The Obama Speech

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:13 am

I wanted to put some thought into this answer. I agree with you - we can't afford it now and will have to go deeper into debt to afford it. However, I would ask you, how can we afford not to do it? As long as we are dependent on foreign sources of energy, our economic, diplomatic, and military decisions will be dictated by the need to ensure our access to those sources, and our country will be less safe. I am sick and fucking tired of the Saudis and other OPEC countries having us by the short and curlies, and from a personal standpoint, I would love to tell them all to go fuck themselves. From a national perspective, we have no choice but to become energy independent by making a massive investment in the infrastructure to get there. Think of the jobs and technological revolutions that will come from such a program. And, by increasing work on greener energy alternatives, we have the added bonus of saving the planet from the ravages of global warming. Where is the downside in any of that?

We have dicked around with the issue of energy independence for too long. Bold action is required now! In the short term it will hurt, but in the long run, we will be safer and more secure as a country.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:36 am

Your answer sounded so political that it made my skin crawl. How can we afford NOT to do something??!? Don't get me wrong, I get where you're going with that sentiment but I'm not even going to take you down the path of pointing out all of the latent assumptions in that question. I also just think that question is indicative of politicians' shortcomings in general. It refuses to even acknowledge the simple mathematical law that you can't spend more than you have (or you can get from someone else).

The downside is the risk that committing such fiscal resources dislocates the bond market and we wake up tomorrow with an UNFUNDED government, rather than simply a debtor government. Now, if we ended enough other bullshit, useless government programs where we could just pay for the program ourselves rather than go into debt (a shocking proposition I'm sure), I would probably support it as a decent initiative. I'm just really tired of folks acting as if they are blind toward risk--we need to wisen up about this shit--and Obama is at the head of the line.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:58 am

We have an unfunded government - we have had for years, going back to Reagan.

Here's the rub - what is a bullshit program to you, might be a worthwhile one to someone else. Keep in mind that when the Republicans took over Congress, there weren't a lot of programs scraped. While I agree with you that going into debt is not desireable, is it sometimes necessary.

Do you at least agree with me that we need to achieve energy independence? And I am sorry if you disagree with this, but IMHO, and in the opinions of many others, to do nothing would be worse that going into debt.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:15 am

I'm fine with it as a policy goal--I think it's worthwhile to work toward energy independence.

And I agree that debt, in and of itself, isn't bad. The issue is it's difficult to predict if and when that debt will become unserviceable through Treasury bond issuance. It's difficult to identify unsustainable debt loads with much specificity, IMO, for an institution as large and complex as the federal government.

If I was given the choice to add energy independence straight on top of the nonsensical budget and concurrent deficit that we're already dealing with, versus the choice of doing nothing--I would choose nothing. We are THAT close to a bond market dislocation, IMO. You think we've had an unfunded government for years? That's not what I mean when I say unfunded. Their checks still clear, don't they? They have money in their accounts to buy new vehicles and build new things, etc. If/when we dislocate the bond market and we can't sell our treasuries, the government's money will likely run out in a few weeks' time, at the longest. Trust me when I say we are absolutely unprepared for such an event. It could very easily lead to the massive social unrest that's our biggest threat over the next few months/years (depending). The last thing we need right now is to roll out a few trillion in new Treasury offerings, on top of the mountain we're already trying to sell this year, IMO.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:17 am

are we saying that increasing our debt is necessary? i'm not following.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:26 am

I don't think it's necessary. slider probably does.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:47 pm

It is not my first choice, but if if it necessary to achieve a needed goal, like energy independence, then it is a short term sacrifice that should be made - as opposed to going into debt to fund a war of convenience in Iraq that conveniently never made it into Bush's budgets for example.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:04 pm

The fact that it isn't your first choice would seem to imply that there are other options and it isn't absolutely necessary. It may be politically necessary due to the shittiness of our leaders, but that's not how I think of the concept of "necessary".

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:51 pm

Fair enough. I get that. But I think I have made my point clear. And I appreciate our civility, as opposed to other recent discussions.

One other comment about Jindal's speech - it appears that his story of the Sheriff and Katrina was not true. His office has issued a statement saying as such. Like I said, not ready for prime time. I love the fact that there are bloggers who will do actual research on stories that the corporate owned media will not do.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:05 pm

Agree about bloggers...the good ones are light years of the established media at the moment.

I didn't even watch Jindal's response but in reading it, it appears poorly crafted at best. LA is such a fucked up state...I appreciate his work to try to straighten it out...but I worry about the grime that's probably attached to him at this point due to the general fucked up nature of operating in the realm he operates in...corruption is everywhere in that crazy state.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:16 pm

Bloggers are the new media, no doubt about it. Granted, I don't know much about right wing bloggers. Andrew Sullivan is considered to be conservative, and I think he is fantastic. Who are the good right wing bloggers? Not the tin foil hat crowd like at World Nut Daily, but principled ones who make logical arguments?

The main Daily Kos site has a lot of great info on it. Some of the diary bloggers are good, some are way out there. In many ways, the left wing purists are more annoying than the right wing ones. They crucified Caroline Kennedy, and regardless of whether you thought she would be a good pick (she wasn't ready for pime time either), some of the scathing comments were over the line.

Talking Points Memo with Josh Marshall is also a good one. He single handedly kept the US Attorney firing story alive when the corporate owned media wouldn't. He is very thoughtful and I think you would enjoy his work.

LA does have a history of corruption. I don't know all of the details about Jindal's record however. The only thing I do know was that he was considered to be in the 400's in terms of effectiveness of House members when he was there. Not my comment - just reporting it.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:10 pm

I'm honestly not sure on politically-focused blogs, left or right. Most of the blogs I read are economics blogs because I've found them to have such better skills at getting down to the nitty gritty. The good thing about that is that just about everything the government does impacts economics and so you get a decent broad swath.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:01 am

As I was watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington I was thinking they really should remake this movie and use the internet and bloggers and such instead of the old news media. I also watched it thinking of Sarah Palin...like when he went around punching all the reporters who printed pictures of him doing bird calls and falsely said he didn't like the "wiff" he got of Washington (or something to that effect). I said to myself, it's too bad Sarah Palin didn't do that to some of these "journalists".

I know she was not ready for prime time, but I do think she got a raw deal. I mean the thing that me and others liked about her was that she was NOT "one of them". And deep down we want to believe that government can be made up of ordinary people that don't answer to big business and special interest. It's just sad that even those politicians that go into it with the best of intentions often just fall prey to that way of thinking.

At the end of the film I felt like Saunders, the secretary that was helping Smith filibuster and telling him what to do. When she realized they just couldn't beat the big political machine she screamed out..."just stop Jeff" because she couldn't bare to watch him getting hurt. That's sort of how I feel about Palin...I just want her to do her thing for her state and be successful where she can be. Don't come back to Washington because they don't want real people there...you'll just get hurt.