothu gavanikkalaya?

But they do have some best minds in Collin Powell or Condeleeza Rice (if they are interested). Romney still has an option to hire Huntsman for Hillary's job (if he has that sense)

Joe Biden in more than one sense has been a flop. I was even hoping, if Obama would have sense to replace him with Hillary for the ticket (There by paving way for 2016, if she is interested still)

By the way, I hope you folks would have watched an older movie called DAVE. Its about presidential politics.. but real awesome.. enjoy it everytime i see.

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 07:22 PM

That's stretching beyond imagination. Yes it is unfair that people from India, China, or Phillipines have to lose the benefit when they go back (without completing 40 credits) but that population is insignificant to hold up social security benefits to Americans for ever.

PS> People from other developed countries who choose to go back don't lose a penny no matter how much credits they earned. They can have it transferred to comparable plans in their respective countries

KT... Are you saying we can claim our Social Security fund we are paying every pay check?

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 07:32 PM

^^ Yes after the age 62 - for partial benefit or after 67 - for full benefit (provided you have at-least 40 social security credits before heading back). By the time we reach Kannan sir's age they may amend the critieria to 65 & 70 respectively.

To be safe keep 4-8 credits in buffer if you are planning on going back so that you do your part (that is in our hands) to cover our backs for any probable social security amendment. If you get the citizenship before heading back then don't worry about the math oops arithmetic :)

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 07:32 PM

KT... Are you saying we can claim our Social Security fund we are paying every pay check?

Atha vidunga.. kolanthai yaaruthu.. ;)

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 07:44 PM

I agree with you here. Romney is no Regan and Obama is no Clinton. Both parties are moving toward their extreme positions. Only that GOP got there faster than the dems. Give Obama 4 more years it will be balanced :)

On the contrary, I believe Obama will move to the center in his second term (if he wins) just like Clinton did in his 2nd term. Well, that depends on the way the republicans take in the next four years - if they are willing to work together, and they don't have a choice (if sanity prevails) if they lose this time around.

jaish

September 7th, 2012, 07:49 PM

Olimayamana Ethirkalam En kangalil Therikirathu....
US-il Padum padal en kathil vizhukirathu J/K

Jokes apart... Continue i am learning a lot...

chennaidesi

September 7th, 2012, 07:50 PM

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 07:57 PM

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 07:58 PM

On the contrary, I believe Obama will move to the center in his second term (if he wins) just like Clinton did in his 2nd term. Well, that depends on the way the republicans take in the next four years - if they are willing to work together, and they don't have a choice (if sanity prevails) if they lose this time around.

What makes you think so?

His immigration policy -Left
Education reforms - Left (I'm not talking about Pell grants or scholarships here, what I am concerned is he will end up strengthening an already super strong teacher union)
Medical / Insurance - Left
More federal government - Again leftist thought

All these point to left leaning. If he chooses to not keep up his promise then yes that is considered as moving toward center :lol:

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 07:59 PM

Atha vidunga.. kolanthai yaaruthu.. ;)

:) naa koduku... 1 month old Eegan Semmal. Nurse took this photo 30 minutes after his birth, while I was holding him.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 08:02 PM

NA(North America) Friends,
"Green card holders can qualify for retirement or Social Security benefits" (http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/immigration/green-cards-membership-has-its)..
what it means? if we have a "active" GC and go back, we will get back our social security fund or we can entitled to get social security benefits, as long as you are in u.s?

Irrespective of whether you have GC or not if you have 40 credits you qualify as per the current law.

If you work here for 1 full year then you earn 4 credits, so do the math if you go back after 10 full years irrespective of whether you have GC or not you qualify.

I strongly suggest to have 2 year buffer for any change in law. That means 12 years in US. When you are here for 12 years then why leave without citizenship? Andha karumathayum than vangittu ponga :lol: That makes all these calculations obsolete. Once you have citizenship you will get it anyway.

PS> Once you leave US you are not eligible for medicare even if you are citizen

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 08:07 PM

:) naa koduku... 1 month old Eegan Semmal. Nurse took this photo 30 minutes after his birth, while I was holding him.
Congrats...appo bayankara "busy"nu sollunga..

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 08:08 PM

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 08:09 PM

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 08:12 PM

Congrats...appo bayankara "busy"nu sollunga..

Thanks!!!
Illa... My parents and my mother in law are here. I have no work at home and "naan petha maganey excuse me" :) is calm during nights, hence I am sleeping very well.

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 08:13 PM

Hoysala in somerset is not that good. For that Tawa is good.
oh.. you have tried non-veg? because i heard from my friends who had non-veg told the same, but my veg friends and myself felt veg food was good

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 08:13 PM

Irrespective of whether you have GC or not if you have 40 credits you qualify as per the current law.

If you work here for 1 full year then you earn 4 credits, so do the math if you go back after 10 full years irrespective of whether you have GC or not you qualify.

I strongly suggest to have 2 year buffer for any change in law. That means 12 years in US. When you are here for 12 years then why leave without citizenship? Andha karumathayum than vangittu ponga :lol: That makes all these calculations obsolete. Once you have citizenship you will get it anyway.

PS> Once you leave US you are not eligible for medicare even if you are citizen

Udumbu sariillana inga vanthu medicare'a use pannikalama (as Thala(Citizen))?

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 08:16 PM

oh.. you have tried non-veg? because i heard from my friends who had non-veg told the same, but my veg friends and myself felt veg food was good

My wife is a veg. She doesn't likes it much she likes Anjapper more specially Ku(o)thu parota.

Restarunts - Maliku kuda othukakudathavai

1) Saravan Bhaban - Edison, NJ (Too costly, Too much Oil, Taste is not that good)
2) Taste of India - King of Prussia, PA (Dei enga India tasteu, athu thavira ellamae iruku)
3) Passage to India - Harrisburg, PA (It should be Passage to Americanised Indian food for Americans only)

gvijayan

September 7th, 2012, 08:21 PM

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 08:39 PM

KT... I disagree with you on Education reforms. I currently working for Educational loan company. Previously private banks were making guaranteed profits with FFELP program, but Obama stopped that drain. He packaged Student Loans with Obamacare and transferred Student Loan savings to Obamacare.

I have one now for about a year. 6.25%. You think it's low?

My loan is thru FAFSA, a mix of subsidized and unsubsidised.

Anyways my point was not even about that. Check my earlier post on schools and teacher unions

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 08:42 PM

Agree with you on Unions, but overall in education sector Obama made more reforms. But there the reform is eliminating private lenders for Government backed loan and bringing in more regulation.

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 08:46 PM

Olimayamana Ethirkalam En kangalil Therikirathu....
US-il Padum padal en kathil vizhukirathu J/K

Jokes apart... Continue i am learning a lot...

How is the economy of Qatar and the ME doing? How different is that from India or U.S?

My in-law in Doha always complain that 20 years ago he was able to earn good but not much now.

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 08:50 PM

Agree with you on Unions, but overall in education sector Obama made more reforms. But there the reform is eliminating private lenders for Government backed loan and bringing in more regulation.

I can get private loan for 3.25 now. I can't switch as they are all unsubsidized and interest will kick in right away if I do that.

jaish

September 7th, 2012, 09:03 PM

Qatar economy is in upward trend till i feel Australia catches up with LNG project. Other future problem could be US policy with Shale gas. If they try to export then it could put more pressure on prices of LNG.

Further to this 2022 Fifa world cup football projects could bring much more economical activities to Qatar and they failed in their bid for Olymbic and they are planning to attempt once again.

Having said all this, It is single commodity economy and more brittle. Here Administration seems to be prudent in investing blue chip technology company like Siemens, GE.

geico2000

September 7th, 2012, 09:23 PM

Texas to Open Highway With 85 MPH Speed Limit

Austin to Seguin

http://www.cnbc.com//id/48940111

jaish

September 7th, 2012, 09:31 PM

Thanks!!!
Illa... My parents and my mother in law are here. I have no work at home and "naan petha maganey excuse me" :) is calm during nights, hence I am sleeping very well.

For delivery how much one has to spend on an average? I think in UAE we got mandatory insurance to be paid by sponsoring company which seems to be good scheme. In that way our family stay in UAE i hardly spent $200 including my younger daughter delivery by cesarean and her complete vaccination.

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 09:39 PM

Here the care that is provided in hospital is amazing, the hospital looks like 5 star hotel. The cost is also at the same level. I have insurance, I pay around 350$ per month for me and my wife as insurance premimum. My son was born in normal delivery with no complication, no epidural/pain killers. We stayed in hospital for 48 hours and got discharged. The bill came around 16000$ and in that I will be paying around 1600 from my pocket.

satishanu

September 7th, 2012, 09:49 PM

Nowadays they stopped sending Social security statement by mail to save millions in printing cost. You can view your credits and other estimates from below site after registration.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/mystatement/

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 09:51 PM

Pardon me for asking a question in this thread but in the India thread, under south the lists are:

Kochi
Trivandrum
South India Projects

Whoever having admin access, can you correct it to have it list as Southern states instead?

I have SSC forum installed in my iphone, every time to reach Tamil Nadu forum, I had to make several hops.

dpitchai

September 7th, 2012, 10:05 PM

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 10:17 PM

chennaiyorker

September 7th, 2012, 10:24 PM

My son was born in normal delivery with no complication, no epidural/pain killers.We stayed in hospital for 48 hours and got discharged.

Congratulations!

satchitananda

September 7th, 2012, 10:55 PM

kongutamizhan

September 7th, 2012, 11:19 PM

Mitt Romney on today's jobs report

After the party last night, the hangover's today

Obama himself is disappointed and dissatisfied. Unemployment rate now climbed to 8.1% making a psychological dent after a reasonably successful convention for democrats. No president since Roosevelt won a second term election with unemployment over 8%. Well..... battle is getting interesting but not good for the nation. Though it slowed down, one consolotion not negative yet

krishnaswamy

September 7th, 2012, 11:44 PM

My in-law in Doha always complain that 20 years ago he was able to earn good but not much now.
what? ... with that cost of living, expenses, and salary, you can save a lot than a u.s software professional guy.
difference is huge. innum solla pona, Singapore looks much better now, on u.s saving scale.

chennaiyorker

September 8th, 2012, 12:12 AM

What makes you think so?

His immigration policy -Left
Education reforms - Left (I'm not talking about Pell grants or scholarships here, what I am concerned is he will end up strengthening an already super strong teacher union)
Medical / Insurance - Left
More federal government - Again leftist thought

All these point to left leaning. If he chooses to not keep up his promise then yes that is considered as moving toward center :lol:

First to respond to the points you have mentioned.

Immigration - is there a real left and right policies? :lol: I have not seen any clear policy differences between him and Bush. Reps have always pandered to their base as if they are tough on immigration and no one had done anything to stop cross border movement. that's coz of the cheap labor the small businesses get in the border states and beyond, and the Reps have always turned the opposite way after their rhetoric. if not for elections, they don't give a damn! I don't see any difference between the republican govts of the past and Obama's govt now in stemming the illegal immigration.In fact, he has deported more illegals/criminal aliens than even GW Bush (Yes, it IS true!! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/obama-is-deporting-more-immigrants-than-bush-republicans-dont-think-thats-enough/)) and has tried to get legal status to other illegals so that it could lead to increase tax revenue, also it is the right thing to do for all those illegals who are here for years!

Fighting against the demand to cut spending on education/fire/police service/infra is leftist? and investing on education is leftist? i don't get it. So, if he doesn't agree with the current breed of republicans, then he is left? I am a leftist then!! :lol: See it is a matter of perspective. when the economy shrunk, the reps are demanding cost cuts in these and tax cuts for millionaires, coz of the claim that it will stimulate private jobs through the so called trickle down effect (which has never worked in history BTW, the best economy happened when tax rates were high). So, if one sees this logic, then is he leftist?

Medical insurance: Yes, he is on the left. with the way things have been, there is no way you can go right and have a viable health delivery system.

Big Govt: Yes, he is on the left. But, for the life of me, I dont understand how the reps say its all big spending to have a big govt, and at the same time want to spend/spent trillions of dollars extra on wars/defense! It's the same spending...right? Don't get me wrong....I'm for cost cuts and small lean govt, but i don't get this hypocrisy! Ron Paul doesn't get it too :lol:

Now, why I think he'd move closer to the center in the second term. second terms always give the presidents more freedom to do what they want. In true sense, he like Clinton, believes passionately about leaving a legacy. He wants to leave a better country (at least what thinks is better) than what he took over. for that he needs to work with republicans. that means he will have to go against some of his base, and not have to contest again gives that freedom. He will make back door deals with republicans to pass some of the bills he wants to pass and favor them by giving some leeway - just what clinton did to get his way! He will cut some cost on welfare schemes (medicaid) in exchange for higher taxes. If the GOP still is a party of NO, then he will remain on the left. With him having the mandate for the second time, the republican hopefuls more likely will have no choice but to work with him in order to strengthen their records...for 2016 run. it will give them the freedom to do that because, it will not make sense to oppose him in everything. they did that last time because they did not want him to win a 2nd term (the reason for their mindless strategy since the day one of his presidency)...but that ghost is off their minds now.....

This is just my theory. I may be proved wrong. :)

krishnaswamy

September 8th, 2012, 12:15 AM

Remittances to India rose to $66.13 billion in 2011-12 (http://newindianexpress.com/business/news/article602698.ece)

Remittances to India surged to $66.13 billion in 2011-12 as compared to $55.62 billion in the previous year, Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs Vayalar Ravi said Friday.

Remittance flow has risen consistently in the last three years. In 2009-10, total remittance flow to India through private transfers was $53.63 billion, Ravi said in a written reply in parliament.

Referring to a study by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the minister said Gulf countries accounted for 27 percent of total remittance inflows to India during the first half of 2009-10.

Ravi said the government has launched an initiative called "Mahatma Gandhi Pravasi Suraksha Yojana" to help in resettlement of the overseas Indians.

"By providing a co-contribution from the government, this scheme encourages and enables overseas Indian workers to save for their return and resettlement and to save for their old age. This also provides a free life insurance cover against natural death during the period of coverage, under the scheme," he said.

dpitchai

September 8th, 2012, 02:13 AM

what? ... with that cost of living, expenses, and salary, you can save a lot than a u.s software professional guy.
difference is huge. innum solla pona, Singapore looks much better now.

I really don't know how to answer this. My father-in-law is working like a accountant in Medical field. Probably Jasih can validate my in-law's claim.

kongutamizhan

September 8th, 2012, 03:19 AM

Now, why I think he'd move closer to the center in the second term. second terms always give the presidents more freedom to do what they want. In true sense, he like Clinton, believes passionately about leaving a legacy. He wants to leave a better country (at least what thinks is better) than what he took over. for that he needs to work with republicans. that means he will have to go against some of his base, and not have to contest again gives that freedom. He will make back door deals with republicans to pass some of the bills he wants to pass and favor them by giving some leeway - just what clinton did to get his way! He will cut some cost on welfare schemes (medicaid) in exchange for higher taxes. If the GOP still is a party of NO, then he will remain on the left. With him having the mandate for the second time, the republican hopefuls more likely will have no choice but to work with him in order to strengthen their records...for 2016 run. it will give them the freedom to do that because, it will not make sense to oppose him in everything. they did that last time because they did not want him to win a 2nd term (the reason for their mindless strategy since the day one of his presidency)...but that ghost is off their minds now.....

This is just my theory. I may be proved wrong. :)

First of all great insights. I haven't thought about it in this angle. Yes from this perspective I agree that there is a possibility that Obama may drift towards center. I hope he does change (like you said) if he gets re-elected.

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

With respect to lack of GOP support after 2010, you also have to look at the way how the other-side treated them when they didn't have majority (before 2010). Basically you get the same treatment back when kudumi is on their side. From outside he appeared like reaching out, but sincerity is questionable. Whether healthcare or spending/budget Obama gave a damn about suggestions on other side. I don't think that he made an attempt to meet them at the middle for compromise. His attitude was more like "I can hear you but I'll choose to implement it my way". Well he had his way and implemented Affordable care with a democrat majority. Obama himself mentioned here (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/12/stop_playing_nice_mr_president.html) that he should have done more. This article pretty much summed up the egos from both sides.

Yes he did try to reach out around the end of majority term for dems with willingness to compromise. But that's little late IMO from a political angle. Remember how he invited Paul Ryan, gave him first row seat on personal invitation and called his plans un-american. Is it Mr.President? Is going back to socialistic methods American? Insulting opposition won't work if you need their support. Agreed that Ryan and opposition has the responsibility to place issues above ego. But hey that's politics is about. Person in power has to be more responsible if you need bipartisan support. I am not giving a free ride to Ryan here, but he is not the president. If he turns out to be a VP tomorrow then I will expect him to make the first call to reach out and that's different.

First to respond to the points you have mentioned.

Immigration - is there a real left and right policies? :lol:

Yes there is a term "leftist immigration policy". My loose (pun intended) definition of left is it is something that is considered too liberal for the society. In other words "left" is basically anything against commonly followed values. Anyone who has an urge to change or bypass constitution or "standards" are leftists. Some leftist thoughts are revolutionary and has to be welcomed, because change is the only thing that is constant. But some should be retained. If constitution defined something and you try to change it, do it in foolproof manner and real rational way. Are you granting the kids who came with their parents legal status? yes grant it, but do it after

- Sealing your border from crossover happening in future. Show some affirmative action
- Have a deadline in future date and pass a rule by saying that starting this date (say Jan 2013) any illegals caught will be deported. (If it is kid they have to be deported along with parents / guardians)
- Make them work their way unto citizenship or permanent residency. First grant them temporary legal status like work visa or asylum. Make their route/path to citizenship/PR longer than Indians/Chinese/Philiphinos. Yes I seriously mean it. If you grant them that right away you are making mockery of those who followed the rules.

If you just blindly do it in a blanket way I have a problem. Doesn't matter whether Bush does it or Obama does it.

Big Govt: Yes, he is on the left. But, for the life of me, I dont understand how the reps say its all big spending to have a big govt, and at the same time want to spend/spent trillions of dollars extra on wars/defense! It's the same spending...right? Don't get me wrong....I'm for cost cuts and small lean govt, but i don't get this hypocrisy! Ron Paul doesn't get it too :lol:

Agreed Iraq war was un-necessary, but can't quite say the same about Afghanistan. OBL lived there, Taliban was controlling the country and supporting him so as a victim you have to respond fire with fire. (and not like India by playing cricket and running buses to facilitate future attacks). You got to give Bush and Republicans the credit that there is no terrorist act in this soil after 9/11. Big government in case of "Homeland security" was a necessary evil. Totally justified for security and defense and totally unwarranted for internal issues.

Fighting against the demand to cut spending on education/fire/police service/infra is leftist? and investing on education is leftist? i don't get it.

An MSNBC allegation quoting some extreme fringe elements in party :lol:

No one is opposing education reforms, what is being opposed is this (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=94885206&postcount=44). (Not sure if you read this post, read example #2). Read what Chris Christie did here (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20120808a.html).

Read about what Scott Walker did here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2012/05/29/this-is-wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-john-hancock-moment/). Teachers union is a monster that has to be eliminated. You can't talk peace with them

Many states are currently facing budget crises, some much more severe than Wisconsin’s. The reason Wisconsin and its governor are getting national attention is that Scott Walker chose to wrestle with the 800-pound gorilla in the room: public employee unions.

Union bosses were holding Wisconsin’s public sector hostage, funded by millions of dollars in union dues forcibly deducted from the salaries of teachers, firefighters, and police officers. They demanded benefits and contracts that the state could never afford, putting the fiscal strength of the unions above the health of the state and its ability to employ and provide services.

Walker could have skirted the key issues, as many European leaders have done with their so called “austerity” measures, but instead chose to have a John Hancock moment. His reorganization of the state budget sought to eliminate the root of the shortfalls, not simply eliminate various state-funded programs that would have amounted to bringing a garden hose to a wild fire. He eliminated the power of the union to drive the budget process, and we all bore witness to some of the most unruly protests in recent memory. There are literally hundreds of pages of death threats against the governor and members of the Wisconsin legislature, according to a NewsBusters report. Despite the threats, the governor hasn’t backed down or attempted to disassociate himself from the measures.

Finally I am not sure if you listened to RNC key note address. Do watch this (http://youtu.be/61uCHhDLWh4) (covers infra, education etc.,) for other perspective. The problem is current generation of republican leaders (except Ryan) are neither great orators nor charismatic as Obama and Clinton are. But lot of them speak to point and deserves to be applauded for actions on ground. And yes in this speech Christie did offer working examples of education whereas Obama's plan is still in paper

geico2000

September 8th, 2012, 06:20 AM

Thanks, I just registered. Any idea how to see credit points earned?

My Home ==> Over view ==> View Estimated Benefits ==> Retirement

Congrats.

geico2000

September 8th, 2012, 06:41 AM

Many of you may be aware of this but in case you are not

www.creditkarma.com

Free credit score (Transrisk - from Transunion) nearly matches FICO. Also you can get free credit monitoring.

rajoo1

September 8th, 2012, 12:04 PM

:)First of all great insights. I haven't thought about it in this angle. Yes from this perspective I agree that there is a possibility that Obama may drift towards center. I hope he does change (like you said) if he gets re-elected.

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

is still in paper

Too much to read; :) anyway, like Clint Eastwood said - If you don't perform you must be let go ! Give the business man a chance.

You had enough time to prove your "YES WE CAN" rhetoric. Now it's actually 'YES WE TRIED BUT FAILED' :lol:

What did he accomplish for the past 4 years - Nada - except for few (UBL, and ??) & to bring this country closer to socialism & to blame Bush just so to cover his incompetence.
See the facts ----.

rajoo1

September 8th, 2012, 12:16 PM

:ohno:
Who is accountable and responsible to the citizens of our Republic for the financial straits we are in?
Here are two separate articles saying the same thing in different language; please read then both.

Remember the day the Democrats took over.
Or, in other words, It's still Bush's Fault because so many people don't remember.
Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6%
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.
Set the record straight on Bush!
"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

B-B-B-B-But it's his Fault!
As president Reagan said (paraphrasing): “These facts can be difficult things to deal with.”
PLEASE KEEP THIS ONE GOING IN HOPES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHOSE FAULT THIS HUGE DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!!!
The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL.

So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for
and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

From Sloan:

MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS WITH AN EMPTY STOMACH

The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY!

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.
The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.
That's costing us just $16 million per job.
One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).
The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother to Nancy 's husband.

Just move along folks.....nuthin' goin' on here.

Vasu

September 8th, 2012, 12:18 PM

What about now sudan? we can work there?

chennaidesi

September 8th, 2012, 02:15 PM

chennaiyorker

September 8th, 2012, 03:56 PM

Finally I am not sure if you listened to RNC key note address. Do watch this (http://youtu.be/61uCHhDLWh4) (covers infra, education etc.,) for other perspective. ....
And yes in this speech Christie did offer working examples of education whereas Obama's plan is still in paper

I believe Chris Christie is any day better than Ryan....well, not because of his speaking ability, but because he is relatively moderate - he from Jersey..ha ha.

I agree, unions are a drag for progress...and your points are very valid regarding their power. But, that ain't a reason good/big enough to go for republicans, at least for me. There are bigger issues that they are at the wrong side, IMO.

chennaiyorker

September 8th, 2012, 03:58 PM

Funny!.....This was some 8 years ago when Bush was president.

CZGk_wVgq_0

rajoo1

September 9th, 2012, 01:41 AM

:cheers:

:bash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqzQqIBIiA

rajoo1

September 9th, 2012, 01:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ&feature=related

kongutamizhan

September 9th, 2012, 02:23 AM

One term President - For sure

அஸ்கு புஸ்கு. ஆசைய பாரு :lol: Not that easy. Romney needs God's helping hand here.

I am a fan of Clint Eastwood but that speech was bizarre. Both conventions together, I liked very few speeches this time (5 to be precise). The wives, Clinton, Christie & Condoleezza

kongutamizhan

September 9th, 2012, 02:43 AM

But, that ain't a reason good/big enough to go for republicans, at least for me..

IMO it is a big deal. Unions are a hurdle in manufacturing and government. Getting them out of way alone will reduce several problems in business. More importantly it will pave way for more focused spending on the real business/service underneath the union (currently whatever is filtered by union only reaches the intended purpose). Goes a long way in cutting down government expenditure. You see they have plans other than tax cuts :)

If foreign policy is an advantage for Obama, education (and union handling) is an advantage for Romney.

I believe Chris Christie is any day better than Ryan....well, not because of his speaking ability, but because he is relatively moderate - he from Jersey..ha ha.

IMO to take on the unions you need someone in power who is more stronger than even Christie (like Walker). Ryan fits that bill. From a political standpoint Romney has no chance of winning this election without someone like Ryan on board. Without Ryan on the ticket it would have been hard for him to rope in conservative rights/ church goers, and tea party folks. In a do or die situation like this Ryan is the best shot he have got (even if it means risking Florida). A calculated gamble with hope that it pays off is the only option he has anyways.

Unlike Dick Cheney, Ryan's strength is not foreign policy and hence he will be focusing his energy internally which is good actually. Outside the government and manufacturing, unions are a problem in utility companies (gas and electricity) too. Utility companies are strongly unionized. Energy bill can be easily reduced as far as 30% if you have someone at helm who can deal with them firmly. Combine it with drill-baby-drill campaign, the picture will look pretty in paper on education, balanced-budget and energy front. For acting beyond paper (just in this case), you can trust GOP than Obama.

Further he is my neighbor from WI. I can see him from my backyard :lol:

There are bigger issues that they are at the wrong side, IMO.

Like what?

chennaiyorker

September 9th, 2012, 05:17 PM

Like what?

Like...

Tax policies - I don't buy it for a second that more tax cuts (tax rates are already the lowest in 50 years...they wanna lower it even further..doh!) for the rich and capital gains and for corporates-unrestricted-will create jobs!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/bruce-bartlett

Also, see this interview by jon stewart- excellent!!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--2

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--3

Other policies I think the reps are wrong are:

Health care -privatizing medicare

Fiscal - complete deregulation of wall street....they dont want any regulation on wall street, but fighting to regulate unions!...completely misplaced priorities IMO. After deregulation (repeal of the 1933 glass-stegall act - Clinton signed it in 1999 as a compromise under pressure from the republicans), the country has gone from record surplus to record deficits. Under Bush tax cuts the unemployment went from 4.1% in 2000 to 7.2 in 2008. Under Obama (with regulations) the unemployment rate has only gone from 7.2 to 8.1...and this too during the worst recession after the great depression. IMO, Obama and Geitner did a wonderful job in stopping it from becoming another depression.

Women's Choice - it's more of culture war than just abortion!

I also think if they come into power, they will polarize the country more!

jaish

September 9th, 2012, 05:59 PM

I also think if they come into power, they will polarize the country more!

Polarise more!!! I read in this forum it is a already melting pot society.

chennaiyorker

September 9th, 2012, 06:19 PM

^^Culturally, it's a melting pot in big cities. Politically, it has been polarized (extreme right vs extreme left) for last 8 - 10 years.

jaish

September 9th, 2012, 06:21 PM

Thanks for clarifying.

kongutamizhan

September 9th, 2012, 07:06 PM

@ CY

Cultural wars

I agree that they are taking it to the extreme on cultural side with abortion, faith, and same-sex relationship. At the same time I do think that it is plain political rhetoric (vote bank politics in Indian terms). I don't think that in real world they will be able to make any change with respect to it. Though he supports the far right policy during campaign I don't think Romney himself will support it when he comes to power. Melting pot culture is bound to expand to even Tier 3 cities :)

Health care

Socialized healthcare (a true care like in Scandinavian countries or Canada and not the crappy ones like in UK) is impossible without paying increased tax like in those countries. Canada manages it with lower tax bracket compared to Scandinavian countries, where tax is roughly half your income if not more :nuts:

Forget Obamacare or Ryan plan. I think Canadian model will work well for US. Had Obama gone in that direction, I would have supported him as that is a proven working plan. However he chose to implement his half-baked plan in haste hiding truth. May be hiding truth is bit harsh and non-transparent system is the apt word.

It is impossible to sustain his plan IMO without improvisation, which again will add more tax than what Obamacare's mandate tax adds to us already. If I am going to pay for that, I will rather have the quality and value for what I pay (like in Canada). If I am not getting the kind of value for my increase in mandate and/or premium I'll either vote for someone who repeals it or will move to a state that chooses not to implement affordable care.

Health care is one reason I gave real serious thought of moving to Canada (for good) at-least 3 times during the last few years. If he is not completely going Canadian way, then I prefer privatizing it (by taking care of loopholes like pre-existing conditions).

Canadian system provides you the quality like US, plugs the doughnut holes, and doesn't ration the system or build up queue for service like the UK model. May be Mr.Nellai or hotpotato can throw in more light as they are living through that experience. Yes insurance is very passionate topic for me right now for extremely personal reasons. I'll stop here otherwise it will sound like my personal rant against affordable care act. Further I am still reading through all aspects of Obamacare. So it will be inappropriate to comment without complete understanding. All my comments are based on my current understanding of his plan.

Fiscal

Wall street is not much different from main street as it is made out to be. Folks in main street are tied to wall street either through their personal investments or their retirement / IRA / 401k plans which majority of Americans have. So what is good for wall street is also good for main street in a capitalistic economy like US.

Tell me this, how many of these folks were complaining about Wall Street deregulation in 90s and mid 2000s? Those times Wall street didn't discriminate creating wealth between CEOs and average Joe. But I agree on the point that CEO bonuses are ridiculous and using bail-out money for their hefty pay check is atrocious. I am not convinced that wall street deregulation has direct correlation with it. Even-though one can blame wall street and banks for housing crisis it is more of their greed that caused it rather than the deregulation itself causing it.

Clinton will not regulate it if he is in power :)

Tax cuts

There is one fundamental thing you are missing here. In my 13 years here as salaried and subsequent few months as an entrepreneur, I am yet to see any personal benefit out of federal tax cuts. But do I see a social benefit? Yes.

1) First the reason why fed tax reductions didn't help me personally. Reason is simple and stupid. States increased the income and/or sales taxes proportionate to amount of federal income tax cut. So raised taxes at state level negated the tax cuts at federal level.

2) Now why do I see it as socially beneficial? Same reason as #1, local states get more money to improve their infrastructure and education whereas Uncle Sam gets less of my share. Remember Clinton talking about Chicago getting infrastructure facelift in bridges and roads, and school district grants? Remember him talking about how LA is spending more on getting green look? Lions share of those spending are from state government and state roads. (Substantial amount feeding into unions pockets is a different issue). Now where did the state governments of IL or CA get money from? Our governors increased the tax by 2% the very same day fed brought it down. So don't you think it is good for local economy? When the republicans say less federal government this is what many have in mind. This is what majority of democratic leaning media fails to convey to people. In a country like US where local autonomy plays a huge role in development, more people will benefit when state government has more financial independence and decision making independence than the fed. That way it will trickle down to local counties.

Now when Chris Christie talked about how he reduced taxes in NJ and still had surplus budget, not all republicans do that. Even GOP increased sales tax and income taxes in AZ for local needs. Without federal tax cut they couldn't have afforded it. Otherwise who the heck will pay sales tax in Tuscon, AZ same as what you pay in downtown Manhattan or Chicago? Now that they pay less tax to fed you see less cribbing.

Only areas I hold republicans on wrong side are

1) Cultural
2) Healthcare (where democrats are equally wrong too)
3) Foreign policy
4) Gun control (again dems are not angels here)

chennaiyorker

September 9th, 2012, 08:48 PM

@ CY

Health care

Socialized healthcare (a true care like in Scandinavian countries or Canada and not the crappy ones like in UK) is impossible without paying increased tax like in those countries. Canada manages it with lower tax bracket compared to Scandinavian countries, where tax is roughly half your income if not more :nuts:

First off...Obamacare is NOT socialized health care. It helps the insurance companies in a big way, and also puts accountability on the providers for the quality of care and cost. Secondly, when I refer stupidity of the republican plan - i refer to the privatization of medicare - which, will make the financial firms hijack the capital and will speculate on the financial markets, which in turn is a boom and bust market. This will decimate the economy and the welfare of seniors when the market busts. I am talking about much deeper level problems here!

Forget Obamacare or Ryan plan. I think Canadian model will work well for US.

Well, the republicans are not suggesting it and the last time I checked the republicans ostracized the canadian model. Moreover, Canada is a completely different country with completely different population and completely different healthcare history and completely different dynamics. There is no way its model can be replicated here, ar any other country's for that matter.

It is impossible to sustain his plan IMO without improvisation,

The republican model need a magic wand to sustain it even until 2018!

Fiscal

Wall street is not much different from main street as it is made out to be. Folks in main street are tied to wall street either through their personal investments or their retirement / IRA / 401k plans which majority of Americans have.

Well, thats why wall street needs to be regulated - to safegaurd average americans. The glass-stegall act prevented commercial banks from going into financial market speculation. Its repeal in 1999 (A Republican agenda) led to securatization and speculation of mortgages and to the bubble of 2008 - when the average american lost his life savings and his home.

Tell me this, how many of these folks were complaining about Wall Street deregulation in 90s and mid 2000s?

Wall street was well regulated in the 90s. Only in 2000's, under the republican agenda ,they went berserk!

.But I agree on the point that CEO bonuses are ridiculous and using bail-out money for their hefty pay check is atrocious.

The CEOs were paid crazy bonuses even before the bail out. I know my (best) friend who worked for an investment bank (Bear Sterns) as an analyst (for 2 years)got $170K bonus in 2007. They went trigger happy without any regulation. Imagine the bonus for his manager and the partner and CEO! 5 months later that company went belly up, and was bought out by JP morgan when the federal govt failed to bail them up.

I am not convinced that wall street deregulation has direct correlation with it.

well, I dunno what to say. :)

Tax cuts

There is one fundamental thing you are missing here.

2) Now why do I see it as socially beneficial? Same reason as #1, local states get more money to improve their infrastructure and education whereas Uncle Sam gets less of my share. Remember Clinton talking about Chicago getting infrastructure facelift in bridges and roads, and school district grants? Remember him talking about how LA is spending more on getting green look? Lions share of those spending are from state government and state roads. (Substantial amount feeding into unions pockets is a different issue). Now where did the state governments of IL or CA get money from? Our governors increased the tax by 2% the very same day fed brought it down. So don't you think it is good for local economy? When the republicans say less federal government this is what many have in mind. This is what majority of democratic leaning media fails to convey to people. In a country like US where local autonomy plays a huge role in development, more people will benefit when state government has more financial independence and decision making independence than the fed. That way it will trickle down to local counties.

i understand your logic and to some extent, I agree. BUT, this did not happen in the last 10 years. Instead, the state governments did not invest in infra (until the stimulus was given by Obama) as they went bust after the savings of their citizens were gambled and lost by wall street, and their house prices dropped, there by ruining the local economy and thus bankrupting state governments.

Again, I am talking at a deeper level.

kongutamizhan

September 9th, 2012, 10:09 PM

Well, the republicans are not suggesting it and the last time I checked the republicans ostracized the canadian model. Moreover, Canada is a completely different country with completely different population and completely different healthcare history and completely different dynamics. There is no way its model can be replicated here, ar any other country's for that matter..

I am not saying republicans suggested it. That is my wishlist. I said if this ain't coming then I am okay with privatizing insurance and opening up competition across state-lines. (only place where regulation is needed is to cover pre-existing conditions)

Wall street was well regulated in the 90s. Only in 2000's, under the republican agenda ,they went berserk!

Brief history here. Deregulation process started gaining momentum in 1970s following the research by Milton Friedman & Co., at University of Chicago. Starting with manufacturing around Nixon period, full fledged deregulation happened when Ronald Reagan was at helm. Yes Regan was republican and you are free to call it a republican agenda. What can be linked to the disaster (and debatable) is the derivatives trading that he paved way for. That opened up bank greed. Credit dependency sky rocketed. Still in strict and true capitalistic terms, debt is a good thing to have as part of capitalistic structure if it is within the repaying capability and if it is used to create more wealth. Unfortunately not only it went beyond the repayment ability, that practice too trickled down to individual level because bank greed took over.

- Can you say that deregulation possibly triggered bank greed (and individual greed), which in-turn melted the economy? Possibly yes

- Can you say that deregulation itself is bad because of the above? IMO NO.

You have to start analyzing what went wrong with deregulation instead of going back. Because you have seen the potential and benefits of what deregulation can do it is not wise to go back. Sane thing to do is to plug the loop holes. Let me borrow Obama's slogan here, move forward by plugging the deregulation holes.

Alan Greenspan in 2001 cut the interest to near zero to help increase consumer spending. It not only helped to increase consumer spending, it opened up can of worms starting with sub-prime loans. When clubbed with derivative trading, banks smelled money here. Bosses are rewarded in millions when they pushed more Americans into the brink of debt. The housing market skyrocketed with availability of free credit. Banks went berserk, formed CDOs, sold the debts back to investors. Investors who already may have had smelled money in the form of mortgages and housing boom started buying CDOs assuming that the price will always go vertical. Little bit of homework, common sense would have saved all these investors. What is worse is the trickle down economics of Regan not only trickles down the wealth, it also trickles down the loss. It's a two way street which many forget. There is no free lunch. Individual investors too started getting into the CDO tamasha. On top of their mortgage debt they also traded debt through CDO. Alan Greenspan portion and what happened after that could have been completely avoided with little bit of common sense from the leadership.

Other than this abberation even hardcore liberals will agree that Reganomics or what is commonly called as supply-side economics is responsible for the greatest expansion in American history that ended with dotcomm burst. It is responsible for mid 2000's boom too. Deregulated market is a double-edged sword. If you know what you are doing this is probably the greatest system on earth to create wealth for you (till something better comes up). To know what you are doing the government has to bring in transparency to empower the knowledge of investor so that people knows what they are getting into. Whether loans or CDO's or sub-primes, the banks were not transparent in this case. I don't buy the theory that even banks realized them late. I bet they are aware of what they are doing.

And to Bush's credit, though he may not have smelled the bad plays completely, he did try to bring some sense to stop Freddie and Fannie from underwriting reckless loans. As Rajoo mentioned in his earlier post, he tried this

dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

I don't know what Raju's source is and not sure on the number (that he tried 17 times and the toxic loan amount was 5-6 trillion). What I know for sure is Bush tried multiple times to bring strict guidelines for Freddie and Fannie. Democrats didn't work with him on that. Had this been stopped or if it had been privatized, banks would have been more responsible with their loans. (again good sense would have trickled down). Now that they know good-or-bad (and the responsibility that comes with it) will stop with public funded Freddie and Fannie they went reckless. They left with all their money leaving a huge hole in publicly funded companies. This is unfair.

So yes, though you can establish an indirect relationship of the economic meltdown w/deregulation, there are too many factors in-between that caused it. Deregulation of wall street itself didn't cause it. In fact it did the reverse, created wealth. There is no direct co-relation with it for the failure and that can never be established. Going back to regulated, socialistic method won't help.

chennaiyorker

September 9th, 2012, 11:43 PM

@KT, Good crash course on history. Thanks.

My point is the deregulations that were happening till 1999/2000 were just fine - much balanced. However,the pandoras box was let open in 2000s. Bush's inept policy making and the republicans being puppeteered by the lobbyists just put the deregulations on steroids post 2000 -

-as you stated, Greenspan cut interest rates in 2001 when there was a bubble building (when the data suggested the housing price inflation was much greater than income increase) + Bush's mantra to people - "buys houses/consume"+ increase in sub-prime mortgages)

- tax cuts by Bush (which did not lead to "real" job creation, but only more investment on financial markets and a fake increase in construction jobs which got busted eventually)

- more importantly letting commercial banks work with investment banks in credit default swaps/derivatives - backed up by FMFM + lowering deposit balance requirements for the banks + SEC allowing investment banks to self regulate - letting them more capital access from commercial banks (our money!!) and insurance market + taking more risks - upto a leverage of crazy 35:1 (Bear Stearns et al) All of which are the product of the 1999 republican Gramm-Leach-Biley act (GS repeal - was lobbied heavily by Citicorp) and happened post 2000 - during Bush's presidency.

It was a culmination of all these events. Although the Dems played a part, but this was played out primarily by the Republicans in the last 12 years. The Dems did not do shit to prevent any of these bad policies from 2000-2008!

The causes for the tech bubble was different than the housing bubble!

chennaiyorker

September 9th, 2012, 11:54 PM

Bubbles: very informative....

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter-15-bubbles

dpitchai

September 9th, 2012, 11:58 PM

Nice discussion. Learning a lot here.

Between I listen to podcasts of Bill Maher and Fareed Zakaria but never fin one for Jon Stuart. Anyone here fan of Jon's podcasts?

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 12:05 AM

^^ go to thedailyshow.com

Jon Stewart is just awesome! :) so, is Stephen Colbert!

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 12:57 AM

- tax cuts by Bush (which did not lead to "real" job creation, but only more investment on financial markets and a fake increase in construction jobs which got busted eventually)

Contrary to their respective parties beliefs, Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs, but his spending did. I bet the jobs that you see in public sector are in Department of Homeland security and army :lol:

Compare it with Obama's spending which is even more than Bush. It didn't create any public sector jobs at all. Private sector jobs are better than Bush, but still not adequate enough for the amount of spending he did.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 01:05 AM

Bubbles: very informative....

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter-15-bubbles

http://youtu.be/qqUGoVez8xg

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 01:18 AM

Contrary to their respective parties beliefs, Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs, but his spending did. I bet the jobs that you see in public sector are in Department of Homeland security and army :lol:

Compare it with Obama's spending which is even more than Bush. It didn't create any public sector jobs at all. Private sector jobs are better than Bush, but still not adequate enough for the amount of spending he did.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png

On the contrary to the dubious claims of the reps, Obama's federal spending today is less than what he took over...and he also reduced the deficit!

a graph from the same source...
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20163059c86ac970d-550wi

regarding public sector jobs...it was greater with Bush because of the wars and defense. Now Obama has ended Iraq war....and moreover, less public sector jobs means the govt is smaller and leaner...right? thats what the republicans are hawking about for the last 4 years..right?? and that too he has cut deficits with smaller govt! the wish list of the republicans granted!!! ha ha :lol:

As I analyze this...Bush spent more public money and created a bigger govt and created the biggest deficit on record. He looks more like a socialist to me!! anyone concurs??? :lol: also Obama has created more pvt. sector jobs! Perhaps, the reps should field him as their candidate, representing their values!

truth hurts...don't it!! ha ha... you should stop listening to the lies of Mr. Ryan and co.

I will vote for him just for these two graphs...no contest for me! I don't care what anyone says, Obama and his cabinet has done an awesome job in the last 4 years! they were dealt with really a hard hand of cards, and they played them wonderfully well! If you look deeper you'll know that. What you hear on MSNBC or Fox Noise are just politics!!!

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 01:34 AM

On the contrary to the dubious claims of the reps, Obama's federal spending is less than what he took over...and also he reduced the deficit!

a graph from the same source...

regarding public sector jobs...it was greater with Bush because of the wars and defense. Now Obama has ended Iraq war....and moreover, less public sector jobs means the govt is smaller and leaner...right? thats what the republicans are hawking about for the last 4 years..right?? and that too he has cut deficits with smaller govt! the wish list of the republicans granted!!! ha ha :lol:

As I analyze this...Bush spent more public money and created a bigger govt and created the biggest deficit on record. He looks more like a socialist to me!! anyone concurs??? also Obama has created more pvt. sector jobs! Perhaps, the reps should field hime as their candidate, representing their values!

truth hurts...don't it!! ha ha... you should stop listening to the lies of Mr. Ryan and co.

It fails the basic Clinton test, arithmetic :) Doesn't explain how we got to 15 trillion with such a stupendous performance as you claim. Well yeah I know what it is. Doesn't matter Bush quit office 4 years back, it still must be his fault.

Further an apple vs orange comparison using this statistics

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 01:37 AM

well, its the same stats you provided for your argument!! :)

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 02:57 AM

well, its the same stats you provided for your argument!! :)

If you didn't realize my argument with that example was against GOP actually :) I said contrary to how both parties are perceived from liberal vs conservative standpoint it is actually GOP that created more public jobs (which is what I meant).

The second chart that you provided can't be used to analyze debt in Obama's favor. It is just another stat for whatever it is worth that's all. Simply because the situation when he inherited we had recession (official recession since late 2007) , so obviously revenue will be lower than now -> meaning higher deficit. May be you can compare Bush's first 4 years vs Obama's first 4 (or even Bush's second 4 compared to Obama's first 4). That would be a fair comparison.

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 03:34 AM

If you didn't realize my argument with that example was against GOP actually :) I said contrary to how both parties are perceived from liberal vs conservative standpoint it is actually GOP that created more public jobs (which is what I meant).

I sorta understood that! but just a li'l gamesmanship! :) However, that's why I said "contrary to the republican dubious claims" and not yours :)

The second chart that you provided can't be used to analyze debt in Obama's favor. It is just another stat for whatever it is worth that's all. Simply because the situation when he inherited we had recession (official recession since late 2007) , so obviously revenue will be lower than now -> meaning higher deficit. May be you can compare Bush's first 4 years vs Obama's first 4 (or even Bush's second 4 compared to Obama's first 4). That would be a fair comparison.

I agree, you can't make a comparison of Obama's spending pattern with that of Bush as the data is not available on that graph, but you can infer Obama's performance. Which is, he has reduced spending, reduced deficit, reduced the size of govt (leaner govt) and increased pvt sector jobs. A testament that his policies are working, albeit slowly. Considering the state of economy when he took office - just like you said- a recession (worst since the great depression of 1920s-30s), he has moved the economy forward (please look at other economic indicators - like dow, median home price, and jobs -30 months of continuous job creation) with his policies admirably!

I don't think you can refute that conclusion..could you?

As for the $16 Trillion Debt...

How did we get $16 trillion in debt? When Jimmy Carter left office, the national debt was just under $1 trillion; Ronald Reagan added $3.4 trillion, George H.W. Bush added $1.4 trillion (in four yrs), Bill Clinton added $1.4 trillion (in eight years), George W. Bush added $6.1 trillion and, to date, Barack Obama has added $4 trillion. Thus, over 24 years, Republican administrations have added almost $11 trillion of the $16 trillion total. Ask yourself, who are the big spenders?

There is no way we can cut spending enough to reduce this debt; thus, the only alternative is to increase revenues (taxes), whether we like it or not!

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/look-who-gave-us-more-than-half-of-our-national/article_37fcb5a8-bef6-5c14-9fbe-1df9db5660ba.html

Obama, had to borrow in order put a stop to the nose dive of the 2008 crash (again, biggest since TGD) and prevent a depression. Also, don't forget the interest for the $12T adds on to the $12T he started with - so, it does not mean he borrowed all that $4T - some of it is the evil that he inherited! The borrowed money went to stimulus package, wall street bail out and auto bail out - the results of which u see in Dow, Home price, GM back again as the top auto company in the world and job creation! Also, he has been prudent with spending and closing deficit gaps.

I rest my case now :)

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 04:04 AM

@ Debt,

Depends on how you see and interpret the numbers. Of-course it is politics and both sides will take the statistics that suits them. Both the President and his challenger are business majors from ivy league, so they are capable of valid interpretations and (mis) interpretations that appear like valid interpretations :D

This is what fact check says

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif

* End of fiscal year 2008, when the accrued debt under the 43 presidents was $5.851 trillion, to the end of fiscal 2012, when the debt is projected to reach $11.881 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents.

* Obama inauguration, when the accrued debt was $6.307 trillion, to the end of fiscal year 2013, when the debt is projected to reach $12.784 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents.

* End of fiscal year 2009, when the accrued debt was $7.506 trillion, to end of fiscal year 2013, when the debt is projected to reach $12.784 trillion. No, not as much as the previous 43 presidents.

If you consider GOP's allegations on Obama as wrong, then what do you call blame it all on Bush allegations? You can't do that too because

1) It has been 4 years since he left office.
2) Bush had a congress with democrat majority. So they are as much responsible.

Plus he too had a recession at the beginning of his first term (neither his nor dems fault - a normal cycle). For the recession at the end of his second term he alone is not responsible. Keep in mind that he also had to deal with worst terrorist attack on soil making defense and homeland security a priority.

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 04:14 AM

There are different data available from both sides...left spin vs right spin

Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/) is credible, IMO

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/02/DebtReaganObama.png

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/02/Debt2GDP.png

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 04:17 AM

^^ Bush 2 terms, Obama @ 1 term. Freedom tower is under construction at ground zero. When complete it will be taller than Sears Willis tower ;)

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 05:45 AM

^^ that's obvious....the questions are whether it is necessary/reasonable (considering ground reality)?....and are the policies that go along with it prudent both fiscally and socially?

the answers are "Yes", IMO, but not quite adequate in regards to policies. Revenue (Tax) increase is a must going forward as he is already cutting spending! Its simple economics (arithmetic) ;)

gvijayan

September 10th, 2012, 06:19 AM

Soon we may see a new thread 'TN NRI - Non-USA Corner' :)

chennaiyorker

September 10th, 2012, 06:22 AM

^^ ha ha...anyone who wants to discuss anything else is welcome to do it. no one's stopping...I'm sure lots will jump in if an issue is discussed! :)

geico2000

September 10th, 2012, 04:48 PM

Nice discussion KT and CY.

KT neenga vivadham panni CYa, monday morning 6 manikae velai seiya vacuteenga.. :)

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 06:26 PM

Cross posting from American skybar. A republican voter lifting Obama :)

http://hinterlandgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scott-van-duzer-lifts-obama-off-feet.jpg

krishnaswamy

September 10th, 2012, 06:39 PM

like healthy discussions on US Presidential Elections, can we dream of having healthy discussions in TN AA topic on Indian PM choices in the coming years/months? ;)

satchitananda

September 10th, 2012, 06:59 PM

like healthy discussions on US Presidential Elections, can we dream of having healthy discussions in TN AA topic on Indian PM choices in the coming years/months? ;)

neenga enna saar vazhapashathula oosi ethravara ??

krishnaswamy

September 10th, 2012, 07:04 PM

neenga enna saar vazhapashathula oosi ethravara ??
not having proper sleep yesterday night. so "day dream"-le ezuthitten sir..:lol:

jaish

September 10th, 2012, 08:18 PM

kongutamizhan

September 10th, 2012, 09:21 PM

Cross posting. Gujal photo news :D

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80962.html

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/biden_bikers_605_ap.jpg

krishnaswamy

September 10th, 2012, 09:31 PM

What do you mean by healthy discussion?
compare the Na.Mo discussion contents earlier with CY-KT contents on US presidential elections.
developments, capability should be discussed.
what is needed for India, who can provide that, can be discussed.
realistic chances,predictions with justifications can be discussed. (irrespective of whichever party is favorite and whoever is favorite).

Mukiyama "MM", "MKS" words-a use pannama irukkaradu, because that is the words that takes the discussions to riots topics and dilute the entire discussion.

I know you might be knowing all these points. still, I have repeated for you.:)

geico2000

September 11th, 2012, 03:12 AM

like healthy discussions on US Presidential Elections, can we dream of having healthy discussions in TN AA topic on Indian PM choices in the coming years/months? ;)

What do you mean by healthy discussion?

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKuDGSrAyC8O2YAtUaOhCTAMPQ5dw7gdniv06Z8MESlJUwbjDpeA

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2zal0P6yRHIOVA0UzZ7U3DOqEai60dxD2BubmPbbhv1Ha8dWMhg

eppadi healthynu solli iruparo?

dpitchai

September 11th, 2012, 04:32 AM

Ha ha... Kusumbu...

jaish

September 11th, 2012, 07:02 PM

compare the Na.Mo discussion contents earlier with CY-KT contents on US presidential elections.
developments, capability should be discussed.
what is needed for India, who can provide that, can be discussed.
realistic chances,predictions with justifications can be discussed. (irrespective of whichever party is favorite and whoever is favorite).

Mukiyama "MM", "MKS" words-a use pannama irukkaradu, because that is the words that takes the discussions to riots topics and dilute the entire discussion.

I know you might be knowing all these points. still, I have repeated for you.:)

If you are so particular about development only there are so many other candidates are there. In US too in primaries there were so many such issues like sex scandal, Rick perry what was criticism on rick even he was successful gov of texas.

Anyway modi is not projected this for only for his development. i will stop here. If he so confident of his victory why one month campaign is required even before election date is announced.

I will stop here if you still feel healthy debate is any debate minus me i am ready for that.

.

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 07:07 PM

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 07:12 PM

If you are so particular about development only there are so many other candidates are there. In US too in primaries there were so many such issues like sex scandal, Rick perry what was criticism on rick even he was successful gov of texas.Anyway modi is not projected this for only for his development. i will stop here. If he so confident of his victory why one month campaign is required even before election date is announced.

I will stop here if you still feel healthy debate is any debate minus me i am ready for that.

.

If I were you I will not wade into water of unknown territories. Rick Perry shot himself with his mouth in the primaries. It was nothing to do with sex scandal or anyother scandal. He could not even name the three basic departments in the government when questioned in debates. He could have been a more polarizing figure and I bet the conservatives would have rallied more for him than for Romney.

I just want to rebutt only that point.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 07:17 PM

Today's Poll

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/us-election-2012

FL, NC, and VA are neck-to-neck. Despite the 4-point convention bounce in Obama's favor, despite and Ryan's inclusion it is surprising that GOP running real neck-to-neck in FL (at-least in this poll). Convention bounce worked in Obama's favor at WI and OH. It will be interesting to see how it goes in a week or two after the convention bounce dies down.

Yep, interesting question will be if the bounce will last. Also Romney seems to be more disciplined with debates than Obama. He has been preparing more diligently(atleast press reports). Obama is more eloquent in speeches than in debates. Romney also went through the fire of 20 plus primary debates.

If VA/FL goes to Obama and if the bounce holds in his favor in OH, game over.

NC is more red territory and I doubt if Obama can wrest it, but VA he has a better shot with the bigger cities in his favor, romney does will in non urban VA areas.

IF OH is cleared that candidate has lots of better chance. If Romney loses FL, game over, although mathematically it may still be possible.

jaish

September 11th, 2012, 07:19 PM

I never said rick perry involved in any sex scandal i was talking about hermain Cain. I quoted rick perry for his right view.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 07:21 PM

I never said rick perry involved in any sex scandal i was talking about hermain Cain. I quoted rick perry for his right view.

what you mean by right view ? as in conservative ? or being correct...

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 07:45 PM

Also Romney seems to be more disciplined with debates than Obama. He has been preparing more diligently(atleast press reports). .

Except for his flip-flops on medicare :) Will he repeal or won't he? He is sending conflicting messages there every day.

I think he should stop appeasing tea party and start owing the plan (even with pride) about the medicare. After all his plan in MA is the model for Obamacare.

Romney is a reasonable person. He just doesn't know to talk. He will be better off in delegating talking to someone else :lol: He should have done what I said above on medicare front long back. Even now in my opinion he should clearly state what portion of it is acceptable to him and what isn't. All these vazhavazha kozhakozha arguments he is making on medicare will haunt him back. He must make his stand clear on will he keep the act or not and what portion of it is he going to repeal.

krishnaswamy

September 11th, 2012, 08:15 PM

If he so confident of his victory why one month campaign is required even before election date is announced.

enna than daily padikara pullaiya irunthalum, exam time-le padichu than aavanum.
Always, you can be confident, but you should not be overconfident. Azhichurum

jaish

September 11th, 2012, 08:16 PM

as in conservative.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 08:26 PM

I guess besides being bayangara vazhavazha kozhakozha.. I think he is sounding more like John Kerry from 2004.. always threatening by saying "I have a plan", but wont spell even a syllable of what it is.. just by saying I have one, I have one, how does he make his case clearer.. now add his vazhavazha kozhakozha.. with the lie machine Ryan..

The only silverlining they have is Biden - Mr gaffe working in their favor.. and is highly subdued.. almost invisible.. even Clinton and Michelle are more visible than him.. this election..

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 08:55 PM

Like...

Tax policies - I don't buy it for a second that more tax cuts (tax rates are already the lowest in 50 years...they wanna lower it even further..doh!) for the rich and capital gains and for corporates-unrestricted-will create jobs!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/bruce-bartlett

Also, see this interview by jon stewart- excellent!!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--2

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--3

Other policies I think the reps are wrong are:

Health care -privatizing medicare

Fiscal - complete deregulation of wall street....they dont want any regulation on wall street, but fighting to regulate unions!...completely misplaced priorities IMO. After deregulation (repeal of the 1933 glass-stegall act - Clinton signed it in 1999 as a compromise under pressure from the republicans), the country has gone from record surplus to record deficits. Under Bush tax cuts the unemployment went from 4.1% in 2000 to 7.2 in 2008. Under Obama (with regulations) the unemployment rate has only gone from 7.2 to 8.1...and this too during the worst recession after the great depression. IMO, Obama and Geitner did a wonderful job in stopping it from becoming another depression.

Women's Choice - it's more of culture war than just abortion!

I also think if they come into power, they will polarize the country more!

Health care - "Privatization of Medicare" -- you're wrong man, they didn't say complete privatization, they're giving you an option. That's democracy! and not to thrust it in your throat.

Fiscal - The actual unemployment is about 11%, if you count those who drop out of unemployment benefits every day... (Please see my earlier post on who's responsible for this dubancoor economy situation)

Culture - Gay Unions cannot be equal to a Marriage... That's law of nature... nobody can change that....I don't need to elaborate on this...
- Abortion – well, it’s a delicate topic, once an embryo is formed and at certain time it’s a human being, so you decide what’s right.
I also think if they come into power, they will polarize the country more! --- same as Fiscal.

Please do a thorough research.... Don’t just follow the main stream media…. google what Obama had said 3 years back when he was running for office and what he's accomplished.... hehe hee... nada.... just blah blah blah.... too much talking.... (Great Green effect- f/u solar companies are enough e.g)

NJ folks did the right thing, in spite of being a blue state kicked out Jon Corzine and brought in Chris Christie..... That's the way it should be, if someone doesn't deliver.... show him the door.

A healthy debate ?.....:)
:cheers:

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 09:20 PM

Health care - "Privatization of Medicare" -- you're wrong man, they didn't say complete privatization, they're giving you an option. That's democracy! and not to thrust it in your throat.

Fiscal - The actual unemployment is about 11%, if you count those who drop out of unemployment benefits every day... (Please see my earlier post on who's responsible for this dubancoor economy situation)

Culture - Gay Unions cannot be equal to a Marriage... That's law of nature... nobody can change that....I don't need to elaborate on this...
- Abortion – well, it’s a delicate topic, once an embryo is formed and at certain time it’s a human being, so you decide what’s right.
I also think if they come into power, they will polarize the country more! --- same as Fiscal.

Please do a thorough research.... Don’t just follow the main stream media…. google what Obama had said 3 years back when he was running for office and what he's accomplished.... hehe hee... nada.... just blah blah blah.... too much talking.... (Great Green effect- f/u solar companies are enough e.g)

NJ folks did the right thing, in spite of being a blue state kicked out Jon Corzine and brought in Chris Christie..... That's the way it should be, if someone doesn't deliver.... show him the door.

A healthy debate ?.....:)
:cheers:

This fiscal discipline is a highly debatable deal. Take an example of the surplus which Bush got from Clinton, how he turned it into a gaping deficit.

Source: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html) This was before all this election cycle hoopla.

The two wars have made US fiscally weaker. Not to forget that Taliban, whom they are fighting, was prepared by them to fight Soviet. I dont agree with Dems way to spend their way out, esp. in today's economy. Nor is Republicans idea of cut everything. Still wanting to spend trillions on defence budget only makes it their only viable industry, besides planes.

Their idea of coal and oil is so early 20th century. But thats where their big money donors can give.

Global warming still seems to be a hoax for them, while there is evidence that the changing climate of the world will be costly for mankind.

If they seem to be so enamored with life at conception, because GOD made it so, then how about some respect for environment, because GOD made it also. There comes convenience of practice. Its ridiculous, male chauvinistic to not empathize with the raped woman... and expecting her to keep a momento of the horror meted to her. Its an ethical conundrum.

This Gay deal is again a useless Dem idea. I am not for or against. Its upto the individuals to do whatever.. Just like people get drunk... its not good, but its their deal.. Trying to make it as a marriage, is an idea, bit outlandish for me. I wont judge the guys n gals in that deal..

Of course Obama didnt do much for two reasons, the expectations were too unrealistic and also the party of NO, said NO to anything and everything he said.

I wish the red and blue US disappears and gets replaced not with purple, but with WHITE.. where principles and values take over personalities and parties... Thats the same as asking our singham to stand tall and open the mouth, not just in dentist office only. I mean asking of a tall order..

Both Dems and Reps have lost their bearing on many counts and are desperate to hold their base.. pushing the folks to extremes.. Not good for US

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 09:27 PM

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 09:38 PM

Wow! how naive people can be -----
Canadian model for health care? hee hee he.. Please see the following -
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2%80%99-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Read more: Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427#ixzz26BxiArpV
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 09:44 PM

Also "I am yet to see any personal benefit out of federal tax cuts." - I have no comments,... Even the so called "yes we can" Obama extended Bush's tax cut... wow! It's not like you make dossa and it's ready to eat... it trickles down and takes time. The dems spoiled it by over spending, ballooning our deficit to 11 trillion.

Are you disagreeing with me here? :) I said the same thing. I am for tax cuts at federal level, and I am in agreement with you with respect to Obama's spending.

And Bush's spending is a necessary evil.

War against Afganistan - Completely justified
Military / Homeland security spending - Justified
Iraq -NO :ohno:

Arguments can be made that Bush created big government in form of Homeland security. He has to deal with worst terrorist attack ever in US. Hence all that was absolutely necessary. I am for deregulated market. This is what I said earlier. I don't know what you are disagreeing with

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 09:47 PM

This fiscal discipline is a highly debatable deal. Take an example of the surplus which Bush got from Clinton, how he turned it into a gaping deficit.

Source: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html) This was before all this election cycle hoopla.

The two wars have made US fiscally weaker. Not to forget that Taliban, whom they are fighting, was prepared by them to fight Soviet. I dont agree with Dems way to spend their way out, esp. in today's economy. Nor is Republicans idea of cut everything. Still wanting to spend trillions on defence budget only makes it their only viable industry, besides planes.

Their idea of coal and oil is so early 20th century. But thats where their big money donors can give.

Global warming still seems to be a hoax for them, while there is evidence that the changing climate of the world will be costly for mankind.

If they seem to be so enamored with life at conception, because GOD made it so, then how about some respect for environment, because GOD made it also. There comes convenience of practice. Its ridiculous, male chauvinistic to not empathize with the raped woman... and expecting her to keep a momento of the horror meted to her. Its an ethical conundrum.

This Gay deal is again a useless Dem idea. I am not for or against. Its upto the individuals to do whatever.. Just like people get drunk... its not good, but its their deal.. Trying to make it as a marriage, is an idea, bit outlandish for me. I wont judge the guys n gals in that deal..

Of course Obama didnt do much for two reasons, the expectations were too unrealistic and also the party of NO, said NO to anything and everything he said.

I wish the red and blue US disappears and gets replaced not with purple, but with WHITE.. where principles and values take over personalities and parties... Thats the same as asking our singham to stand tall and open the mouth, not just in dentist office only. I mean asking of a tall order..

Both Dems and Reps have lost their bearing on many counts and are desperate to hold their base.. pushing the folks to extremes.. Not good for US

Please read my post on Page 6 - post # 112.

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 09:48 PM

And here is another study report

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/4/1133.full

Results from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (2002–2003) reveal that health status is relatively similar in the two countries, but income-related health disparities exist. Americans in the poorest income quintile are more likely to have poor health than their Canadian counterparts; there were no differences between the rich. In general, Canadians were more like insured Americans regarding access to services, and Canadians experienced fewer unmet needs overall. Despite higher U.S. levels of spending on health care, residents in the two countries have similar health status and access to care, although there are higher levels of inequality in the United States.

Arasu

September 11th, 2012, 09:48 PM

.......

Culture - Gay Unions cannot be equal to a Marriage... That's law of nature... nobody can change that....I don't need to elaborate on this...
- Abortion – well, it’s a delicate topic, once an embryo is formed and at certain time it’s a human being,
....

:cheers:

I don't understand the law of nature and its connection to gay marriage.
Do you mean to say that marriage is for reproduction only? If yes, then it would mean sex act is for reproduction only. Which would imply that you would end up producing thousands of children in your life time or you would have sex only two or three times in your life ie whenever you wanted a child.

Why is that those that are against killing a human embryo are the first ones who are ready to use weapons of mass destruction, or to indulge in waging wars against hapless countres destroying thosands of lives.
Is it due some other pervese law of nature too?

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 09:53 PM

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

Kudos to US system for most of the medical breakthroughs -:cheers:
Well, look at reality, which country in the world did most of the research for so many human deficiency /sickness. You know the answer – it’s because of the freedom enjoyed here and you can do anything if you have the will…. You can't achieve this in any other country, Can you. Babus will come charging at you to nationalize. He hee

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 10:00 PM

Are you disagreeing with me here? :) I said the same thing. I am for tax cuts at federal level, and I am in agreement with you with respect to Obama's spending.

And Bush's spending is a necessary evil.

War against Afganistan - Completely justified
Military / Homeland security spending - Justified
Iraq -NO :ohno:

Arguments can be made that Bush created big government in form of Homeland security. He has to deal with worst terrorist attack ever in US. Hence all that was absolutely necessary. I am for deregulated market. This is what I said earlier. I don't know what you are disagreeing with

War on Iraq is seen as an unnecessary war, BUT, since Sadam was silenced in the root was well done.
Will you wait and see what he could have done and then react? He killed enough people the rest of the world should be happy to get him eliminated. It’s like Cancer, budding it at the early stage will save one’s life, the world was saved from the tyrant…He killed hundreds of thousands…
Just watch what this Axis OE Iran does, if no action is taken…. Cancer cannot be taken for granted….

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 10:02 PM

Their idea of coal and oil is so early 20th century. But thats where their big money donors can give.

Oil?? Outdated? Not so early my friend. Renewables are several decades away (if not at-least a century) to cater to the energy needs. And it's time to drill in-house and reduce the ME dependency as much as we can while simultaneously investing in alternative sources.

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 10:05 PM

War on Iraq is seen as an unnecessary war, BUT, since Sadam was silenced in the root was well done.
Will you wait and see what he could have done and then react? He killed enough people the rest of the world should be happy to get him eliminated. It’s like Cancer, budding it at the early stage will save one’s life, the world was saved from the tyrant…He killed hundreds of thousands…
Just watch what this Axis OE Iran does, if no action is taken…. Cancer cannot be taken for granted….

So you go and bomb thousands of people in an alien country? That too in the name of WMD lie with a presidential order? What's the difference between a dictator and supposedly responsible head of state then? Doesn't make sense.

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 10:20 PM

So you go and bomb thousands of people in an alien country? That too in the name of WMD lie with a presidential order? What's the difference between a dictator and supposedly responsible head of state then? Doesn't make sense.

Where did you read your history from - when did US bomb "thousands of people"?
Wow! Don’t spin an issue, they got rid of the regiment and they left.... Come on man! Be realistic....:)
That's the difference between a dictatory and responsible head of state.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 10:27 PM

Oil?? Outdated? Not so early my friend. Renewables are several decades away (if not at-least a century) to cater to the energy needs. And it's time to drill in-house and reduce the ME dependency as much as we can while simultaneously investing in alternative sources.

Renewables are definitely many years/decades away. But drilling right in middle of Alaska or ruining your own backyard with fracking.. is fine.. as long as the science of it and EPA and the denizens of the affected locales can be brought some resite.

The problem comes when one side says no drilling, and another says ONLY drilling.. am saying drill, but keep the senses open for whats going on..

As far as renewables, dont take food and make into oil.. thats dumb.. now they have this industry, but its kinda held artificially. On top of it, all these guys are in bed with companies like Monsanto for GMOs. Both sides..

As a science guy, I am concerned about trying to pick battle with nature on this race.. most of their crops now have proven pests that are adapted to these high pesticides that come with GMOs. On top of it talk of the monopoly.. thats not the worst.. they have now eliminated successfully most of the corn and soybean varieties from circulation.. the number of apple varieties in the market have come down from tens of thousands to handful..

Middle Path... Athan namma kichna sonnaru geetala.. middle...neither extreme.. thats whats lacking..

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 10:31 PM

Where did you read your history from - when did US bomb "thousands of people"?
Wow! Don’t spin an issue, they got rid of the regiment and they left.... Come on man! Be realistic....:)
That's the difference between a dictatory and responsible head of state.

Well before you ask others credentials where they read history.. where did you read.. I am highlighting the fact you are talking personal and not viewpoints.. Again it doesnt matter where you read your history. just mentioning it asking you not to talk personally..esp if it is not something to edify someone..

For your war supporting idea... Wow.. wonderfull so why didnt they act when people in palestine are dying.. why are they not helping people in Rwanda, Burma, Somalia, Sudan.. so many other places... .. Iran was their best friend till the revolution..

Afganisthan rebels were supplied with weapons and training only by US to keep Soviets at bay.. When the guns turned the direction, crying wolf doesnt help..

As responsible leaders, they failed on certain counts to provide leadership. They were not always wrong..

Iraq, the justification was not to kill Saddam, they said they had credible sources of WMD, could not even show traces of it later. What you sow, so shall you reap. Unfortunately so many innocents have been killed..

Even today, they are giving Pak weapons and support in the name of afganistan, which Pak has always used against us. Tell me one justification for that. I will agree with you on Iraq war. One logical reason, till date why they are not willing to hand over the 26/11 terrorist attack guy to India or why having seen all the terror links of Pak govt and ISI, they still support directly or indirectly..

If you were to answer that logically and ethically, you will have the answer to your own question on history..

rajoo1

September 11th, 2012, 10:32 PM

I don't understand the law of nature and its connection to gay marriage.
Do you mean to say that marriage is for reproduction only? If yes, then it would mean sex act is for reproduction only. Which would imply that you would end up producing thousands of children in your life time or you would have sex only two or three times in your life ie whenever you wanted a child.

Why is that those that are against killing a human embryo are the first ones who are ready to use weapons of mass destruction, or to indulge in waging wars against hapless countres destroying thosands of lives.
Is it due some other pervese law of nature too?

A marriage is between a man and a woman... that's how the nature is set... You can spin all you want..but you'd get no where. I think you understand.

"indulge in waging wars against hapless countres destroying thosands of lives.":master:
So you're justifying against the killing of terrorist.... When did US use WMD? In 2nd WW - which was a must to stop Axis powers.
In the 90s Clinton used power to bring peace to former Yugoslavia... was that invading hapless countries?...
Well, I believe we should stop hear and should have an educated debate after reading the facts and not ranting your feeling against the world’s most envied nation.

dpitchai

September 11th, 2012, 10:49 PM

dpitchai

September 11th, 2012, 10:52 PM

Kudos to US system for most of the medical breakthroughs -:cheers:
Well, look at reality, which country in the world did most of the research for so many human deficiency /sickness. You know the answer – it’s because of the freedom enjoyed here and you can do anything if you have the will…. You can't achieve this in any other country, Can you. Babus will come charging at you to nationalize. He hee

Living is U.S for 7 years, I would say U.S health care system is good but definitely not the best and need of the hour is cost effective. Healthcare cost is unreasonably high. If you have to go to Dentists, one has to sell their car and pay them.

dpitchai

September 11th, 2012, 10:53 PM

War on Iraq is seen as an unnecessary war, BUT, since Sadam was silenced in the root was well done.
Will you wait and see what he could have done and then react? He killed enough people the rest of the world should be happy to get him eliminated. It’s like Cancer, budding it at the early stage will save one’s life, the world was saved from the tyrant…He killed hundreds of thousands…
Just watch what this Axis OE Iran does, if no action is taken…. Cancer cannot be taken for granted….

thoda... nalla irukey unga kathey... Jaish... pongi ezhum...

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 10:55 PM

The problem comes when one side says no drilling, and another says ONLY drilling.. .

Who said NO to clean energy?

Here is Mitt Romeny's energy policy (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy).

This is Paul Ryan's (http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=200222). Sorry I have to emphasize and quote Ryan everywhere because he is unfairly portrayed as a radical by the media. The reason he can talk like Obama :D

Though he is more toward extreme right he is no Rush Limbaugh.

Congressman Ryan strongly supports H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, which takes an all-of-the-above approach to our energy crisis. The American Energy Act allows for environmentally-sound domestic drilling, streamlines the permit process for new refineries, boosts incentives for conservation and energy efficiency, and promotes the use of renewable and alternative energy.

Here is his detailed plan (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9977).

GOP's stand on energy economics is anyway well known. It is oil-first strategy till renewable industry matures to feed the current energy demands. What is Obama's stand on green river shale? Why did he choose to fund Solyndra over this? I am surprised that Romney and Ryan are not speaking about this. This could have helped to create oil jobs. Energy bills, gas prices, jobs, ME dependency are all current crisis. Priority should have been this compared to Solyndra or green jobs IMO. They are okay for long-term goals, but won't work for short-to-intermediate term.

dpitchai

September 11th, 2012, 11:01 PM

A marriage is between a man and a woman... that's how the nature is set... You can spin all you want..but you'd get no where. I think you understand.

"indulge in waging wars against hapless countres destroying thosands of lives.":master:
So you're justifying against the killing of terrorist.... When did US use WMD? In 2nd WW - which was a must to stop Axis powers.
In the 90s Clinton used power to bring peace to former Yugoslavia... was that invading hapless countries?...
Well, I believe we should stop hear and should have an educated debate after reading the facts and not ranting your feeling against the world’s most envied nation.

neenga Republicans ku romba jaldra podreenga... Inga yaarumey oru party bestnu sollala... We are saying both party had good and bad and debating them. Are you a republican member or what?

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:09 PM

Who said NO?

GOP's stand on energy economics is anyway well known. It is oil-first strategy till renewable industry matures to feed the current energy demands. What is Obama's stand on green river shale? Why did he choose to fund Solyndra over this? I am surprised that Romney and Ryan are not speaking about this. This could have helped to create oil jobs. Energy bills, gas prices, jobs, ME dependency are all current crisis. Priority should have been this compared to Solyndra or green jobs IMO. They are okay for long-term goals, but won't work for short-to-intermediate term.

Annen, i am not obama defender.. I try to pull apart both sides.. Yaen atha senjarunu (Solyandra) avara thaan neenga kekkanum..

Dems have given nicer talks on envt, but I am yet to see any groundbreaking actions from Obama yet.

But openly justifying pollution in the name of reduced regulatory process is making me worrisome. Only thing you cannot expect industry to do.. regulate itself in every aspect. There is onething you must not let government do, regulate everything...

Again Middle ground is required .. anga thaan prechanaye..

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:11 PM

neenga Republicans ku romba jaldra podreenga... Inga yaarumey oru party bestnu sollala... We are saying both party had good and bad and debating them. Are you a republican member or what?

Saar neenga padi Chooti.. oru chinna clue kudutha pothum, roade pottutengale.. (Listen in Crazy Mohan voice).

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 11:13 PM

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:14 PM

Oil - I was interacting with a chemical engineer phd, whom I have to agree from pure science perspective.. Petroleum oils are such a resourceful base of chemicals, its a shame that we use it for just burning.. I am quoting him..

Well from pure science/chemistry perspective.. its an intersting insight.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:18 PM

I'm, for this election. Even volunteering :cheers:

appo adutha electionla clinton nikka porangannu sonnanga... kerchief pottu vechirukkingala ??

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 11:22 PM

appo adutha electionla clinton nikka porangannu sonnanga... kerchief pottu vechirukkingala ??

I have no loyalties. Ramadoss maadiri, only difference is unlike Ramadoss enakku aadhayam illai ;) Last time namma current thalaikku than volunteer senjen.On serious note I just look at the previous record of incumbent government, what they say for future and then decide on whom should I support.

Obama mike pudicha nalla pesuraru, adhukku mela onnum seyyala. That's my opinion.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:23 PM

I'm, for this election. Even volunteering :cheers:

sozhian kudumi summa aduma.. KTa kokka..

aama ivlo solreengale.. try to resolve the stand on rape victims...

kongutamizhan

September 11th, 2012, 11:26 PM

sozhian kudumi summa aduma.. KTa kokka..

aama ivlo solreengale.. try to resolve the stand on rape victims...

Just because I support Romney ticket doesn't mean that I have to accept everything that they say. As much as I hate abortion I am pro-choice. I don't want it to be encouraged through law even in normal cases, leave alone rape victims.

Plus I naturally think like right wingers. So whether India or US for most part I lean that way.

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:32 PM

I have no loyalties. Ramadoss maadiri, only difference is unlike Ramadoss enakku aadhayam illai ;) Last time namma current thalaikku than volunteer senjen.On serious note I just look at the previous record of incumbent government, what they say for future and then decide on whom should I support.

Obama mike pudicha nalla pesuraru, adhukku mela onnum seyyala. That's my opinion.

enna saar unga raasi pola.. pona vatti obamakku volunteer panni.. avaru dubakoor agitaru... ippo romneyku panrennu solreenga... avaru Presidentagi, avarum dubakoor agaitarruna.. adutha electionla ungala volunteer panna vida mattanga bossu..

pesame moonavada oru thani katchi araambichi.. athukku kolgai parappu seyalalara ungala podalamnu.... oru chinna idea..

Obama mike pudicha nalla pesuraru.. avaru mike mohan madiri pola.. nalla thaan pesararu.. aana vara vara avlo geththu ille.. pesama avaroda mikea pidungidalam..

satchitananda

September 11th, 2012, 11:33 PM

Just because I support Romney ticket doesn't mean that I have to accept everything that they say. As much as I hate abortion I am pro-choice. I don't want it to be encouraged through law even in normal cases, leave alone rape victims.

saththama sollatheenga... Akin kaadula vizha poguthu.. j/k.. I appreciate you retaining an independant thought process

Arasu

September 11th, 2012, 11:41 PM

A marriage is between a man and a woman... that's how the nature is set... You can spin all you want..but you'd get no where. I think you understand.

I have a hard time understanding your logic.
Are you saying that a man cow and a woman cow producing a calf without getting married first are violating the laws of nature?

Hope you understand what you are saying.

krishnaswamy

September 11th, 2012, 11:51 PM

America politics theriyale.. but neenga solra mathiri,
obama verum "mike mohan" thannu ingeyum pesikittu irukkanga.

chennaiyorker

September 11th, 2012, 11:57 PM

Culture - Gay Unions cannot be equal to a Marriage... That's law of nature... nobody can change that....I don't need to elaborate on this...

Please do a thorough research.Please do a thorough research.... Don’t just follow the main stream media…. google what Obama had said 3 years back when he was running for office and what he's accomplished.... hehe hee... nada.... just blah blah blah.... too much talking....

A healthy debate ?.....:)
:cheers:

Yo, I have done my research right! thank you very much for your advice. I sense arguing with you will be just a waste of time!

chennaiyorker

September 12th, 2012, 12:23 AM

Clint Eastwood - Go ahead, Make my day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ&feature=related

At least I'm not getting my information from an 82 year old man talking to an empty chair!!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT333FK-XK0tqvSP-hKms02lEtA_ctpDKzzGmKn6B7AkSXDg8LR

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 12:43 AM

[QUOTE=Arasu;95006775]I have a hard time understanding your logic.
Are you saying that a man cow and a woman cow producing a calf without getting married first are violating the laws of nature?

Hope you understand what you are saying.[/QUOTE

Self deleted

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 01:46 AM

Marubadiyum Aaaramichitangayya (http://www.eduwonk.com/2012/09/chicago-seven-7-early-takaways-from-the-chicago-teachers-strike.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Eduwonk+%28Eduwonk.com%29). Ivanungala adakka oruthan vara mattengran

chennaiyorker

September 12th, 2012, 02:03 AM

Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise
Experts say he can't cut rates without losing revenue or favoring the wealthy. (http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/)

Tax experts — including one who supports Romney’s plan — say the Republican presidential candidate’s promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn’t mathematically possible.

That’s the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center in a report the Romney campaign attacked as “biased” (although the campaign previously praised the TPC as “objective,” when it issued a report critical of a rival’s tax plan).

And it’s also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.”

Romney has proposed very specific tax cuts. He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits primarily upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).

Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the “same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.”

But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.

So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear — it’s not possible.

UtEgvJmCRhs

How will they cut deficits and decrease the debt without increasing revenue??? and why aren't they specific with their plans? do they even have one?? doesn't look like it. It's like...'oh, you vote us in now, and THEN we'll tell you our plans!' :nuts:

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 02:10 AM

Just because I support Romney ticket doesn't mean that I have to accept everything that they say. As much as I hate abortion I am pro-choice. I don't want it to be encouraged through law even in normal cases, leave alone rape victims.

Plus I naturally think like right wingers. So whether India or US for most part I lean that way.

Neenga Republicansayum BJPkum compare panni BJPya asinga paduthuteenga...

BJP is for humanitarianism, conserving environment, simplistic life style, using cow dung/cow urine rather than fertilizers. Only on Fiscal policy, they align with republicans.

chennaiyorker

September 12th, 2012, 02:39 AM

Flip-Flopping: Is it the Massachusetts water? First Kerry, now Mitt :lol:

K9njHHyRI7g

aVWo2VeCyLo

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 02:57 AM

Well before you ask others credentials where they read history.. where did you read..

If you were to answer that logically and ethically, you will have the answer to your own question on history..

Sorry if I got personal – My bad, I was just upset that people enjoy freedom in this county and abuse it and not appreciate it. Also, live hear and trash it when possible. Yettaiappan ki jai.!

For your war supporting idea... Wow.. wonderfull so why didnt they act when people in palestine are dying.. why are they not helping people in Rwanda, Burma, Somalia, Sudan.. so many other places... .. Iran was their best friend till the revolution.. Palestine issue is a different topic, we can debate it separately, they are dying because they’re acting as terrorist / sucide bombing etc. US logic support is in Somalia / Sudan has been bifurcated. Iran – Ok… when shaw was there Iran was our friend, but the revolutionaries took over and became as it is now- radical.

Afganisthan rebels were supplied with weapons and training only by US to keep Soviets at bay.. When the guns turned the direction, crying wolf doesnt help.. …Yes they did, but at that time is was a different war – Cold war ( US didn’t want more countries to become socialist, but now this war against Afghanistan is because of 9/11 – against cancer

As responsible leaders, they failed on certain counts to provide leadership. They were not always wrong.. --?

Iraq, the justification was not to kill Saddam, they said they had credible sources of WMD, could not even show traces of it later. What you sow, so shall you reap. Unfortunately so many innocents have been killed.. They got the wrong intelligence both dems and republicans and the whole UN got the same intelligence… Ok, here is the spin, if it was india they would have planted a WMD there…..:0 / Look at them now, it's better than before, but they have a long way to go. Hope they make it

Even today, they are giving Pak weapons and support in the name of afganistan, which Pak has always used against us. Tell me one justification for that. I will agree with you on Iraq war. One logical reason, till date why they are not willing to hand over the 26/11 terrorist attack guy to India or why having seen all the terror links of Pak govt and ISI, they still support directly or indirectly.. Pakistan harbored UBL, the US govt. knew this and went alone to capture him, and they’re waiting for the better opportunity to get back at Pakis… wait and watch…. They would look at their countries interest 1st. India didn’t push… even now they don’t have the guts to get the Bombay massacre mastermind – Dawood Ibrahim.
We need to learn from Israel, how to accomplish our goals. Both Congress and BJP are useless for that matter. We need a Subash Chandra Bose or a Sanjay Gandhi character as our leader

If you were to answer that logically and ethically, you will have the answer to your own question on history.. Hope this helps...

chennaiyorker

September 12th, 2012, 03:33 AM

War against Afganistan - Completely justified
Military / Homeland security spending - Justified
Iraq -NO :ohno:

Arguments can be made that Bush created big government in form of Homeland security. He has to deal with worst terrorist attack ever in US. Hence all that was absolutely necessary.

KT, just a question...If spending on war and homeland security (without revenue increase - tax cuts) was necessary and justified owing to the state of the country at that time, why is spending for stimulus and auto/wall street bail-out (that too with plans for revenue increase by going back to the Clinton tax rates) not justified when nothing other than that would have stopped the free fall of our economy in 2009/2010?

Why is that if bush spent, it was necessary, and not so for Obama? At least Obama's plan passes the test of fiscal prudence!

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year.

So if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 04:50 AM

How will they cut deficits and decrease the debt without increasing revenue??? and why aren't they specific with their plans?

First of all I disagree that they don't have plans. Next these are Milton Friedman's 4 rules. Hope this answer's your ^^ post too

Lower taxes
Less regulation
Restrained government spending
Non-inflationary monetary policy

The above four will improve market based funding. If market based funding improves it improves the GDP. As GDP increases common sense says that employment opportunities will go up. The media and dems just astroturf with GOP's tax-cut point as single point agenda and conveniently ignores the 360 degree perspective that comes along with it. They hardly talk about Friedman's other 3 points in detail. Tax-cuts alone won't be effective unless the other three goes with it. Romney-Ryan's plan mentions that. Money saved is money earned. So restricted spending is indirect earnings for the government. Cutting on unions is again a savings which is indirect earnings for the government.

Read CATO institute policy analysis (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267964?access_key=key-cqabhi5uofo9x4mgw4p) on what the above can do. NOTE that the study says that Reagan's task toward supply-chain economics was unfinished and still the country had progress as Regan tried to be as much inclusive on all fronts. The unfinished agenda is what Ryan is aiming for as he keeps quoting Ayn Rand.

The above numbers don't lie. And neither does the facts below

Source (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/05/09/rich-states-poor-states-documents-benefits-low-taxes)

Lower Taxes, Higher Growth

Over the past decade, the nine no-income-tax states, on average, saw 39.2 percent greater growth in economic output, 148.6 percent greater growth in population, and 81.7 percent faster revenue growth than the average of the nine states with the highest tax rates. While the highest income tax states suffered a net 1.7 percent job loss, the no-income-tax states enjoyed job growth of 5.4 percent.

High taxing empire state loses 3.4 million residents in 10 years

Source (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/05/high-taxing-empire-state-loses-34-million-residents-10-years)

New York State accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010, with 3.4 million residents leaving over that period, according to the Tax Foundation

Another left propaganda is that only huge companies benefit out of reduced tax cut. That's bull-shit and this is why -> already small businesses have pass-through taxation and if you are a small business owner you can choose to be taxed @ individual rate. SMALL BUSINESSES (majority of them) don't pay corporate taxes and pay only individual rate. Dems should get it first!!!

Let us not forget that many small businesses pay these personal income taxes as subchapter S Corporations (S Corps), Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), and other “pass-through” entities. These small businesses make up more than 90 percent of all businesses, employ more than 50 percent of American workers, and pay more than 40 percent of all business taxes.

For huge corporations tax cuts from 35% to 25% will grant benefits mentioned in CATO link above, will encourage entrepreneur risk taking to invest back into the business (as they get to keep profit). They won't stash it in Cayman Islands if you lower it. Because it's not worth that risk of losing everything. Only if you tax them heavily they will choose to keep it at swiss banks.

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

Next to your point that Ryan's plan don't have details. All you need to do is google for his Path to prosperity (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=56750) document. Is it detailed enough to the last bit? Of-course not, but he has a vision/framework. The ABCNews fella would have praised if Obama had said that he can just offer a framework and implementation details will be debated in congress through a bi-partisan committee. As the words happened to be uttered by Ryan, he must be lying or he simply doesn't have one isn't? :)

Did Obama offer this detailed framework in 2008? No. In fact Obama exactly said what Ryan said in the abcnews video that you posted. He said he will reach across the aisle like Lincoln. God only knows how many times he quoted Lincoln last time. Irony is when Ryan replaces Lincoln with Ayn Rand all of a sudden it appears wrong in eyes of media which is asking for last bit details from him that they failed to ask Obama. His roadmap in 2008 was to end the war which will cut spending and provide the funding needed to get country back on track. By using that money to build infrastructure he was hoping to generate jobs. Now how detailed plan was that?

Ryan says the same thing too that he will go back to Reaganomics and will do the unfinished job. He says that he is planning to cut the public spending which will leave money, he says he will drill and that will increase oil jobs and reduce the oil prices which pave way for lower energy bills. He says he will take on white elephants in unions that should cut down on manufacturing and public sector expenses. If you believe Obama's one liners will do wonders then why not believe Ryan's?

If we take the dems route and increase tax for business how is it going to improve small businesses really? Like I said before small businesses enjoy pass-through taxation already. It will only impact the big business from reinvesting because their money will go to tax. Big companies won't reinvest. What detail plan does Obama have to tackle it? Okay now you increase tax and companies go abroad, now what is his plan?

On medicare side SC upheld Obamacare as a tax and said fed can't impose penalty if state government chooses to ignore it. If half the republican ruled states across the country chooses to ignore the mandate how is Obama planning on the required revenue? Again no plan.

---------------------------------------------
Will sign-off this long post with this article from LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-column-ryan-budget-20110407) that sums up details of what Ryan wants to do and exposes the astroturf of democratic media that keeps lying Ryan's plan lacks roadmap.

Ryan may be a orthodox conservative and will share may ideological thoughts with the tea baggers. But will he budge to Tea partians? Likely not

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, won praise from his fellow Republicans this week for proposing a federal budget that would reduce the deficit by slashing spending in almost every domestic program.

Some of the praise was exaggerated; Ryan's plan has holes in it, just like President Obama's budget
......
......
But on one major point, Ryan has done a great service. He has made it clear that if you're serious about cutting the federal deficit, you have to make a choice: low taxes or guaranteed Medicare coverage. You can't have both. That may come as unwelcome news to millions of Republican voters, including "tea party" adherents who helped Ryan's GOP win its majority in the House.

....
....

Ryan has opted for low taxes. On that count, he's the most orthodox of conservative Republicans. He doesn't just want to keep George W. Bush's tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers forever; he also wants to cut the top individual tax rate from 35% to 25%, paid for by — well, he doesn't say. He'd repeal an upper-income surtax in Obama's healthcare law. And he'd lower the corporate tax rate (a goal Obama shares).
.....
.....
This presents a potential dilemma for Ryan and his Republican colleagues, who spent much of last year denouncing Obama for trying to reduce future Medicare spending in his healthcare law. Now they have to explain why it's right for Republicans to squeeze Medicare when it was wrong for Democrats to do it. (Short answer: Obama did it to help pay for "Obamacare"; the GOP's doing it to cut the deficit, a nobler cause in its view.)

He believes in the supply-side article of faith: Lower taxes will solve every economic ill.

...
....
Ryan's proposal for Medicare would scrap the current, government-run "fee-for-service" insurance system beginning in 2022. Instead, it would offer a federal subsidy to help senior citizens buy private health insurance. Low-income seniors and participants with preexisting conditions would get bigger subsidies than healthy, high-income seniors. But the subsidies would be limited; they would cover a smaller share of the cost of health insurance than Medicare does today, according to the Congressional Budget Office, meaning out-of-pocket costs would rise. And Ryan would raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.
...
...

Remember Goebbel's big lie theory? When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. This is what democrats are doing when it comes to republicans. They call them racist, they call them as someone who is too bad for American cultural tolerance, they say that republicans don't have details (which they themselves don't have). They say that Bush is responsible for all the mess. Above all they keep repeating it till today. Putting Goebbels theory at work.

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 05:01 AM

Sorry if I got personal – My bad, I was just upset that people enjoy freedom in this county and abuse it and not appreciate it. Also, live hear and trash it when possible. Yettaiappan ki jai.!

For your war supporting idea... Wow.. wonderfull so why didnt they act when people in palestine are dying.. why are they not helping people in Rwanda, Burma, Somalia, Sudan.. so many other places... .. Iran was their best friend till the revolution.. Palestine issue is a different topic, we can debate it separately, they are dying because they’re acting as terrorist / sucide bombing etc. US logic support is in Somalia / Sudan has been bifurcated. Iran – Ok… when shaw was there Iran was our friend, but the revolutionaries took over and became as it is now- radical.

Afganisthan rebels were supplied with weapons and training only by US to keep Soviets at bay.. When the guns turned the direction, crying wolf doesnt help.. …Yes they did, but at that time is was a different war – Cold war ( US didn’t want more countries to become socialist, but now this war against Afghanistan is because of 9/11 – against cancer

As responsible leaders, they failed on certain counts to provide leadership. They were not always wrong.. --?

Iraq, the justification was not to kill Saddam, they said they had credible sources of WMD, could not even show traces of it later. What you sow, so shall you reap. Unfortunately so many innocents have been killed.. They got the wrong intelligence both dems and republicans and the whole UN got the same intelligence… Ok, here is the spin, if it was india they would have planted a WMD there…..:0 / Look at them now, it's better than before, but they have a long way to go. Hope they make it

Even today, they are giving Pak weapons and support in the name of afganistan, which Pak has always used against us. Tell me one justification for that. I will agree with you on Iraq war. One logical reason, till date why they are not willing to hand over the 26/11 terrorist attack guy to India or why having seen all the terror links of Pak govt and ISI, they still support directly or indirectly.. Pakistan harbored UBL, the US govt. knew this and went alone to capture him, and they’re waiting for the better opportunity to get back at Pakis… wait and watch…. They would look at their countries interest 1st. India didn’t push… even now they don’t have the guts to get the Bombay massacre mastermind – Dawood Ibrahim.
We need to learn from Israel, how to accomplish our goals. Both Congress and BJP are useless for that matter. We need a Subash Chandra Bose or a Sanjay Gandhi character as our leader

If you were to answer that logically and ethically, you will have the answer to your own question on history.. Hope this helps...

So do you align with republicans in climate change and evolution as well?

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 05:17 AM

@ A clarification of my above post. Not saying that Ryanomics is the way forward. I was just trying to answer the question that Ryan-Romney doesn't have a plan. I am just saying that they do have a plan that is more detailed than Obama's. How much of it is correct and what is wrong is a different issue all-together.

Though Ayn Rand's concept (self-interest creates responsibility) is a school of thought, the other side of it is it creates greed too. So I believe that regulation should be there to check the greed and it should not check the self-interest.

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 06:00 AM

Neenga Republicansayum BJPkum compare panni BJPya asinga paduthuteenga...

BJP is for humanitarianism, conserving environment, simplistic life style, using cow dung/cow urine rather than fertilizers. Only on Fiscal policy, they align with republicans.

RSS will disagree on BJP's fiscal policies. BJP's own policy is swadesi policy and is un-republican. Indian political parties really don't have a true right fiscal policy and will never have for next few generations because of poverty. You can lean little toward right and that's about it.

With that said future PM's tax-cuts for corporate and deregulation policies may even put the Republicans to shame :lol: To NaMo's credit he also balances it with left (like social scheme yojanas) and environmental thoughts. Unlike Obama he is really creating a solar powerhouse in Gujarat (comparing our standards).

Other than the standard of living culturally BJP is comparable to the GOP

geico2000

September 12th, 2012, 07:29 AM

First of all I disagree that they don't have plans. Next these are Milton Friedman's 4 rules. Hope this answer's your ^^ post too

Lower taxes
Less regulation
Restrained government spending
Non-inflationary monetary policy

The above four will improve market based funding. If market based funding improves it improves the GDP. As GDP increases common sense says that employment opportunities will go up.

These policies were followed all through the poppy bush and G bush era but employment opportunities didn't went up instead it went the other way. On the other hand Reagan increased taxes and was able to improve employment opportunities.

What ever Romney is preaching is the same old failed story. Most of the team is compromised of former bush era officials. I don't think Romney will win with this formula, even though its good for India and Indians in some ways.

Sampathkumar

September 12th, 2012, 10:01 AM

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/red-carpet-welcome-william-kate-singapore-093046375.html

Most sensational news in South east asia..

Red carpet welcome for William and Kate in Singapore

Prince William and his wife Catherine were greeted by cheering well-wishers Tuesday as they started an Asia-Pacific tour in Singapore to mark Queen Elizabeth II's 60-year reign.

Sampathkumar

September 12th, 2012, 10:04 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yGZ6CWNorE

Another one..

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 11:27 AM

Folks, looking from outside why is that we (INDIA) don't have good leaders in out country? Is it our fate? :grouphug:
Can we name any or upcoming leader? A leader who's not selfish/ a leader who can lead by example / dynamic / intelligent / thinks about our countries future....
ANY ONE?
All we can see today is looters / licensed to kill goondas - you know all the villain characters
:master:

BTW - Global warming is a myth :ohno:

Pollution is there / carbon foot print is all BS / If you look at the record set for daily temp. in the US cities... (Around NY area) the record highs were mostly in early 20th century almost 100 years back. and some are still in the 19th century.....

Al Gore got the world going crazy :crazy2:

BTW he's still mad at the loss from 2000 presidency :soapbox:

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 11:54 AM

Are you a Republican, Democrat or Texan?
This little test will help you decide for sure!

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.

Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges at you...

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?

THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:

Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
�What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
�Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
�Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
�Could we run away?
�What does my wife think?
�What about the kids?
�Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
�What does the law say about this situation?
�Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
�Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
�If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
�Should I call 9-1-1?
�Why is this street so deserted?
�Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior?
�This is all so confusing!

............ ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..
Republican's Answer:

BANG!

............ ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ........ ......

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!'

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You are NOT taking that to the Taxidermist!'

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 12:06 PM

An extremely important movie is playing now - - It is called simply "2016".
:cheers:

The speaker here is Dinesh D'Souza, college president in New York and author of many New York Times best sellers. The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award winning Schindler's List, JurrasicPark, Brave Heart.

It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being reelected for another four years.

Watch this short informative video preview of this movie. After you see the preview, listen to what Dinesh has to say about Obama. Please take the time to concentrate on what he says and then think back on everything that obama has done over the last 3-1/2 years, and what he has been trying to do now. Then recall who were some of his past associations and who are his biggest financial supporters and the picture will become clearer to you.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6QOscKvUjU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 03:12 PM

These policies were followed all through the poppy bush and G bush era but employment opportunities didn't went up instead it went the other way. On the other hand Reagan increased taxes and was able to improve employment opportunities.

What ever Romney is preaching is the same old failed story. Most of the team is compromised of former bush era officials. I don't think Romney will win with this formula, even though its good for India and Indians in some ways.

Bush just cut taxes and tried to lower regulations. He failed on other 2. Though he played a significant role in that failure he alone is not responsible for it.

So increasing taxes is the answer how? How are you planning to keep business up and running by tax increase? Is the increased tax sufficient enough to generate revenue for your Medicare, infrastructure overhaul, education reform and other needs? Increased taxes means states have to be more dependent on fed that turns in to more buerocracy. Fed will arm twist states and interfere in business. With leftist and socialist policies they may strengthen the union.

What answers does Obama have for these hurdles? Will he work with congress republicans? Working doesn't mean asking to support me my way unconditionally (which is what he did last term). It means willingness to compromise on his ideology. He havent shown that trait yet. Will he do that?

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 03:26 PM

RSS will disagree on BJP's fiscal policies. BJP's own policy is swadesi policy and is un-republican.

Thanks it always feel good for me that our political parties are not like Republicans.

Other than the standard of living culturally BJP is comparable to the GOP

How is BJP comparable to GOP? Only comparision you can make is both want to preserve the culture and lifestyle but what the want to preserver is opposite. One is for guns, gas guzzlers, red meat the other is is no way close.

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 03:29 PM

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 03:31 PM

The speaker here is Dinesh D'Souza, college president in New York and author of many New York Times best sellers. The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award winning Schindler's List, JurrasicPark, Brave Heart.

It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being reelected for another four years.

Watch this short informative video preview of this movie. After you see the preview, listen to what Dinesh has to say about Obama. Please take the time to concentrate on what he says and then think back on everything that obama has done over the last 3-1/2 years, and what he has been trying to do now. Then recall who were some of his past associations and who are his biggest financial supporters and the picture will become clearer to you.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6QOscKvUjU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage

I recently saw Dinesh in Bill Maher's show, it's all pethal there. Between IMO Indians like Dinesh, Nikki, Avik Roy are shame for us.

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 04:51 PM

I recently saw Dinesh in Bill Maher's show, it's all pethal there. Between IMO Indians like Dinesh, Nikki, Avik Roy are shame for us.

Shame in what way Sir?
What about Boby Jindal? Is he a shame too just because he's a Republican? :ohno:

BTW - Can't think of one Leader in India who can turn around our country...
No body is saying "YES WE CAN" hmm.. they know the reality or busy counting $?:lol:

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 04:52 PM

Thanks it always feel good for me that our political parties are not like Republicans.

How is BJP comparable to GOP? Only comparision you can make is both want to preserve the culture and lifestyle but what the want to preserver is opposite. One is for guns, gas guzzlers, red meat the other is is no way close.

Culture and lifestyle is what I meant. Guns are not part of our lifestyle anyway so why will BJP demand it?

By the way from when did gun become a republican thingy? I thought it is a pan american issue cutting across party lines. Yet to see a democrat making serious effort to change the 2nd amendment

geico2000

September 12th, 2012, 05:00 PM

Bush just cut taxes and tried to lower regulations. He failed on other 2. Though he played a significant role in that failure he alone is not responsible for it.

So increasing taxes is the answer how? How are you planning to keep business up and running by tax increase? Is the increased tax sufficient enough to generate revenue for your Medicare, infrastructure overhaul, education reform and other needs? Increased taxes means states have to be more dependent on fed that turns in to more buerocracy. Fed will arm twist states and interfere in business. With leftist and socialist policies they may strengthen the union.

What answers does Obama have for these hurdles? Will he work with congress republicans? Working doesn't mean asking to support me my way unconditionally (which is what he did last term). It means willingness to compromise on his ideology. He havent shown that trait yet. Will he do that?

You have the answer - Clinton.

Restore the taxes to the Clinton Era level where business and individuals were doing fine. Too much tax cuts and too much regulation will destroy slow down the growth with stability but reducing taxes and regulation will destroy the economy. We have seen this played out in front of our eyes. Whatever Obama is doing is not going to pop up the economy immediately but in the long run the country will reap the benefits. The next president (2017) will enjoy the benefits of Obama's work (Even though I don't agree will all his policies). I am afraid if its from GOP then we are going to see another Bush and Cheney.

Fed can arm twists the states where the same party is ruling but not where the opposition is ruling. We have seen this recently in Wisconsin and Ohio. Weren't the business running profitably when Clinton was there? If they can then, they can now.

What Romney is proposing or what we have seen is destructive development , which doesn't exists. He doesn't have a long term plan and doesn't looks like a guy with a plan. If he comes to power its all Ryan's control. We will see Cheney in a different form. GOP is talking about deficit, Why were they not worried when Bush was there.

The taxes are at the lowest level in history and if the theory "lower taxes - More jobs/Revenue" is true, why we are in one of the worst recession in the history (even though its over) ?

GOP's Life Cycle as I understood in my years in this country.
============================================

1) Lower taxes for Big corporate and billionaires, whom in return will fund the GOP. Using that money bash the opponents make hay of nothing in TV/Radio/meeting. Create fear that war is looming.

2) Increase taxes for a normal man, indirectly and cut Medicare/Medicaid/SSC benefits so that he works till he dies.

3) Abolish public education and hand over the control to the Character schools and discourage research. Abolish EPA and make sure the corporate are making money in a easy manner where the average joe will start suffering from lung cancer and other diseases.

4) Make abortion and other religious cause as the main theme, to cover the average American. Also make deficit as a cause to cover other half of average American.

5) The above half baked American will believe in these religious policies, who won't be able to send the kid to school as public education wont exists and character schools are costly will vote for GOP.

6) The kid's of these half baked American's will form a pool of cheap labor, who in turn will work cheaply for the big corporate that supports GOP, while collecting voucher for his health care.

7) If popularity goes down, wage a war on some poor country, which in turn will generate huge revenue to the defense companies and the foot soldiers will be the half baked Americans. (Ex - Romney or his sons never ever went the side of army)

8) When these soldiers die, have a well published ceremony and then have a party with defense company bosses and plan for the next war, next religious theme and next tax cuts for the rich. Give a catchy name for all the plans/lobbying that the corporate and rich had asked for and present in a manner that the half baked American will think, that its good for the country.

9) As researches are down the competiveness of the US will go down. In order to balance this, encourage Skilled immigration where people like us will migrate and fill the void. As our salaries are high (most of them), we don't want to pay more taxes and as we are from India we don't like regulation. Naturally then we will support GOP. We can afford character school education and our kids will be one of those high society kids where as the average American family who migrated some centuries ago will be working for $7/hour job in Wal-Mart and some of them will be attracted to the religious policy and financial conservative policy. The irony, after we are settled here our kids(some) will start living the American way of life and they may end up in Wal-Mart for $7/hour who will vote for Democrats.

10) After all these so called constructive work, the president/Vice president and his other hard working colleagues will retire and will get royalty from these companies or join one of those companies and make sure the average Joe and half baked American get their job done more cheaper. Party time, job done. Now its time to groom the next president.

When I find time, I will write the next part(s).

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 05:02 PM

[QUOTE=rajoo1;95010790]Sorry if I got personal – My bad, I was just upset that people enjoy freedom in this county and abuse it and not appreciate it. Also, live hear and trash it when possible. Yettaiappan ki jai.!

One doesnt have to be Ettappan. Just be honest and neutral. Doesnt mean like your joke you posted on Dems or Texans. FYI, the religion which these conservatives follow itself says that violence begets violence and only love is the way out... Now one may argue Jesus lived in a bygone era.. but try telling it to them.

One can also argue many of those terrorists were created by the past actions. Take vietnam for instance, it was a classic cold war creation to stop spread of communism. Since that culture was more tolerant, it didnt spawn terrorists for the kind of situations they got infliced, especially North Vietname. The same is not true for Muslim dominated locales, where their first code of conduct is Hamurabi's "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" not the golden rule of "Do unto others what you want them unto you".

Dear Friend, Iran got under the scanner, because of unfriendly policies. If someone treats you with contempt, any self respecting society will want to protect itself. Now what happens, extremely polarized elements usurp power. Since you were questioning others history, am sure you can read from right sources, that WWI was supposed to end in truce as it was going on without an end. Suddenly towards the end, Britain and France, made Germany as losers. Added them boatload of war fines. THIS was the key for the rise of HITLER. He didnt come out of thin air. WHAT YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP.

Iraq, Iran, Afganistan etc were created.. not that evil people got into power.. It may not be akin to North Korea.

Agreed Palestine is more complicated.

Yes they did, but at that time is was a different war – Cold war ( US didn’t want more countries to become socialist, but now this war against Afghanistan is because of 9/11 – against cancer

Dude the people living there do not feel the world has changed, different war for different reason. When one propagates violence, under whatever name, it returns back to haunt them. THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW. Doesnt matter if one understands it or not.

They got the wrong intelligence both dems and republicans and the whole UN got the same intelligence… Ok, here is the spin, if it was india they would have planted a WMD there…..:0 / Look at them now, it's better than before, but they have a long way to go. Hope they make it

STILL DOESNT JUSTIFY the killing of innocents. Your logic is very flawed, forget about just biased.

Pakistan harbored UBL, the US govt. knew this and went alone to capture him, and they’re waiting for the better opportunity to get back at Pakis… wait and watch…. They would look at their countries interest 1st. India didn’t push… even now they don’t have the guts to get the Bombay massacre mastermind – Dawood Ibrahim.
We need to learn from Israel, how to accomplish our goals. Both Congress and BJP are useless for that matter. We need a Subash Chandra Bose or a Sanjay Gandhi character as our leader

Before we ask for Subash, we need to weed out the ettappans. Sanjay Gandhi character.. are you kidding... feel very sorry that your brain could put those two people in one sentence.. VERY SORRY FOR YOUR PERCEPTION.

How long have you been watching this PAK scenario my friend. Since 1948. Who gave them weapons during 1965 war, 1971 (US vessel entered Bangladesh waters just couple of hours after they declared independance.. they were there to support PAK). Who kepy quiet for decades with the proxy war. Who was still giving money to Pak, under the name of afganistan, which was openly used to subvert india..

Who tried to kill ISRO, LCA and WHY..

I am in this country, but I still want to take honest viewpoint. One of the biggest faults of US is they unfortunately cannot see any other viewpoint other than theirs.. Of late the needle is moving.. But its a flaw.. Doesnt make the people or government bad.. just highlights there is scope for them to grow.. Just like India there is a strong tendencey for rampant corruption.. Its a flaw.. which can be fixed..

Despite their flaws, it is one of the greatest countries, because of the systems in place.

geico2000

September 12th, 2012, 05:03 PM

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 05:15 PM

BTW - Global warming is a myth :ohno:

Pollution is there / carbon foot print is all BS / If you look at the record set for daily temp. in the US cities... (Around NY area) the record highs were mostly in early 20th century almost 100 years back. and some are still in the 19th century.....

Al Gore got the world going crazy :crazy2:

BTW he's still mad at the loss from 2000 presidency :soapbox:

If you think Al Gore manufactured this idea of Global warming, I strongly suspect if you were getting tutored by Palin.

Basic understanding - They have killed all the varieties that existed in Corn, most Soybean etc etc just to be brought under monoculture and still say its good for environment.

Whether there is a human element in the global warming situation is the real question. If you didnt get that much from your fox news channel, then they must work real hard to get it across.

The human element of increasing CO2 ppm for the last few centuries is well documented. Lets say if you can even understand this. Lock yourself in a glass house thats large enough, filled with trees etc, slowly keep increasing the CO2 percentage and keep staying there.. Then deny me there is no warming effect.. Simpler still.. next time you drive, shut your ventilation and doors and drive for 30 mins and see if your car gets uncomfortable.

I know it may be too much to ask. Did you see that huge chunks of arctic is melting. Now you can deny it is false news.. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IT IS MAN MADE OR NOT... ARE WE GOING TO BE SAFE AS IT IS ALL HAPPENING AROUND US.

Your idea of pollution is again very limited. Its not just traffic pollution in cities you see in US.. around the world its larger issue.. the polluting factories have long left US and went to China..

This is a real problem. Its fascinating as a science, but scary for the future. The nature of the beast is, its very complex to model as humans still do not know many of the other aspects.

We all live in one spaceship called earth. We must be responsible denizens. Just because it can create 10 jobs, we cannot let it get destroyed by our own actions.

geico2000

September 12th, 2012, 05:18 PM

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 05:21 PM

Shame in what way Sir?
What about Boby Jindal? Is he a shame too just because he's a Republican? :ohno:

BTW - Can't think of one Leader in India who can turn around our country...
No body is saying "YES WE CAN" hmm.. they know the reality or busy counting $?:lol:

If you think Jindal represents India or Indian culture, then its a shame on you too.. He is a slick politician whose parentage happens to be India. IMHO, he is least related to our culture and values. (I am not talking of the current Indian system). I dont think even he would claim that.

Current times in India is very turbulent, but I am prayerful that someone great will arise from this chaos. Uncertainity is the womb of creation.

jaish

September 12th, 2012, 05:52 PM

Unfortunately life is lost in Libya. RIP. Unfortunately innocent life is being lost.

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 05:54 PM

If you think Al Gore manufactured this idea of Global warming, I strongly suspect if you were getting tutored by Palin.

Basic understanding - They have killed all the varieties that existed in Corn, most Soybean etc etc just to be brought under monoculture and still say its good for environment.

Whether there is a human element in the global warming situation is the real question. If you didnt get that much from your fox news channel, then they must work real hard to get it across.

The human element of increasing CO2 ppm for the last few centuries is well documented. Lets say if you can even understand this. Lock yourself in a glass house thats large enough, filled with trees etc, slowly keep increasing the CO2 percentage and keep staying there.. Then deny me there is no warming effect.. Simpler still.. next time you drive, shut your ventilation and doors and drive for 30 mins and see if your car gets uncomfortable.

I know it may be too much to ask. Did you see that huge chunks of arctic is melting. Now you can deny it is false news.. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IT IS MAN MADE OR NOT... ARE WE GOING TO BE SAFE AS IT IS ALL HAPPENING AROUND US.

Your idea of pollution is again very limited. Its not just traffic pollution in cities you see in US.. around the world its larger issue.. the polluting factories have long left US and went to China..

This is a real problem. Its fascinating as a science, but scary for the future. The nature of the beast is, its very complex to model as humans still do not know many of the other aspects.

We all live in one spaceship called earth. We must be responsible denizens. Just because it can create 10 jobs, we cannot let it get destroyed by our own actions.

Avaru Palin bayangara smartu, main stream media avanagala damage pannitaanganu sonnaalum solluvaar...

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajoo1 View Post
Sorry if I got personal – My bad, I was just upset that people enjoy freedom in this county and abuse it and not appreciate it. Also, live hear and trash it when possible. Yettaiappan ki jai.!

This is pakka Republican strategy.... anyone logically question them, stop them by saying national security, patriotism etc... First of all nobody trashed U.S here, if you read our posts in TN AA, we all highlighted so many good things about U.S. We are only criticizing few things about Republican & Democratic party. Don't play Republican game with us. We are not Democrats.

geico2000

September 12th, 2012, 06:02 PM

If you think Jindal represents India or Indian culture, then its a shame on you too.. He is a slick politician whose parentage happens to be India. IMHO, he is least related to our culture and values. (I am not talking of the current Indian system). I dont think even he would claim that.

Current times in India is very turbulent, but I am prayerful that someone great will arise from this chaos. Uncertainity is the womb of creation.

People are getting brainwashed by our media. These media celebrates persons like Jindal, Nikki and others. In reality these people dont even think about India.

chennaiyorker

September 12th, 2012, 06:05 PM

First of all I disagree that they don't have plans. Next these are Milton Friedman's 4 rules.

@ Supply Side Economics AKA Reagonomics AKA "voodoo" economics: Republicans give SSE more credit than it deserves - to be polite! SSE in fact was not all that successful. It is a myth. Under Reagan the spending increased, deficit increased, debt increased, wages decreased, Economic disparity widened (income of lower quintile dropped), jobs were created at a slower rate. Federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/08/img/supply_side_update_figure7.jpg

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/08/img/supply_side_update_figure1.jpg

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/08/img/supply_side_update_figure3.jpg

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/08/img/supply_side_update_figure5.jpg

Historical Budget deficits
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png/800px-Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Federal-Outpays-Per-Capita-For-Web.jpg

If the supply-siders were right (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts-2012-08-13), then investment should have boomed when tax rates were low, and faltered when Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised the top marginal rate in the early 1990s.
But that didn’t happen: Investment increased in the mid-1980s as the economy improved, then faded even as tax rates were lowered further. Investment boomed after the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, and increased again after the tax cuts early in President George W. Bush’s first term.

If SSE is the fastest way for economic growth, then how can the fastest, longest and largest wealth creation during Clinton while the tax rates were 39% years be explained? The COTA study you provided did not include Clinton 2nd term in the comparison with Reagan's outcomes.

Plus, SSE will not work during recession (Remember - Reagan signed the tax cut just after the peak of 1980-81 short recession).

In SSE, the economy/out put is boosted by pushing the supply curve (red -Y1 to Y2) to the right (via supply side policies ssuch as tax cut, deregulation etc), there by reducing the price and increasing the out put. The reduced price in turn will stimulate demand and move the demand curve (blue) with it to right creating more value.
The supply is increased independent of the demand. hence, the S curve is vertical or near vertical.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRqF-laI4TcsTDM7NuQgCIitm-8Mfe43oebToVQ_ON5TjPd4rg

However, during recession the demand drops, irrespective of supply. people don't spend. hence the supply curve gets a horizontal part to it. Now the price is sticky as the demand curve is far left (AD1) - meaning even when you move the supply to the right, price will not increase as people will not have money to spend. The only way to move forward here is to follow the Keynesian model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) - Demand side economics. The government needs to push the demand curve to the right through public spending and stimulus (gives people money to spend) However, this will cause inflation. The key is to stimulate the supply at the right time. This is what Obama and Geitner, along with other countries (Including China and India), did during 2008 - 2010. Note: Stimulus is different from Austerity. In stimulus, you increase spending, decrease tax. In austerity, you decrease spending and increase taxes. Austerity would have pushed us into depression. That's why he extended the bush tax cuts and increased public spending.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw0dJ6k8GbptiemlfVWGxgLZwBhLpgP4CkJCMj531ewJhxT3Rv

In a speech on January 8, 2009, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Keynesian_resurgence) then-President Elect Barack Obama unveiled a plan for extensive domestic spending to combat recession, further reflecting Keynesian thinking. The plan was signed by the President on February 17, 2009. There had been extensive debate in Congress concerning the necessity, adequacy, and likely effects of the package, which saw it being cut from $819 to $787 billion during its passage through the Senate.

On January 21, 2010, the Volcker Rule was endorsed by U.S. President Barack Obama. At its heart, it is a proposal by US economist Paul Volcker to restrict banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers.Volcker has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis of 2007–2010. Plans for a new $180 billion stimulus plan were announced by President Obama in September 2010.

Going forward, as the economy recovers, supply side policies need to be brought in - need not to be tax cuts, but could be subsidies, training and education of the work force, cutting welfare (increases work force), reducing health insurance premiums for small businesses, etc. Also the demand side needs to be protected (more spending power- increased wages, lower tax to middle class) to some extent, coz, without that the demand curve will not move to the right after a certain level just because supply is there, and SSE will only halt in the long run. A balance need to be achieved, with the way the output is increased.

RE: Tax Cuts - Read the reports by Congressional Budget Office 2005 (on the effect of 10% tax cut on the economy) (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10percenttaxcut.pdf) and 2012 economic outlook. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43539-08-22-2012-Update_One-Col.pdf)

In the 2005 report, CBO said 10% tax cut would only result to about 5% revenue increase in the long run, and would increase debt. The increase in interest for debt will offset the increase of revenue through tax cut.

Also, the 2012 report suggests, if bush tax cuts were to extended, the debt will increase at an alarming rate.

From 2012 CBO outlook: If a combination of those changes to current law was made so as to maintain major policies that have been in place for a number of years, far larger deficits and much greater debt would result than are shown in CBO’s current baseline. Relative to the baseline projections for the 2013–2022 period, deficits would rise by a total of $7.7 trillion (including debt-service costs) to yield cumulative deficits of nearly
$10 trillion over the 10-year period if the following policy decisions were made:
 All expiring tax provisions (other than the payroll tax reduction), including those that expired at the end of December 2011 (Bush Tax cuts), are extended;
 The AMT is indexed for inflation after 2011 (starting from the 2011 exemption amount);

So, taking all this into consideration, I don't think I will bet on Romney/Ryan to take the country forward with an outdated economic formula. They have not given any specifics of how they will increase revenue. All they say is it's only "common sense" that tax cuts will increase investment (in paper it works, but the reality is counter intuitive), create jobs and increase revenue...while the historical data and CBO projection puts a big question mark over their claims.

The above are based on my understanding of macroeconomics. I'm no economist, but have taken coupla basic Econ classes. So, I think I know what I'm talking about. :)

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 06:06 PM

Don't play Republican game with us. We are not Democrats.

Thats 100% true. We are not playing favorites. I think most of us are critical on both. In my earlier post, I even pointed out, its better not to have red or blue or even purple.. but WHITE.. signifying purity.

There are a bunch of issues where Reps are fundamentally wrong.. morally.. and few where they are really strong like fiscal discipline.. but again wrong in saying they wont touch defence..

Dems just to put a winning coalition, have simply gone too thin on some values.. atleast the emphasis of. Also by trying to be too populist, they got their hands tied on some of the tools they need to fix the economy.

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 06:11 PM

You have the answer - Clinton.

Will Obama work like Clinton? That's where I'm skeptical. After out-of-power for 12 full years Clinton still appeals to many republicans puts him in a different plane than Obama.

Fed can arm twists the states where the same party is ruling but not where the opposition is ruling. We have seen this recently in Wisconsin and Ohio. Weren't the business running profitably when Clinton was there? If they can then, they can now.

Arm-twisting didn't work in WI doesn't mean arm twisting didn't happen. Read the forbes article about Scott Walker that I posted earlier. Ugliest form of arm-twisting ever against a state in history of US with uncle-sam hiding behind the powerful public employee unions. Pumping money into the hands of rowdies, starting from illegal death threats against legislators and governer himself to the legal recall propaganda they left no stone unturned. If fed didn't succeed in WI it is due to one man -> Scott Walker who stood upto them against all odds.

Not only WI, fed went all-out with blazing guns against AZ immigration law too. Unlike WI, as AZ is strong red state where they couldn't try the dirty trick that openly. But went to supreme court against a state's law. That to me is poking nose into state's autonomy. Glad that they didn't have complete victory there. Not only arm-twisting, fed and state will often lock horns (atleast with Obama's history so far) which is unproductive.

The taxes are at the lowest level in history and if the theory "lower taxes - More jobs/Revenue" is true, why we are in one of the worst recession in the history (even though its over) ?

The recession turned worst and ugly because of housing. It turned ugly because of unchecked greed. It turned ugly because the current system had half-baked regulation (With freddie and fannie underwriting recklessly) exposing taxpayer money.

GOP's Life Cycle as I understood in my years in this country.

Your point #1 is like republican extremists saying Obama works for muslims in middle east. Baseless

#2 - I am no superman :) I am yet to see a tax increase for normal man. Medicare and SSC is a problem agreed. But not new problem. Both parties have been talking about it for 30-40 years with no action. Right or wrong I appreciate Obama for bringing the cat out of bag with Obamacare. Though done when democrats controlled the house it is a bold try. But I don't think his method will work, especially after the SC judgement. Where is he going to get the money from if he can't pursue charges against those who fail to comply with the mandate? Of-couse he will raise taxes again. There is a huge middle class who neither falls under rich or poor category. (which is people like us). We will be paying more premium under his plan (because as per plan we are considered rich), and our benefits will be reduced or remain the same. I can agree to pay it if the increased premium is a hedge for future increase. But that ain't the case. If it is a future hedge then affordable care act should be implemented 100% across all the state in the country, because he is banking on that money. Reality is different

#3 - Wrong again. Not more than 30% of democrats education funding goes for its intended purpose. 70% goes to unions pockets in school system. For higher education private/bank loans has its own advantages compared to public loans. May be we can have a blended solution here. An area where both parties are holding to their extremes in this point. Democrats are equally wrong here and so are the republicans with exception of their union handling

#4-#6 - I agree. As a colored/minority naturalized immigrant I have as much concern on these points as you do. But we have to tackle it issue by issue basis. Hoping that Tea party rheortic will diedown in few years. If you have not observed something the same foolish people are intelligent enough to vote back-and-forth. People are good in handing out republican congress to a democrat president or vice-versa so that president/VP's wishes don't get imposed that easily to the society. If Romney-Ryan wins presidency in 2012, anti-incumbancy or higher expectations will drive to democrat controlled congress in 2014

#7 - Bush did a blunder in Iraq doesn't mean that all republicans are likely to make that mistake. FYI Reagan ended the cold war. He didn't create fear using Russia :)

#8 - Technology improved. Heard of drones? But anyway US got a bit reckless around Bush time as a lone superpower. Rising China (along with BRICS) may insure multi-polar world in future making it increasingly difficult for US to play supercop role even if likes of Rush get into white house.

#9 - Skilled/front-door immigration is different from illegal immigration. Whether legal or illegal the tax-cuts that GOP wants to do won't impact us or any middle-class unless we get super rich to that point. GOP's tax cuts are only for corporates and high income groups from 35 to 25%. Ofcourse they rope in small businesses in this bracket to gain political point. Like I said earlier small businesses enjoy pass-through taxation and with exemption may not pay more than 17% already. But consider what it can do to big corporates. They can reinvest back and create new jobs. What Ryan or Romney (or Obama) has to do is settle on middle ground here. They should get 25% tax ONLY if they can show an affirmative action that they reinvest more back (hire more employees). Blanket cut of 10% on good faith may not work anymore. Not regulation, but affirmative action clause has to be added for tax benefits.

#10 - Refer to my #4-#6 answer

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 06:15 PM

You have the answer - Clinton.

Restore the taxes to the Clinton Era level where business and individuals were doing fine. Too much tax cuts and too much regulation will destroy slow down the growth with stability but reducing taxes and regulation will destroy the economy. We have seen this played out in front of our eyes. Whatever Obama is doing is not going to pop up the economy immediately but in the long run the country will reap the benefits. The next president (2017) will enjoy the benefits of Obama's work (Even though I don't agree will all his policies). I am afraid if its from GOP then we are going to see another Bush and Cheney.

Fed can arm twists the states where the same party is ruling but not where the opposition is ruling. We have seen this recently in Wisconsin and Ohio. Weren't the business running profitably when Clinton was there? If they can then, they can now.

What Romney is proposing or what we have seen is destructive development , which doesn't exists. He doesn't have a long term plan and doesn't looks like a guy with a plan. If he comes to power its all Ryan's control. We will see Cheney in a different form. GOP is talking about deficit, Why were they not worried when Bush was there.

The taxes are at the lowest level in history and if the theory "lower taxes - More jobs/Revenue" is true, why we are in one of the worst recession in the history (even though its over) ?

GOP's Life Cycle as I understood in my years in this country.
============================================

1) Lower taxes for Big corporate and billionaires, whom in return will fund the GOP. Using that money bash the opponents make hay of nothing in TV/Radio/meeting. Create fear that war is looming.

2) Increase taxes for a normal man, indirectly and cut Medicare/Medicaid/SSC benefits so that he works till he dies.

3) Abolish public education and hand over the control to the Character schools and discourage research. Abolish EPA and make sure the corporate are making money in a easy manner where the average joe will start suffering from lung cancer and other diseases.

4) Make abortion and other religious cause as the main theme, to cover the average American. Also make deficit as a cause to cover other half of average American.

5) The above half baked American will believe in these religious policies, who won't be able to send the kid to school as public education wont exists and character schools are costly will vote for GOP.

6) The kid's of these half baked American's will form a pool of cheap labor, who in turn will work cheaply for the big corporate that supports GOP, while collecting voucher for his health care.

7) If popularity goes down, wage a war on some poor country, which in turn will generate huge revenue to the defense companies and the foot soldiers will be the half baked Americans. (Ex - Romney or his sons never ever went the side of army)

8) When these soldiers die, have a well published ceremony and then have a party with defense company bosses and plan for the next war, next religious theme and next tax cuts for the rich. Give a catchy name for all the plans/lobbying that the corporate and rich had asked for and present in a manner that the half baked American will think, that its good for the country.

9) As researches are down the competiveness of the US will go down. In order to balance this, encourage Skilled immigration where people like us will migrate and fill the void. As our salaries are high (most of them), we don't want to pay more taxes and as we are from India we don't like regulation. Naturally then we will support GOP. We can afford character school education and our kids will be one of those high society kids where as the average American family who migrated some centuries ago will be working for $7/hour job in Wal-Mart and some of them will be attracted to the religious policy and financial conservative policy. The irony, after we are settled here our kids(some) will start living the American way of life and they may end up in Wal-Mart for $7/hour who will vote for Democrats.

10) After all these so called constructive work, the president/Vice president and his other hard working colleagues will retire and will get royalty from these companies or join one of those companies and make sure the average Joe and half baked American get their job done more cheaper. Party time, job done. Now its time to groom the next president.

When I find time, I will write the next part(s).

In other words Republican Party in US = BJP in India? Since, they used religion to come to power. So you're calling those voted for BJP are Half -baked Indians? Is it? ::hammer:

So, you're BJP in India and anti Republican hear? How come...... Interesting.......:master:

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 06:32 PM

Its too much of a stretch to compare any party betwen international lines. Cong or BJP cannot and must not be compared with Reps/Dems.

I think if one were to make this error, they are not fit for discussing politics, IMHO.

dpitchai

September 12th, 2012, 06:43 PM

rajoo1

September 12th, 2012, 06:45 PM

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 06:46 PM

@ BJP vs GOP comparisons

http://centreright.in/2010/12/understanding-the-bjp-part-1/

satchitananda

September 12th, 2012, 06:54 PM

Right on target :) BJP came to power JUST by using religion, so we can't compare.....:nuts:

Again wrong.. this kind of analogy either for or against only exposes the weakness in understanding.

Again there is nothing wrong if Reps invoke religion ???

In India we have this pseudo secular culture, if you want to prove you are secular, you have to bash Hinduism and Hindus. Try that in US, even bashing non Christian religion on a public platform.

Corruption is the national religion in India, which needs to be uprooted.

Unlike brotherhood within religion, Hinduism has always advocated Universal brotherhood, Cosmic brotherhood.

BJP is not the only Hindu party. If all true hindus stop voting for Cong. do you think they can even come to power. Unfortunately, when other religions have consolidated vote banks, Hindu votebank is very fragmented, 60% of it is due to selfishness of the individual and 40% is due to politicians' play.

So stop bringing BJP for comparison, else it only amounts your shaky ground to discuss.. as you have jumped from Reps to BJP and then next what corruption and then something else...

kongutamizhan

September 12th, 2012, 07:07 PM

@ Supply Side Economics AKA Reagonomics AKA "voodoo" economics: Republicans give SSE more credit than it deserves - to be polite! SSE in fact was not all that successful. It is a myth. Under Reagan the spending increased, deficit increased, debt increased, wages decreased, Economic disparity widened (income of lower quintile dropped), jobs were created at a slower rate. Federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase)

Blaze? Did you read the CATO institute study? The data used in that study were obtained from President's office in 1996 (Clinton himself :lol:) and from department of commerce

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/5-b47c78bd4f.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/6-3494a34838.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/6-3494a34838.jpg

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carteryears and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after hispresidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan yearswas the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan yearsbut much lower in the post-Reagan years

This is my favorite chart. It says that the culprit is Sr.Bush and not Reaganomics :lol: (To be fair to Clinton he kept it in check, so obviously chunck of red portion you see after Regan is from the Sr.). You can't hold supply side economics as a reason for individual policy errors. I want to write even more on Keynesian and other points that you mentioned. Will do it from home later tonight

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/11-24c614566e.jpg

Upper quintile??

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/20-7a10d99314.jpg

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/7080z9cc5ck3izz/images/21-85a14f1deb.jpg