Thursday, January 28, 2010

Dem's Fightin' Words - The 2010 State of the Union Address

I like making up acronyms.  My latest gem is redefining SOTU: Stupid Obama Talking Unendingly.  It fits because I'm sitting down just prior to Obama and his teleprompter executing the Constitutional duty of the executive branch with another long-assed Obama speech.  So rather than try to untangle a speech which will be 1. long, 2. redundant (based on his last gazillion speeches), and 3. fucking boring, I'm just going to give you my reaction to the bullshit phrases and ideas he drops during said speech, minus the obscene exclamation that follows every line.  Otherwise, it would look like this:

Inane phrase of Obama:  Bullshit you craptastic silly son of a bitch pissfaced assblock motherfucker! Etc....

So with that image in your mind, and with my kids doing their best to make me not hear the speech (as they have too much energy and don't have to get to bed immediately, let's begin:

Kids writing the president about their parents' unemployment - Rolling my eyes on that crap line.

Wall Street vs Main Street - Uh, did you forget you helped push through that POS bailout?  And that you haven't really done anything to really help Main Street other than to throw money to your buddies?

I Hated [the bank bailout] - But you voted for the shit.

Transparent - Such a shiny buzzword.  It's easy to talk about transparency when there's so much that releasing all of Bush's dirty laundry can look transparent without giving up yours.

A Fee on Big Banks [who] pay Big Bonuses - OK, so banks that are working to become successful, and are paing for the talent that are making them be so get punished?  So they can come back with hat in hand for cash and more chains further down the road?

We Cut Taxes -  Bull-fucking-shit.  If by cutting taxes you mean you untaxed people who don't pay taxes, or made magic transfer payments or some other bullshit method, I'll accept the bullshit figure.  You don't cut taxes by shifting the tax burden to people who will then pass it back to those who you "cut" them on.

The tax cuts and the jobs created or saved come from the "stimulus" bill - Head aching.  Dinner rising from the depths.  Again, shifting money from some people to force shit into existence for others doesn't really create much, and it costs a whole lot more.

The Jobs bill  - If you understood how jobs were really created, I'd take this seriously.  But let's see what he has in mind....

Give credit to small businesses - Not an idea I hate, except it involves pushing banks to loan more money to achieve a government goal.  Last time we did that was in trying to get people into owning homes.  How'd that work out?

Tax credits for businesses to hire people - And how big is this credit going to be?  Big enough to offset the costs associated with hiring and retaining the employee, including the need to provide health care if you push your monstrosity through? And with the "green economy" and MMGWH plans?  And the taxes and regulations?

Infrastructure - Read as make-work bullshit.  FDR would be jerking off.  Oh well, it may mean more hours for me down the road.

Ah, the last decade - The one created by the accumulation of piles of asshat regulations, make-happy programs, and expansion of credit.  That was a bipartisan clusterfuck and you know it.  When you actually change from the policies that caused it, then we'll talk.

I do not accept 2nd place - So we're going to pile onto the burden of businesses, and ultimately the people, until we're having Haiti nipping at our heels?  What?  Too soon?

I am no interested in punishing banks - Despite the punitive tax above and the continuation of regulation piling, and demonizing them in every speech?  You go with that.

The House has already passed.... (several times) - Obama's message to Sen. Reid: Harry, pass some shit or you're going to get to meet Hoffa.  Not withstanding that this is the function of the Senate:  to slow down reckless and ill-considered legislation.

Clean energy - You bat this line around like I bat myself around when I have Google Chrome in porn mode.  Regularly and enthusiastically.

Nuclear power plants [as part of alternative enrgies]-  Yay.  If he actually means it, that means he's not completely ignorant.  Although strangely, there's so many "incentives" that my grandchildren are feeling the pinch, and my kids are still preschoolers.

We've broken through the stalemate between left and right [in education].... - WTF?!?!?!?  How the hell can you claim this if you're going to continue to invest in the failure that is government schools.  Even pouring money to community colleges won't help if the kids are educated by the government to suck off said government.  Bush did this already.  That's not change, it's more of the same.

Stop subsidizing loans, make them grants - We're wasting the money anyway, why not?

Forgiving student loans after 20 years, 10 if you become a government employee - As if I need to comment on this shit.  I will anyway.  Work for the government, we'll pay for your college.

Health insurance reform - I have devoted too many blog posts to the bullshit he wants as reform to even worry about detailed comments.  So I'm tuning out for a bit.

Bringing security to the lives of more Americans - Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.  That truth resonates more than ever as I listen to this.  Long story short, I'd rather take my chances and die free.

If anyone has a better plan [for health care] let me know - Somehow, I don't believe him, because he's as set in the direction we've been heading as anyone in the government.

All this [trillions in deficit] was before I walked in the door - And you fucking TRIPLED it!  And to quote Bush, you're dipping into the fuzzy math on this one.  We didn't hit the trillions until you unleashed the "stimulus" pork package, etc.

A spending freeze (except the money suckers of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) - So you're skipping the problem spots.  I will applaud it if you actually do freeze some spending, even if it's a token gesture that gets bypassed with magic budget tricks.

Bipartisan fiscal commission -  For what?  You start cutting shit from the budget and you don't add other dumbass bills ("stimulus" or healthcare, or government expansion), you solve the problem.  You don't need another damned commission.  A commission is a lot of talk.  Try some action.

The spending freeze doesn't start until next year - After the midterm elections?  Convenient.Kind of like the health insurance reforms we had to pass immediately that didn't take effect (except for the immediate taxes) until 2013.

A deficit of trust - And when every word about actual policy out of your pie hole is about a government program or a bill to "fix" shit, what do you expect?  That we pay for the ass lube before you start the drilling (not for oil)?

Publish all earmark requests online - Following things like health care hearings on C-span, all the other transparency bullshit....


Changing the tone of our politics - Didn't Bush promise that?  That's not change, that's more of the same.

We've killed more al Qaeda than in 2008 - So they're shooting themselves because you took office?  If we have good kill ratios, it ain't because you set up the structure, and you haven't made that many changes in the military structure (or done much else) so far.

America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity - Except inside our borders, where we trade said freedom and dignity for the government tit.

Crimes driven by hate - Yay, thought police.While it's emotionally satisfying to see vile scumbags punished for their ass-backwards beliefs that motivate their crimes, it's still taking a person's beliefs and views (which is protected by the First Amendment) and punishing them for it because it motivated an actual crime.  It's a dangerous slippery slope to stand on.

These institutions [big corporations and govermnet] are full of people who are doing important and productive work - Except for government.  Government does not produce.  Government takes and controls only.  It was never supposed to.  Except if the government owns the actual means of production.  Shall we play "Name that -ism?"


A child who sent me his allowance and asked me to send it to the children in Haiti - I don't have problems with a child wanting to help those in real need, but why is he sending it to the government?  And why is this a thing to be lauded?  Actually, it's the whole problem in a tiny, relatively insignificant sound bite.

The End.

Now, overall, it was an ok speech.  It didn't put my kids to sleep (too bad).  And I just couldn't muster the energy to ejaculate vehemently every time, because I was typing the above as Obama spoke it.  I didn't even really see any of the Congressmen sleeping or anything (although I'm sure they were).  There were some good laugh lines that broke the tension, mostly the self-deprecating humor that makes me so utterly charming.

Some key points from the speech that need expansion:

It was not the tax cuts of the last eight years, it was the spending and government growth of the last 70!  And while I'm not going to excuse the failures of the Bush administration, both the inability to push through reforms that may have stopped the depth of the recession and the ridiculous amounts of spending, the makings of the mess we're currently in have been seeded in the policies of the New Deal, the Cold War, the Great Society, and the various pilings of programs over the decades.  The current recession was triggered by a gas price spike in 2007.  That threw businesses and individuals into a shift in buying and consumption patterns.  This weakened the car companies who were producing lots of lower mileage vehicles.  It also brought the housing bubble, which was driven by bad loans motivated by a bill that originated in the Carter administration, to a head, popping that like a swollen zit.  That triggered the mess.

Businesses and taxes and regulations, oh my - Economic fascism is a system where private companies own the means of productions, but are controlled by the government.  That's the goal this administration seems to operate under.  We have tax incentives for businesses to do what he wants.  We have punitive taxes for companies he doesn't like.  And policy after policy is designed to exercise control over the economy.  And while it's not the hard control of law, it's the soft control of the financial carrot and stick.  And a reminder why I keep pushing for the FairTax.

We were in the process of winding down Iraq in 2008.  You're taking credit for a mission accomplished before you were in office.  The initial mission had been mostly accomplished.  The secondary and resultant missions were accomplished.  And the Bush administration had set us on the path of withdrawal.  So not only do you blame every problem you have on the Bush administration (including an expansion of Medicare (and you want to expand the larger role of the government)), you're taking credit for anything that Bush got right that the results carried into your first year?  So what is it?  Is it all on you as of January last year, or is it on Bush's watch for as long as you want to beat the drum?  Or are you just going to pick and choose as you see fit?

Ambiguity on our relations in the world - He touched on a lit of things with absolutely no specificity.  Some shit about global trade, and security, and world relations.  All of it easily forgettable in the face of the pounding of the same tired boards.  You humped out the old points, spending more time on jobs than before for obvious reasons.  And you kind of skimmed over the rest because you know that Bush (your favorite whipping boy) didn't do that bad a job, and you don't want to look stupid.

Just because you drop conservative sound bites doesn't mean your policies do anything but piss on the deeper issues.  You talk about small businesses, but when small businesses have to try to guess what kind of crap will flow down from Washington to complicate their fledgling businesses,  and listen to your asinine attempts to sound like a free market liberal (HA!), and they are already operating with little margin for error and little ability to absorb more paperwork, why would hey invest when it could bump them into a killer tax bracket, or subject them to a different law, or make the unable to compete with another country that wants its economy to grow more.

THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!  DEMOCRACIES ARE RULED BY MEN AND ULTIMATELY KILL THEMSELVES BY SELLING THEIR FREEDOM!  AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING JUST THAT!  And I'm yelling it because far too many people operate under that delusion.  It's a bipartisan thing (Sarah Palin dropped the D-word in a segment shortly after the speech that got a loud response out of me too).  But until people start to learn the value of the Constitution and stop thinking that true democracy is a good thing, this point can't be stressed enough.

I'll let someone with no life analyze the GOP response.  Because let's be honest, it's always less interesting.  Although Thomas Jefferson was mentioned a lot (it was the new governor of Virginia, after all).  I will say that TJ would be calling for a blood-soaked revolt based on what our government has become.

In the end, this speech, and my post, is about the state of the Union.  And that state is imperiled.


Name: Soapboxgod said...

Spot on Patrick. I was hoping you'd have something to say on his rather juvenile jab at the SCOTUS on their Citizens United v. FEC ruling.

What say you??

I posted the following comment about it elsewhere:

"It not only showed clear evidence of his persisence towards empathy and activism when it comes to judicial appointments, it was also clearly evident that the president either didn't understand the case and the subsequent opinion or he flat out chose to ignore it in his want for a talking point to greater America who also didn't understand the case or the opinion.

The financial contribution portion of campaign finance still stands. What the SCOTUS merely held, and rightly so I should add, is that a for or non-profit corporation or entity, under the First Amendment, should not be precluded from excercising their free speech rights (be it in a movie, an advertisement, etc.)

Why under the previous provisions would it be acceptable for say Michael Moore or Bill Maher or whomever to author a book 6 months before an election citing 1,000 reasons NOT to election George Bush in 2004 permitted by the FEC rules but somehow a non-profit or even for-profit corporation's desire to make a short movie or run an advertisement doing essentially the same somehow not??"

Toad734 said...

It was still better than the steroids in baseball, Axis of Evil, WMD speeches we heard over the last 8 years.

And I have to agree with you pretty much only on one thing; why not go to the problem of the cost of education as opposed to letting the government subsidize the rising costs which does nothing about the rising costs of education, merely lets people get out of paying some of that costs on their own but in reality, end up paying for it with higher taxes and cuts in programs and services. That makes no sense. Of course he tried taking my common sense approach to health care reform yet Republicans see no reason to cut out the reason health care costs so much and no, it isn't because too many doctors who leave sponges in patients get sued.

He is right though, his spending was necessary to avoid a depression and a depression would have happened. Maybe we needed a depression to cleanse and to really teach wall street a lesson but we would probably all be out of jobs right now if that would have happened.Bush had a surplus and squandered it will illadvised tax cuts and the biggest expansion of government since the new deal and a useless costly war in Iraq which made all of his Texas oil constituents rich. You guys can't pretend you are the party of fiscal responsibility and its comical that people still give you a pass when you pretend to be.

And yes, cut spending on all the things that don't really contribute to our deficit anyway??? Whats that going to do. You have to deal with the elephant in the room which is Social Security and medicare. You deal with one of those by lowering medical costs, you deal with the other by not spending 700 billion in Iraq and make rich people pay the same amount of social security taxes that I pay as it is a regressive tax rate; the more you make the less you pay.

And if the Republicans have a better plan, other than going across state lines to get Blue Cross of Indiana as opposed to Blue Cross of Illinois, to get insurance, don't be shy. Oh wait, I do have insurance from another state and guess what, I pay a lot for it and have a $2500 deductible...So insurance from NC is no better than insurance from IL.

He has actually been a supporter of Nuclear energy for a long time. But here's a news flash, clean coal doesn't exist.

The banks used billions of dollars in bonuses in the 2000s and got really bad talent as it turns out. And if all banks are hit with the same refund tax to pay back what they took from the tax payers, they will all be on an even playing field for all the top talent. I mean, what are all the new finance graduates going to do, go work for a sports management company instead if they aren't able to get 4 million dollar bonuses every year? Bullshit on that issue.

Ok, I could go on but I have a life to live.

Z-man said...

As luck would have it the Jim Bean Sour Mash began blocking alot of this out for me last night (sometimes the speech actually seems better this way). As speechifying I gave his speech an a'ight, just a technical grade you know but most State of the Union speeches are pure unadulterated bullshit anyway. The offshore drilling and clean nuclear power plants part wasn't bad you have to admit and if we have a few more Massachusetts miracles down the road maybe his next speech will offer even more goodies. Re this dry spell of yours you keep alluding to I had the thought that you're so building this up in your own head that when the Moment finally arrives something's gonna go wrong. Have this Irish friend and he was so pent-up that when he went with his friends for a lap dance he couldn't take it anymore and creamed in his pants so when the situation finally presents itself maybe temper it with thoughts of Darfur or Rosie O'Donnell masturbating.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "It was still better than the steroids in baseball, Axis of Evil, WMD speeches we heard over the last 8 years."

At least those offered real solutions to real problems.

"You guys can't pretend you are the party of fiscal responsibility and its comical that people still give you a pass when you pretend to be."

It's not comical when you look at the facts: that while Republicans waste money, the Dems do it a lot more.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Rosie O'Donnell masturbating."

I'm not one for stifling one's First Amendment rights but really Z....was that necessary??

Now, if you'll excuse me while I toss my lunch....

Toad734 said...


Yes, that solution was to invade Iraq.

How well did that solution come out.

And isnt' Iran still pursuing nucUlear technology? So what was Bush's solution?

Did baseball players stop taking steroids??

No, but even if they did, in the grand scheme of things who gives a shit. Who is more admirable, the man who suggests small tasks and completes them or the man who suggests big tasks and tries to complete them?

dmarks said...

Toad: On the balance, well. One major terrorist threat taken off the table.

"Did baseball players stop taking steroids?? "

I should have left that out of the list. It did not belong with the others (properly identifying problems and proceeding with solutions to them).

dmarks said...

"A child who sent me his allowance and asked me to send it to the children in Haiti - I don't have problems with a child wanting to help those in real need, but why is he sending it to the government?"

Why does he send his $1.32 to the government? Why isn't it obvious?

It's because he wants

21 cents of it to go to help government-employed SEIU members afford new RV's.

3 cents for new Obama logowear

18 cents to give millionaire government department heads raises.

4 cents to go to ACORN to pay for voter registration lists that have all of the Warner Bros cartoon characters, not to mention the Legion of Superheroes.

7 cents for Nancy Pelosi's new jet.

42 cents to go who knows where, the accounting's all messed up and no-one knows. But someone might want to check Sandy Berger's pants.

9 cents for stimulus money build new libraries in congressional districts located in the Great State of Franklin (north of Alaska and east of Tennessee).

6 cents for Barack to take the kids to Disneyworld.

Oh yes, and 2 cents for aid to Haiti.

And if you are wondering why it doesn't add up to $1.32, that's because the House Budget Committee is in charge of keeping track of it.

FireCracker said...

The Stupid people who voted for this guy are regretting their decision. Barack Obama has to be the most ineffective, unqualified president in the history of the United States. He is an embarrassment to the American people.

The President and many politicians think we're all stupid, don't they?! He gave us his "shut up and sit down, I'm your god and have spoken" speech last night. We got his "Oh, we have to all get along ..." whining side of Comrade Zero too. But why? He doesn't even need the Republicans. Demoncrats are in the majority.

But you see, he can't add. I'm convinced of that now.

Also, it's more of the commie lib touchy feely crap and they're up to something evil again. Comrade Zero keeps demonizing the 'special interests'. All the 'special interests' are the government. The government is the problem! You want to create more jobs? [he doesn't] THEN GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY! Stop penalizing business for doing business by burdening them with asinine regulations and paperwork.

By the way, businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do. Yep, that's right. Economy 101. No company has ever paid taxes from it's own pockets, consumers do. Try running a business for 5 minutes and not make a sizeable profit. All costs get passed along to the consumer or you'll last about that long: 5 minutes.

Hey you Government people ... here's More Economy 101: Businesses create jobs, not government. Stop making businesses collect taxes for the government.

I am really tired of Zero's condesending way of speaking to us.

Oh, and get this! We also got the communist side of Comrade Zero in the speech.

Now He The Anointed One Speaking To The Great Unwashed says, that all students will only have to pay back 10% of their student loans only if they chose a "public service job". Comrade Zero thinks this is a stimulus?! This is not a stimulus! This is not only idiotic, it's a dangerous, foolish presidency!

Unemployment is now at about 16%. People are losing their homes, their fortunes, and some their lives to despair.

And now, the coup de grâce, the government claims it needs more money to bail out more Unions with the new 'Jobs Bill'! Oh, didn't you get that memo? It's not a 'stimulus' anymore, the new PC term is Jobs Bill. [source]

"Hey, gummit, turn up that heat! The frogs not hoppin' out yet." America is just about to get really cooked.

Anyway, I get it now. Just like a friend of mine blogged about recently, the fool CAN'T ADD!! Another victim of public schooling no doubt. [shaking head in disgust]

Also, off subject, did you see the Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito shake his head and mouth "That's Wrong!"? He was disgusted over Comrade Zero's open criticism and misquote of a court ruling. [In all my 50 yrs I have never seen a sitting President do that openly!] Judge Alito was sitting next to the Affirmative Action Poster Child Sonia Sotomayor. She looks stoned, as usual, or maybe it's just that it's another of Zero's boring Let's Destroy America speeches. [yawn]

And, get this, I heard PMSNBC host Chris Matthews say he (speaking of Comrade Zero) "forgot he was black". Whoa Nelly! That one made me LOL.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

all students will only have to pay back 10% of their student loans only if they chose a "public service job".

Programs like this have been in place for a very long time. In particular, physicians can get a substantial portion of their school debt forgiven through a program in which they go and work a specified number of years in under-served areas.

Additionally, many other companies have programs similar to this in which an employee can get grants for schooling that will ultimately benefit the company if they agree to work a certain number of years for the company in return. The State of NC has a program that offers flexible scheduling and other assistance to staff going to school for nursing and other needed areas. On graduation, they're assigned to an open position and are required to work there for a specified number of years in return for the assistance they got while in school.

This isn't some kind of radical new foreign communist plot. It's a practical way to increase retention, encourage your employees to further their education in areas that benefit you, to provide for a need and to also (in the case of this program above) give financial assistance for people who are going to work for the common good.

Z-man said...

Soap I know it was a hard image to use but it might be the new technique to stop the preemies. Pat you're gonna rip the head off that thing (I'm sorry it had to be said).

Octopüß said...

Patrick, I am very disappointed with this post. All diatribe but no dialogue. All invective but no substance. No research, no scholarship, no citations. You are insular and intolerant of other viewpoints. You are only interested in self-validation; you offer nothing constructive. You have chosen to be part of the problem, yet offer no solutions.

There is nothing here worth reading.

Patrick M said...

Apologies for being away a bit. Had to reload my whole computer. It's shiny now....

Soapster: I missed the SCOTUS snub initially, probably due to kids and my eyes glazing over. But since it was brought up, yeah, he's full of shit on that one. Not only is it a repeal of unconstitutional crap from McCain-Feingold, he indicated that this would open the doors for foreign money, which is still illegal.

Toad: As usual....

It was still better than... the last 8 years.

At least Bush gave a different speech every year, and learned from some of his mistakes (eventually). And I think Obama already wore out the Bush blaming.

And I have to agree with you pretty much only on one thing; why not go to the problem of the cost of education as opposed to letting the government subsidize the rising costs....

The problem is not the rising costs. The problem is government interference, which is the thing that drives the cost up unendingly. Kids learn more with a good internet connection, a Google search, Wikipedia, and a parent that encourages learning than they do in a government school. And at a much better price.

Also, being that I'm NOT a Republican, I can agree that they pissed away the "fiscal responsibility" mantra. The only advantage there , as Dmarks said, is that they don't spend the money quite as fast as Obama.

I could go on as well, and as you run the same laundry list as Obama (albeit less boring), I think I've covered it all already.

Z-man: When I figure out your point, I'll get back to you. Maybe I need some of that Beam too... :) LOL.

Dmarks: Actually, it was more of a blame game. Because everybody messed up his plans to save America.

Why does he send his $1.32 to the government?

It's because he wants

That's a good one. I may have to repost that.

FireCracker: The Stupid people who voted for this guy are regretting their decision.

That includes the Obama Girl. Yay, disenfranchised boobs.

Also, it's not "public schools." The preferred and more accurate term is "governemnt schools."

Saty: This isn't some kind of radical new foreign communist plot. It's a practical way to increase retention, encourage your employees to further their education in areas that benefit you, to provide for a need and to also (in the case of this program above) give financial assistance for people who are going to work for the common good [emphasis added].

So it's a tried and true communist plot? Again, the problem we have is that it's part of a larger plan to continue gathering everything under the kindly grasp of Washington.

8pus: There is nothing here worth reading.

Like I said, it was mostly my off-the-cuff reactions, because everybody will analyze the hell out of this anyway.

Also, if there was something new worth discussing in the damned speech, there might have been some discussion. As it is, half the speech was the same shit he promised last year and didn't do. When my intelligence gets insulted (by trying to pass off the same things as something new), I tend to throw the invectives.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

So it's a tried and true communist plot? Again, the problem we have is that it's part of a larger plan to continue gathering everything under the kindly grasp of Washington.

What did you only read the parts of my comment that you wanted to? Don't make me bring out the O word on you.

The point I was making is that debt forgiveness through an employer is not a new idea, nor is it a strictly government one. It's been going on in the private sector for about ever, and it's also been going on with desperately needed (read: medical) professionals in high risk, needy areas.

If you want to call it anything, you can call it a form of indentured servitude. I work for you. I'm going to go to school to further my education, which will benefit you because it'll make me a more profitable employee. You offer to give me X amount of money towards my schooling in return for X number of years work after I graduate. It's a fairly simple idea and it works.

It works even better with NC state jobs, because they don't actually give you any money. What they do is offer modified schedules so you can go to school, and they make sure you have time off for tests, etc. They may give some towards the cost of boards or books, but it ain't much. When you graduate and pass, they put you into whatever opening they have (you have no choice about what building or shift, it's all according to their needs) and you have to work in that position a specified number of years. If you leave the job before you've finished out your commitment, you have to pay them a penalty for all the trouble they went to for you.

This is not some kind of evil government plot or some kind of radically different communist agenda. It's a good business strategy that gets everyone's needs met at the same time.

Don't be obtuse, Patrick. I mean that.

Satyavati devi dasi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Octopüß said...

8pus: "There is nothing here worth reading."

Patrick: "Like I said, it was mostly my off-the-cuff reactions, because everybody will analyze the hell out of this anyway. "

Patrick, I don't think you got the message so I shall explain it in clearer terms. It seems you have no interest in having a dialogue with persons holding other viewpoints.

All conversations are on YOUR TERMS and on YOUR TURF. You are the quintessential "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" type of guy. There is no mutuality.

I am removing this forum from our link list. If you have a change of heart, I will reconsider; otherwise I have no interest in wasting my time here.

Toad734 said...


I think you mean he sends it to them to get Bridges to nowhere that don't get built but Alaska keeps the money anyway...or the $800 Billlion dollar agricultural subsidies which mainly go to red states...or the billions in Oil Company subsidies even though they are some of the most profitable companies in history or maybe 700 Billion to Iraq or all the foreign aid we give to Israel, a rich country who doesn't need it.


How does government intervention raise the costs of a college education? What are they doing that drives up the cost of a textbook and a professors salary?

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The problem is government interference, which is the thing that drives the cost up unendingly.

How does government intervention raise the costs of a college education? What are they doing that drives up the cost of a textbook and a professors salary?

Toad's got a real good point here.

I went ahead and did a little research on this just for the sake of curiosity.

UNC Chapel Hill (which is like the flagship of the UNC system), for the 09-10 school year, is charging NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS $2812.72 for a full class load, and NON NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS $11,756.72 for a full class load.

Duke University, which is a private school, in essence considered an 'equal' to UNC-CH in terms of academic prestige, for the 09-10 school year, charges $39,080.00.

These are TUITION COSTS ONLY, not books, room/board, fees, and all that happy shit.

So yes, I think Toad's got a real valid point going on here. What's the government doing that's raising the cost of education? Seems to me like I could go to UNC for four years for the cost of one at Duke, and wear a better looking blue at that.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "...Bridges to nowhere..."

Predictable tit-for-tat. Does a bridge to nowhere justify any of the real waste that some of my joking line items allude to?

No wonder there's a huge debt problem, if people think that the solution to the problem of one side wasting money is for the other side to waste money.

As for some specifics, very little is spent on oil company subsidies. I checked into the issue, and found much of what people were claiming as subsidies were actually tax breaks. Which involve $0 subsidy expenditure.


I saw Octo's comment. Not sure what he meant by "my way or the highway". Maybe I missed something, but I've not been noticing him deleting comments from people like SDD and Toad, whose political views are pretty much 100% not Patrick's way.

Octopüß said...

Dmarks, I left a response to your comment here.

Patrick M said...

Octopüß: I had to put up with this kind of shit last month when I wasn't towing a particular damned line with some of the right-wing blogs, so I'm used to disappearing from the list of the links because somebody got pissed at me.

I'll be brief (since you're carrying the attitude to other posts and blogs). This blog is about what pours out of my mind. Occasionally, that means I'm going to indulge in a little vitriolic rhetoric, because sometimes I just need to vent. That's the exception, not the rule. But since you don't like playing by those rules and want to go home, fine by me. You have added to the blog when you were here. I'll fill in the blanks when you're gone.

(Oh, and I haven't wiped your link because of some pissy posts on Swash that I could have only answered with said vitriol (and didn't out of respect.))

Toad734 said...


Yes, they get plenty of tax breaks, more than you or I do but they also get direct subsidies, especially for exploration and specifically exploration in deep water. Now, the government doesn't find my customers and suppliers for me but yet, I don't contribute to anyone's campaign but you know who does?? And why do they need tax breaks when they have been breaking profitability records for the last couple of years (after we invaded Iraq, i.e. no coincidence)

And yes Sayti, the government, through state run schools such as Illinois, Indiana and North Carolina make college cheaper than the private option.

So if you want to argue that the government makes meat or beef more expensive by ensuring that they don't use diseased cattle, illegal employees and send out meat contaminated with ecoli and peoples finger tips, then I would agree that yes, those standards set by the government do raise the cost of food (which is fine by me) but there are no such regulations on colleges.

My point was that instead of stepping in and doing something about the actual cost of education and how much universities are charging, they now just want to subsidize that cost so the consumer (student) doesn't have to pay it but ultimately, we will all pay for it. Same problem with health care, until you go to the source of the costs (drug prices, non insured, insurance premiums, etc) anything else is just a bandaid.