I read the first paragraph and gave up. :dizzy: I don't know what half of those words are. :P

Dear Barack,

Congratulations on delivering an excellent speech,

 

Obama always talks a big game but never lives up to it. That is why he's getting killed in the ratings. It's one thing to be ambitious but you have to actually do the majority of what you say.

 

Maybe he does think we are all idiots by talking of a"budged freeze" that won't stop the actual budged from going up because it's only a freeze on 17% of spending.

Obama always talks a big game but never lives up to it. That is why he's getting killed in the ratings. It's one thing to be ambitious but you have to actually do the majority of what you say.

 

Maybe he does think we are all idiots by talking of a"budged freeze" that won't stop the actual budged from going up because it's only a freeze on 17% of spending.

 

I agree.

 

He sure can deliver a good speech, but that's about it... I feel he doesn't have real substance... it's just words.

 

I personally thought he shouldn't have brought up the supreme court decision during the state of the union speech. I felt that there was no reason for him to give a dig at the judicial branch.

Dear Barack,

 

With all the best of hopes, dreams, and prayers to you Barack,

 

 

I think you should address him as "Mr. President" or "President Obama" to make it more formal. Otherwise it seems to personal and potentially disrespectful (well, some might see it that way). :shrug:

Obama always talks a big game but never lives up to it. That is why he's getting killed in the ratings. It's one thing to be ambitious but you have to actually do the majority of what you say.

 

Maybe he does think we are all idiots by talking of a"budged freeze" that won't stop the actual budged from going up because it's only a freeze on 17% of spending.

Hello Nick! Got busy writing Senator Feingold, the co-author of campaign finance reform law which, diluted as it was, is now complete melt water. He does read his letters, sometime aloud on the floor of the Senate, so perhaps at least the clubby Senate will have to listen to what the Citizens have to say (even if it does only one thing - to shame them into some sort of action..).

Obama - yes, he says the right stuff, and then attenuates his actions. I wish he would fight harder on our behalf, and then compromise at a level where real progress can be made - but you're right - he needs to carry the staff of progress forward, and let the rest sort out their part in it. But who knows - I do get responses with the official embossed letter-head, so maybe some of our letters are getting read? That alone would be a shocker!

You're right too on the reason why he's getting hammered in the polls - to fight with all your might and fall short from the resistance of others is one thing, but to not press harder for reform & justice (regarding Wall Street) is part of what has lowered those numbers. The poor economy doesn't help, and he's not to blame for that imho., but the repair of the problem falls short - if even it could be called "repaired". Once again, those that caused the problem perpetuate it..

Budget freeze - 17% - hmm. Sounds like NASA will take a hit on their lunar missions. I just think the problem there again is the money-kickback business - the more power, the less likely it will be trimmed - so then they trim everything else quite often, damaging those areas that do us the most good. The squeaky wheels get the grease - the rest loose their bearings.

Maybe government spending helps, but more needs to be put into things that in the end will improve the economy - bridges and rail upgrades are fantastic - I have to give him credit there - but spending heavily on military pork-barrel projects makes no sense at all - but that's one of those "squeaky wheels".. Lots of power to contend with. A renegotiating of trade agreements makes sense too - if we loose / have lost much of our middle class, then the consumers loose their ability both to find gainful employment, and to buy products, slowing the economic recovery. But I'm no economic expert - only what I see happening here with piston plants, paper mills, farms, ship building, etc. The gambling markets were rigged so obviously - you could see this all coming right down the pike, and yet nothing ever happens until the train derails..

I think you should address him as "Mr. President" or "President Obama" to make it more formal. Otherwise it seems to personal and potentially disrespectful (well, some might see it that way). :shrug:

I thought about that, but then I think he is comfortable in his position as President, so I try and communicate on a more "human" level.. Perhaps you are right - it all depends on how he feels about it.. When I communicate with my Senator he prefers to be called Russ, but then that's an individual choice on the matter. I will give it more thought next time I write.;) Thanks!

Maybe government spending helps, but more needs to be put into things that in the end will improve the economy - bridges and rail upgrades are fantastic -

 

Japan has been doing this for over 20 years now with no growth and prospects of another depression or possibly hyperinflation in a few years. They the most expensive and coolest airport that floats, yet it did nothing to the economy only add more overall debt to the government which is and will create more problems in the economy.

 

We can learn from Japan going through the same things or ignore history and repeat the same actions and maybe, just maybe without a world war we'll get a 30 year lost generation and then a depression!

 

Japan has literally bridge to nowhere that only wasted money and hurt the economy. We could build everything you can dream of and it won't solve anything as history has proven over and over again.

 

The only historically proven solution is cut debt, government and spending. American aggregate debt to GDP is almost 400%. I believe it was around 200% in 1988 and at one point around 130% in the 50's or 60's.

 

Not to mention this should be enough reason to cut spending.

 

Japan has been doing this for over 20 years now with no growth and prospects of another depression or possibly hyperinflation in a few years. They the most expensive and coolest airport that floats, yet it did nothing to the economy only add more overall debt to the government which is and will create more problems in the economy.

 

We can learn from Japan going through the same things or ignore history and repeat the same actions and maybe, just maybe without a world war we'll get a 30 year lost generation and then a depression!

 

Japan has literally bridge to nowhere that only wasted money and hurt the economy. We could build everything you can dream of and it won't solve anything as history has proven over and over again.

 

The only historically proven solution is cut debt, government and spending. American aggregate debt to GDP is almost 400%. I believe it was around 200% in 1988 and at one point around 130% in the 50's or 60's.

 

Perhaps you are correct Nick, but doesn't it depends on the level the economy is at? - if there is unused capacity (or not), and if the balance of trade isn't causing a growing debt burden, then spending makes sense to me. For one thing, the super-wealthy had been given enormous tax breaks during the Bush years, and that's what helped to create the large deficit. Spending on things that may improve our ability to ship and receive goods and services seems like money well spent, whereas spending on some defense project or item which is excessive in it's duplication or in it's non-necessity should be cut. I think if we shift the defense budget to more humanitarian efforts and build bridges of support to the citizens of other nations, most of the defense buildup becomes unnecessary. And at a bargain. For a tenth of the cost, there would be less wars, less poverty, greater cooperation, and growing economies to trade with. But getting the defense contractors to down-size, change products, and shift gears - that's another thing! According to the budget figures I'm looking at, we're spending 57% of our Federal dollars on the Military (dept. of defense, war, & veteran's affairs). By comparison, NASA uses around 1%; Education 4%, and Transportation 6%. We could cut the defense budget in half, improve the roads, rails, and bridges, save tons of money for everyone else to spend as they like, reduce the debt., and increase our foreign aid and assistance by a factor of 20!

but doesn't it depends on the level the economy is at?

 

Yes! They are in better shape, which is scary. Trade surplus, produce a lot, very efficient and the consumers were for a while very high savers. A rich nation can be foolish longer than a poor nation. That is why japan is in it's 21st year or so of this horrible economic policy.

 

For one thing, the super-wealthy had been given enormous tax breaks during the Bush years, and that's what helped to create the large deficit.

 

My credit card debt didn't happen because I didn't make enough, I spent too much. This all comes from a big government/government leading the way mentality. As long as everyone in government cannot control spending, we won't have enough tax revenues to make up for their spending.

 

However cutting taxes on everyone and cutting spending is what was necessary, Bush was wrong to cut and spend which in the long run is worse then tax and spend.

 

and if the balance of trade isn't causing a growing debt burden, then spending makes sense to me.

 

Why? When you spend you you have to eventually tax, higher taxes less employment less productivity, then higher trade deficit. To balance trade we need competitiveness, good tax laws, good labor laws that draw producers here. Taxing and spending or borrowing and spending lead to lower wages, higher unemployment, slower economic growth, larger trade deficit(in the long run) and a much weaker currency and less productivity pushing even more growth overseas. Spending, borrowing, taxing and printing have gone up massively in the last 60 years and it's taking it toll on a rich nation.

 

A hobo and a millionaire can both go broke doing the same stupid thing, it just takes longer for the millionaire.

 

This all stems from the historically disproven belief that it's governments job to lead the way. History has shown less government, less taxes and less spending lead to higher growth, more employment and general wealth of a nation.

 

Spending on things that may improve our ability to ship and receive goods and services seems like money well spent

 

Government has never been able to do anything cheaply and effieciently, so whatever task we go for will be outdone by the private sector in some other nation defeating the purpose of the government spending to improve ability to ship and receive goods. Along with adding a tax and debt burden. The worst ideas with the wrong intentions often do the most harm.

 

If government cut its defense budged and didn't spend it somewhere else there would be more wealth for the average person and less war around the globe. It's not take from here add to there, but reduce overall that is the most beneficial. History has shown this.

 

The solutions is spend much less, tax less and don't borrow. Living within our means, would bring about fiscal responsibility and balanced trade. All that requires is less government(less waste and corruption) and more money available for average citizens and businesses to hire, produce and create wealth.

I think to take from what's causing more problems, amassing too much concentrated power (per Eisenhower's recommendation), and diverting a portion of that money to really addressing global poverty, inequity, and building real human relationships will change the equation, since we're talking about a whopping 57% of the Federal budget! Cutting some in the waste or inefficiency of other areas makes sense as well, but I differ as to degree. Knowing people who are truly disabled and unable to get social security disability, it seems that the easiest to cut will be the truly needy, as their voices are ineffective in government (because they are not a bloc, and do not contribute to political campaigns).

True - the Japanese people are incredibly good savers, and very careful with their money. But the suggestion I keep hearing is that the Japanese government did not spend enough to get the Japanese economy working again, which might make sense if consumer confidence were down, and there was excess unused capacity in the economy.

I think spending on things that eventually improve economic efficiency will actually increase tax revenue beyond what they cost, if the spending is done intelligently. President Obama speaks about investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and if he has the will and support to make good on that promise, spending in that area would translate into an enormous boost in the economy, due to much less need to spend on energy. Efficiency gains to be had are enormous, and the only real loss is less heat. But we shall see what happens!

I cannot fathom the super-wealthy needing to keep that much money from the government, if the consequences in the past were a sudden deficit at the hands of President Bush, causing us to sell more bonds to investors in China, incur a huge debt load, etc. If the extremely wealthy paid a bit more, the 99% of everyone else paid less, & we cut defense spending in half, there would suddenly be that many more consumers dollars to spend, if we concurrently cut the working classes taxes. Then, with businesses strong and confidence in the economy strong, I think everyone would profit more in the long run. Y/N?

Government has been able to do things cheaply and efficiently. Medicare and Social Security, and the Postal Service are three examples, despite their flaws, that are run with good comparative efficiency. I think it all depends on whether or not there are duplications of services, lack or presence of incentives (merit being one incentive in government sector jobs), good management, and a generally good plan from the start. But where there seems to be graft and corruption are in those areas where massive profits can be made on no-bid contracts, kick-backs, and overcharging for products or services. Which leads to defense contracts, which calls into question how our campaigns are financed, and what is expected in return.. hmm.. For example, Representative Kagen was on a committee to hear testimony concerning a ship built by a contractor for the Navy. The problem was, the ship broke in two. The contractor didn't want to pay for the mistake, and other congressmen were reluctant to ask for the contractor to return the money. Kagen did ask, and got the money back - but he doesn't owe anybody any favors, and there's no really big military contractors in his district. Hence, the central problem of campaign finance.. So, in which areas are there inefficiencies, and why? Realistically we cannot shrink the government down to nothing, so we have to make it workable, equitable, and as efficient as is possible..

The fact history has proven it to be detrimental should be sufficient evidence by itself. What brought the peasants in Britain our poverty? A more free market, what raised the American middle class? A more free market then it's competition.

 

In 1920 when we had a depression, government spending, size and taxes were cut and we had quick recovery. The same situation arose 9 years later and we did the exact opposite and it took the biggest war in history to get us out. We have a proven method, versus a failed method, which is crazy to continue because we like the way it sounds better.

 

Japan is going to be faced with a huge problem because it spent too much, not too little. Debt to GDP is about 200% and was financed because of a high savings rate of its citizens. ABout 94% of their debt is internal, thus interest rates are extremely low. However as the population ages and draws upon those saving and is/will need the social programs, savings is closing in on ZERO. Once the government cannot borrow its needs internally it will have to print massive amounts of money or turn to the international bond markets.

 

Either scenario will be utter chaos and a problem, the international markets will demand a much higher interest rate, which the government could not handle with debt to GDP around 200%, they wouldn't be able to service their debt. Printing the copious amount of money needed to prop up the zombie institutions and pay back the debt will lead to hyperinflation.

 

The biggest and most powerful international bond fund (PIMCO) is already calling for hyperinflation in Japan in the mid century.

The fact history has proven it to be detrimental should be sufficient evidence by itself. What brought the peasants in Britain our poverty? A more free market, what raised the American middle class? A more free market then it's competition.

>> Well, free markets may have done that in part, but without the labor movements, I think the fair sharing of the wealth of production would not have taken place;The big Tophats would have continued to treat the miners in Pennsylvania as virtual slaves. T. Roosevelt struck a bargain balancing capitalism and labor, as best as he could at the time..

 

In 1920 when we had a depression, government spending, size and taxes were cut and we had quick recovery. The same situation arose 9 years later and we did the exact opposite and it took the biggest war in history to get us out. We have a proven method, versus a failed method, which is crazy to continue because we like the way it sounds better.

>> But the market failures were extreme in 1929, and perhaps had there been a government in place responsive to the will of the people, and able to regulate the markets equitably, the crash may not have happened in the first place.. Government spending was put into place in part because the means of production, the resources, and the skilled labor was all there - just fear and a market failure which sent things into a tailspin.. Perhaps had there been some other method of jumpstarting the economy it would have worked better - instead of Government spending, giving more money to the people directly (vs. just cutting taxes)? In a contraction of that sort, I would imagine there was a subsequent huge contraction of available capital as well..?

 

Japan is going to be faced with a huge problem because it spent too much, not too little. Debt to GDP is about 200% and was financed because of a high savings rate of its citizens. ABout 94% of their debt is internal, thus interest rates are extremely low. However as the population ages and draws upon those saving and is/will need the social programs, savings is closing in on ZERO. Once the government cannot borrow its needs internally it will have to print massive amounts of money or turn to the international bond markets.

>> Japan spent too much? Wow, that's surprising, for such a conservative, careful country! The government must be much different from the citizenry. The debt is internal - in other words, the citizens own bonds? Hmm.. perhaps Japan needs more children! So what is the answer for Japan?

 

Either scenario will be utter chaos and a problem, the international markets will demand a much higher interest rate, which the government could not handle with debt to GDP around 200%, they wouldn't be able to service their debt. Printing the copious amount of money needed to prop up the zombie institutions and pay back the debt will lead to hyperinflation.

>> There must be a solution - I'm waiting to hear it!

 

The biggest and most powerful international bond fund (PIMCO) is already calling for hyperinflation in Japan in the mid century.

>> So, the solution then is to have more children! By then, they will be a vibrant part of the work force, making all those problems less extreme.. ?

lol no. That would be immoral, to have children to fund your debt. Second they wouldn't enter the workforce soon enough to make a difference.

 

It'll be interesting to see if they can avoid hyperinflation because of their productivity.(They might sell all their Treasury Bills if they really require money, which would be very bad for us)

Fair Elections

Fair Elections - where we need to start to get our government back.

Thoughts..

 

Well, by mid century is soon enough, and what will solve the problem in Japan then? Money is a fluid in the economy - fair exchange makes sense, but when there's more older people than young people, then unless efficiency and automation goes up a lot, it seems that too few young and too many older citizens means breakdowns in the social fabric somewhere.. Cutting government expenditures makes sense if the same service can be rendered more inexpensively to the citizens of Japan, distributed equitably, and with the same or better quality.. but there is a limit to savings there as well. The more balance in population replacement there is, the more stable the economy and country would be. - Or that's what I am thinking - my suggestion wasn't intended to be immoral Nick, just practical. Perhaps, as they are attempting to do, the Japanese will have robots serving their elders, and thus the problem will be abated that way..? Sounds 'sci-fi' too much to me, but perhaps it can be made to reduce the need for family members to be pulled away from other productive work, as that is part of the problem with the economics in other nations already.. I only know the question, and possible answers - but the whole picture is a bit of a mystery to me as well.. Like most things, it's a nuanced answer that is needed, with great sensitivity to those affected. If there's one thing we need more of in this world, it's sensitivity and sensibility towards one-another.

:laugh3:Yes, if the Japanese government starts to sell treasury bills like we do, we would run out of buyers in China! Then what?? Maybe if we get enough medicines and nets to African states' citizens, invest in their economies, drive a better bargain with the IMF and the world bank (I'm dreaming at this point) so they get a fairer trade deal, and then they'll start to grow and prosper, buying market investments.. If China can do it, why not the whole of Africa? I don't see any real shortages in the world, only shortages of real solutions and assistance to the impasses presented by poverty and inequity.

Japan, for instance, could be the leader in robotic mining technology to retrieve ocean-floor minerals - if done properly, the few necessary uses for rare resources can be supplied in ample quantity from the ocean bottom, and Japan would no longer feel insecure in terms of natural resource availability. Makes sense actually in terms of expertise as well - robotics, process expertise, ocean vessels, ocean harbor access, and manufacturing base demands to be met - things Japan does well in! .. Just musings..

I have a fucking massive response but my computer fucked up, so screw it.

:(Sorry to hear that Nick! I know what that feels like - all that work, and *poof*, gone in a flash.. Keep the thoughts handy - I'll gladly ponder what you have to say next time around.;)

Another message to the President: more on basic rights & less on the U.S. Supreme Court.>>

Dear Mr. President,

When asked what sort of government has been created, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." But as George Mason insisted, the inclusion of guaranteed rights is an essential element of protecting our natural rights as citizens, given the historically proven track record of abuses of power at the hands of tyrant kings & majorities over individuals & minorities. If we look at what protects the whole foundation - all our cherished rights, all the cornerstones of government laid out in the Constitution - it is but one thing - the Right to Fair Elections. That includes the right to vote, the right for all votes to be counted on an equal basis and by impartial means, and the right to fair contests for office.

Of the founding documents which most clearly explains the basis for our rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights stands out as the blueprint for the Bill of Rights. Section 15 makes it clear in its assertion "That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." With the interests of the nation and citizens in mind, I am asking you to protect with good measure our right to fair contests for office. For without a secure safeguard against the undue influence of a moneyed few, our remaining rights and institutions will become ever closer to instruments of tyranny, as we become peasants in a feudal system of hierarchical control.

What this Supreme Court has decided under its 5-member majority is a strike against our basic right to fair elections. To restore justice within the process, I feel we all must support and defend equitable races for office, and inherent in that is the need to limit the influence of money on outcomes. Office seekers should be supported by broad swaths of the American public, and thus beholden to the will of the people, not to a limited few with the means to tip the outcomes in their favor, and garner special privileges in the process. Please put your full weight into measures to prevent this decision from eroding our democracy, and reverse the undue influence of money in candidate races. We are counting on you like never before.

With All Sincerity,

-Chuck.

And the magical 42 posts here should boost this message, with the aid of the infinite improbability drive, into the President's laptop!:laugh3: Hey, all I'm saying is we're loosing our democracy..

Here - take a look, and you decide what you want to say to our President:Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Fair Elections

About « Change Congress

 

Ultimately, we are the government - we are the voice - if we choose to take back control of our democracy.