The new Political/off topic sticky chat thread (Scranton, Hyde: live, shop)

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by greentown

The point is, by increasing that penalty because a "hate crime" law is in place, the court would be placing more value on the life of that person than on the lives of other people. That is the part that I don't agree with. I guess all of us straight, white people would be easy targets since we aren't worth as much.

I don't think that's accurate.

By increasing the penalties for crimes committed in certain ways, we're not rewarding only some people at the exclusion of others; we're punishing certain kinds of conduct: crimes committed against people because of their race, sex, religion, etc. We punish certain kinds of conduct all the time in sentencing given all the various circumstances of a crime that come into play. Think robbing a little old church lady vs. robbing a convicted felon. You're gonna get different sentences there for the same crime. The sentence difference isn't because the convicted felon's life isn't worth as much as the church lady's; it's because it just seems more egregious to rob someone as defenseless and vulnerable as her. There are thousands of different permutations of how certain circumstances of a crime result in different sentences for the same crime.

I get the sneaking suspicion that you just think "hate crime" protection is only available to minorities-- for "them." That's just not true: hate crime legislation protects ALL people for crimes committed based on all those things I listed before and more.

[dansdrive]

Speaking of penalties and crimes. Why is it people get incarcerated and its cost them nothing? Why does the meter not start when they are arrested? Our towns and cities need money, instead of constantly raising tax on law abiding citizens why don't we make the police and courts be a pay as you go program? Yes I understand most can't pay anyway but there could be some like the rich that get arrested who certainly can pay for their arrest and incarceration. Ones that can't pay today could someday be abe to pay and we don't make them. People that get arrested should have to pay by the hour for the police they tie up. They should have to pay for the court time they use up. They should have to pay a daily rate for the Prisons they take up.

They say crime doesn't pay and they literally mean it! Time to make crime pay. We will all be better off when it does!

[blip]

Chiming in a little late...

Originally Posted by The Commish

It's up to politicians to listen to economists.

You're right on. The vast majority of economists have been warning about the housing bubble for many years, the Bush administration and the Fed chose to ignore it, thinking that it's better to be reactive than proactive to bubbles.

You should watch NewsHour if you don't already-they actually interview top economists of various political leanings almost every night. Don't know how anyone trusts any other news source, especially now.

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Maybe they don't, maybe they know that no matter what anyone says its going to get pushed thru with or without their input anyway, just like everything always has.

I'm not really sure what your expecting of this administration, but from where I'm sitting its starting to look like business as usual...DC Style.

Perhaps the differences are too subtle for you to notice, but there are important differences. This administration is advised by respectable economists and is listening to them. There's a lot in the bill that reflects that-the size of it, the aid to states, the money for infrastructure. *But* they are still constrained by political realities, and have to make some pragmatic political choices. Obama conceded this by noting that the bill is "not perfect".

And the Republicans leave it to John McCain--the man who admitted not getting economics--to make the counter proposal?? More of the same tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. Things economists generally agree will have very little short-term stimulative effect per buck.

You can try to blame Clinton equally for this mess, but I really think that's misguided. The overheated housing market turned into a serious bubble well into Bush's term, while he was asleep at the wheel and distracted by his abysmal foreign policy, and his nap schedule. Clinton handled the 90s boom gracefully and fiscally responsibly. Even if there weren't the housing bubble, Bush drove the country into the ground on many fronts. The crashing of the bubble just ensures that he'll go down as one of the worst presidents ever.

There's something to be said for a healthy dose of cynicism, but to dismiss them all as in the same "DC" bucket is really missing a lot.

[greentown]

Can anyone answer this question: Why was the spendulus bill pushed through Congress at warp speed, without one person having the time to actually read it, when the president had no intention of even signing it until four days later?

BTW, for those of you who like to bring up President Bush reading a book at a children's school on 9/11 instead of running out of the room in a panic, here's a great link of Obama serving cookies at his super Superbowl Party (complete with fawning comments by ABC's top anchors). Wasn't it the following day that he gave those speeches meant to scare everyone into a panic so that they would fall into line and agree with his way of thinking? Maybe we can start calling him the "Partying President".

ABC Giddy Over 'Presidential Whirlwind' & 'Remarkable' Photos of Obama Passing Out Cookies | NewsBusters.org

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by blip

There's something to be said for a healthy dose of cynicism, but to dismiss them all as in the same "DC" bucket is really missing a lot.

Why? Are they not all politicians? You have your opinions of what YOU think is going on and there are those on the opposite side that their own opinions as well.

You think your right and they think their right, but in reality the only fact that is true is that they are ALL politicians, essentially they are all the same with their own agendas. It just depends on what side of the fence your looking from.

Your foolish to think that any one administration is any better or worse then the other, they just all have their own strengths and weak points. Time will tell.

Its nice to see the market down 191 points today, nothing like a little confidence in the plan to get the week started.

[blip]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Your foolish to think that any one administration is any better or worse then the other

If that's foolish, then I am a fool.

Would you say the same for city administrations?

[SteelCityRising]

Dan, why are you honestly so jaded? Politicians are not universally stricken with the qualities of avarice, ineptitude, nepotism, etc. I myself plan to run for office someday because I want to utilize my entrepreneurial talents and my innovative ideas to help foster positive change in the lives of those around me. I would not run for office simply to earn kickbacks from lobbyists or to find employment for half of my family tree. Has living in Scranton blind-sided you to the GOOD that those whom you elect to power can do?

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by blip

If that's foolish, then I am a fool.

Would you say the same for city administrations?

YEP It just depends on the admin's agenda....Doherty had his agenda...BIG EXPENSIVE GOV'T and jobs for everybody. We'll see if anyone even runs against him. So far I doubt that anyone will, no one wants to take over after what he has done but if there is a new mayor they will have their own agenda and it will in one way or another have issues.

Your confusing me someone that likes politicians...I don't blindly support anyone including city politicians.

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Dan, why are you honestly so jaded? Politicians are not universally stricken with the qualities of avarice, ineptitude, nepotism, etc. I myself plan to run for office someday because I want to utilize my entrepreneurial talents and my innovative ideas to help foster positive change in the lives of those around me. I would not run for office simply to earn kickbacks from lobbyists or to find employment for half of my family tree. Has living in Scranton blind-sided you to the GOOD that those whom you elect to power can do?

Right if I'm jaded then your so naive that its not even funny. You'll never get elected with that paltform around here. I thought you were a realist. You actually have to pull your head out of the clouds in order to see reality first.

[dansdrive]

Originally Posted by greentown

Can anyone answer this question: Why was the spendulus bill pushed through Congress at warp speed, without one person having the time to actually read it, when the president had no intention of even signing it until four days later?

BTW, for those of you who like to bring up President Bush reading a book at a children's school on 9/11 instead of running out of the room in a panic, here's a great link of Obama serving cookies at his super Superbowl Party (complete with fawning comments by ABC's top anchors). Wasn't it the following day that he gave those speeches meant to scare everyone into a panic so that they would fall into line and agree with his way of thinking? Maybe we can start calling him the "Partying President".

ABC Giddy Over 'Presidential Whirlwind' & 'Remarkable' Photos of Obama Passing Out Cookies | NewsBusters.org

The simple answer is our elected officials found the ultimate way to get things done in Washington. That is to play on emotions and scare everyone into the sky is falling unless something is done immediately. Words like, dire, unprecedented, catastrophe, doing nothing is not an option, depression like, and on and on and on...... this terms as a backdrop scare the masses (that being you and me) into immediate action must be needed. Don't read, debate, or question what is in these bills just pass them.

I am proud our government can pass legislation in such 'warp speed' and now hopefully they will present some legislation that is actually useful. I also think the Banks and Auto Industry should read the story about the boy who cried wolf.....eventually no one came and the wolf consumed him.

...and why I'm on a roll. How is it that our congress can chastise bank and auto executives about the use of company jets when NO ONE EVER questions the congress on ALL the junkets they take with their families around the world on government jets or commercial 1st class? How are they cutting back to help our national debt? Flying to Europe or Asia to attend a meeting is not fair to the tax payers. Use video conferencing as we in industry do to save our companies money.