Political questions anyone

PriscillaMS · January 9th, 2013, 10:15 AM

Up for a question?

1)

I read in the news today (I’m behind I know) that Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has begun the fourth round of "quantitative easing" (QE4) that will add $85 billion to the US economy every month. This is to be an on going policy and no time limit has yet been set for these monthly money additions.
This policy of course is simply the printing of 85 thousand million dollars ($85B) a month out of thin air. Whether this is good policy or not is arguable. (My personal fear is that such printing devalues the dollar and will ultimately lead to inflation and rising costs of all commodities including energy.) But let’s not argue this now.
My question is simple. If, during a weak economy, it is a GOOD thing to print money as Bernanke is proposing and doing but as everyone including the president has admitted a BAD thing to raise taxes on anyone during a weak economy, why then did the government (the Democratic Party in particular) insist on raising taxes recently? Why not just print a bit more money, the GOOD thing to do?

Wolf_angel · January 9th, 2013, 06:37 PM

I dont know just seems like a warped sense of reality to me. IMO

Jennifer23 · January 9th, 2013, 09:35 PM

I know a bit about history and read about William F. Buckley Jr. I'm a Buckley fan; he believed in fiscal responsibity. He said that he couldn't support W. in 2004 because he felt that W. had done fiscal spending in his first term that didn't work and was not what a conservative should be doing. We need common sense here.

Changing the subject a little . . . I really like Chuck Hagel. What do you think?

Wolf_angel · January 10th, 2013, 01:04 AM

Cant have an opinion on him since I havent any info on him at all. Hugs

PriscillaMS · January 10th, 2013, 10:11 AM

Jen, another good question.

Sen. Hagel (Republican) has opposed sanctions on Iran since 2001 and has recently stated that an armed respnse to Iran's nuclear program is NOT a viable option.

So here is the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons? Is the USA an ally of Israel or not?

Wolf_angel · January 10th, 2013, 10:58 AM

Good point Priscilla! Hugs

Jennifer23 · January 10th, 2013, 04:17 PM

Hi all! I heard an hour long interview with Hagel from 2005 and agreed with everything that he said. He volunteered and served in Viet Nam, and was severely wounded twice. When he came back, he like John Kerry, had problems about our government misleading the American people about that war. Because of that experience he opposed W's decision to go into Iraq. In the interview he also said that politicians should always put the good of the country over the good of the individual's party.

I think that Obama's choices of Hagel and Kerry were excellent. Both of them served in Viet Nam and both realize that you should only go to war because you have to, not because you want to. I don't think that either of them will be soft regarding threats against this country, but both have insight. Also, I don't consider Iran to be a nuclear threat to us. I think that we should be more concerned with the rogue terrorist groups out there.

This was a long one for me, and you're probably not used to it!

PriscillaMS · January 11th, 2013, 08:39 AM

Jen, not sure what you mean by “only go to war when you have to”.

But please reconsider Hagel. Without sanctions or the threat of an armed response, I see nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear program. While Iran may not have the missile technology capable of reaching the US directly, Iran is a major sponsor of global terrorism. And a terrorist armed with conventional explosive and containing radioactive materials (dirty bomb) could pose quite a threat to any urban area. In addition, Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel. And if a bomb is developed, Iran does have the missile capability to deliver it there.

I hope your confidence in the benign intent of the Iranians is valid. But I’m doubtful. I’d be more so if I lived in Israel.

(Give me your best shot. I do love to argue!)

Jennifer23 · January 11th, 2013, 10:54 PM

Hi Priss, and I will get back to you . . . but not tonight. I'm going to bed. I think that we love to disagree on issues. It's fun, and we still maintain our friendship! Nite.

PriscillaMS · January 23rd, 2013, 09:50 AM

Not a question...a prediction instead.

I read some of the inauguration speech. I think a bit of a missed opportunity. This year is the 150th anniversary of the end to slavery and now we have re-elected a black president. I guess I wanted to hear a speech that would remind people of this anniversary and also how we as a people continue to have free and peaceful elections. The speech just seemed a little too partisan to me.
But maybe the president was speaking most to his base. Maybe he was giving the “big government” base a big hurrah party and that’s not so bad really. I think the president probably knows that reality is going to set in shortly, the reality that there isn’t enough money in the treasury anymore. And changes will be necessary and these changes his base won’t like.
I don’t think it will be the Republican Party that will really cause the necessary and inevitable changes to the budget. Reality will. So here’s a prediction. I think it will be Democrats themselves (particularly those up for re-election in the mid-term) that will propose delaying the implementation of Obamacare. Sign-up for millions is scheduled for this October and the higher taxes start in 2014. I don’t think the states are ready and the money may not be there if the economy doesn’t improve significantly. We’ll see if I’m right.

PriscillaMS · January 23rd, 2013, 09:50 AM

Not a question...a prediction instead.

I read some of the inauguration speech. I think a bit of a missed opportunity. This year is the 150th anniversary of the end to slavery and now we have re-elected a black president. I guess I wanted to hear a speech that would remind people of this anniversary and also how we as a people continue to have free and peaceful elections. The speech just seemed a little too partisan to me.
But maybe the president was speaking most to his base. Maybe he was giving the “big government” base a big hurrah party and that’s not so bad really. I think the president probably knows that reality is going to set in shortly, the reality that there isn’t enough money in the treasury anymore. And changes will be necessary and these changes his base won’t like.
I don’t think it will be the Republican Party that will really cause the necessary and inevitable changes to the budget. Reality will. So here’s a prediction. I think it will be Democrats themselves (particularly those up for re-election in the mid-term) that will propose delaying the implementation of Obamacare. Sign-up for millions is scheduled for this October and the higher taxes start in 2014. I don’t think the states are ready and the money may not be there if the economy doesn’t improve significantly. We’ll see if I’m right.

Jennifer23 · January 23rd, 2013, 09:52 PM

Priss, Obama is only half-black. But, the big news for me was that my favorite band (Mana, from Mexico) played at the Inaugural Ball!

PriscillaMS · January 24th, 2013, 07:32 AM

Hey, red face here - the double posting - how the heck did I do that LOL.

Dumb blonde (Oops redundant again.)

Jennifer23 · January 24th, 2013, 08:20 PM

Yeah . . . the Department of Redundancy Department. No worries, Priss - I've done it too.

Yeah . . . the Department of Redundancy Department. No worries, Priss - I've done it too.

PriscillaMS · February 13th, 2013, 10:01 AM

Hey any comments on the SOTU address or the rebuttal?

January 9th, 2013, 10:15 AM	#1
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Political questions anyone Up for a question? 1) I read in the news today (I’m behind I know) that Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has begun the fourth round of "quantitative easing" (QE4) that will add $85 billion to the US economy every month. This is to be an on going policy and no time limit has yet been set for these monthly money additions. This policy of course is simply the printing of 85 thousand million dollars ($85B) a month out of thin air. Whether this is good policy or not is arguable. (My personal fear is that such printing devalues the dollar and will ultimately lead to inflation and rising costs of all commodities including energy.) But let’s not argue this now. My question is simple. If, during a weak economy, it is a GOOD thing to print money as Bernanke is proposing and doing but as everyone including the president has admitted a BAD thing to raise taxes on anyone during a weak economy, why then did the government (the Democratic Party in particular) insist on raising taxes recently? Why not just print a bit more money, the GOOD thing to do?

January 9th, 2013, 06:37 PM	#2
Wolf_angel A survivor of chaos Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Where my heart is Posts: 3,147	I dont know just seems like a warped sense of reality to me. IMO __________________ May you walk in the shadow of the Great Spirit~To help others is a special gift we can either give or take~The more you give the more you receive~

January 10th, 2013, 01:04 AM	#4
Wolf_angel A survivor of chaos Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Where my heart is Posts: 3,147	Cant have an opinion on him since I havent any info on him at all. Hugs __________________ May you walk in the shadow of the Great Spirit~To help others is a special gift we can either give or take~The more you give the more you receive~

January 10th, 2013, 10:58 AM	#6
Wolf_angel A survivor of chaos Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Where my heart is Posts: 3,147	Good point Priscilla! Hugs __________________ May you walk in the shadow of the Great Spirit~To help others is a special gift we can either give or take~The more you give the more you receive~

January 9th, 2013, 09:35 PM	#3
Jennifer23 Jennifer23 Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,187	I know a bit about history and read about William F. Buckley Jr. I'm a Buckley fan; he believed in fiscal responsibity. He said that he couldn't support W. in 2004 because he felt that W. had done fiscal spending in his first term that didn't work and was not what a conservative should be doing. We need common sense here. Changing the subject a little . . . I really like Chuck Hagel. What do you think?

January 10th, 2013, 10:11 AM	#5
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Jen, another good question. Sen. Hagel (Republican) has opposed sanctions on Iran since 2001 and has recently stated that an armed respnse to Iran's nuclear program is NOT a viable option. So here is the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons? Is the USA an ally of Israel or not?

January 10th, 2013, 04:17 PM	#7
Jennifer23 Jennifer23 Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,187	Hi all! I heard an hour long interview with Hagel from 2005 and agreed with everything that he said. He volunteered and served in Viet Nam, and was severely wounded twice. When he came back, he like John Kerry, had problems about our government misleading the American people about that war. Because of that experience he opposed W's decision to go into Iraq. In the interview he also said that politicians should always put the good of the country over the good of the individual's party. I think that Obama's choices of Hagel and Kerry were excellent. Both of them served in Viet Nam and both realize that you should only go to war because you have to, not because you want to. I don't think that either of them will be soft regarding threats against this country, but both have insight. Also, I don't consider Iran to be a nuclear threat to us. I think that we should be more concerned with the rogue terrorist groups out there. This was a long one for me, and you're probably not used to it!

January 11th, 2013, 08:39 AM	#8
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Jen, not sure what you mean by “only go to war when you have to”. But please reconsider Hagel. Without sanctions or the threat of an armed response, I see nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear program. While Iran may not have the missile technology capable of reaching the US directly, Iran is a major sponsor of global terrorism. And a terrorist armed with conventional explosive and containing radioactive materials (dirty bomb) could pose quite a threat to any urban area. In addition, Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel. And if a bomb is developed, Iran does have the missile capability to deliver it there. I hope your confidence in the benign intent of the Iranians is valid. But I’m doubtful. I’d be more so if I lived in Israel. (Give me your best shot. I do love to argue!)

January 11th, 2013, 10:54 PM	#9
Jennifer23 Jennifer23 Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,187	Hi Priss, and I will get back to you . . . but not tonight. I'm going to bed. I think that we love to disagree on issues. It's fun, and we still maintain our friendship! Nite.

January 23rd, 2013, 09:50 AM	#10
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Not a question...a prediction instead. I read some of the inauguration speech. I think a bit of a missed opportunity. This year is the 150th anniversary of the end to slavery and now we have re-elected a black president. I guess I wanted to hear a speech that would remind people of this anniversary and also how we as a people continue to have free and peaceful elections. The speech just seemed a little too partisan to me. But maybe the president was speaking most to his base. Maybe he was giving the “big government” base a big hurrah party and that’s not so bad really. I think the president probably knows that reality is going to set in shortly, the reality that there isn’t enough money in the treasury anymore. And changes will be necessary and these changes his base won’t like. I don’t think it will be the Republican Party that will really cause the necessary and inevitable changes to the budget. Reality will. So here’s a prediction. I think it will be Democrats themselves (particularly those up for re-election in the mid-term) that will propose delaying the implementation of Obamacare. Sign-up for millions is scheduled for this October and the higher taxes start in 2014. I don’t think the states are ready and the money may not be there if the economy doesn’t improve significantly. We’ll see if I’m right.

January 23rd, 2013, 09:52 PM	#12
Jennifer23 Jennifer23 Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,187	Priss, Obama is only half-black. But, the big news for me was that my favorite band (Mana, from Mexico) played at the Inaugural Ball!

January 24th, 2013, 07:32 AM	#13
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Hey, red face here - the double posting - how the heck did I do that LOL. Dumb blonde (Oops redundant again.)

January 24th, 2013, 08:20 PM	#14
Jennifer23 Jennifer23 Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,187	Yeah . . . the Department of Redundancy Department. No worries, Priss - I've done it too. Yeah . . . the Department of Redundancy Department. No worries, Priss - I've done it too.

February 13th, 2013, 10:01 AM	#15
PriscillaMS Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 358	Hey any comments on the SOTU address or the rebuttal?