₦airaland Forum

@topic,

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule. - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

@Huxley,

This is really infantile thinking, the product of irrationalism, itself the product of religious infestation of the mind.

How stupid your conclusion. Can you tell us what religious doctrine my contribution was based on?

Just think about it. What would have been the chances of Iran (and any country for that matter) getting a satellite into space if they had relied on the geocentric view of the world promoted by the religionists?

You sure have a very myopic understandig of what religion is (christianity to be precise), otherwsie you wont make such an uninformed statement. I'm a Christians who understand big time that my faith necessarily places aa burden on me to do everything that is ethically right to make this world a better place. The goal of technology and religion are the same - service to humanity.

Copernicus and Galileo suffered persecution for propounding that the sun (not the earth) was the centre of our "world". The religionist preferred view was geocentrism which had held sway until Galileo and Copernicus. And what did the get for this truly liberating idea? Nothing but persecution from the likes of you. And you have the impudence to celebrate this achievement of the Iranians as prove that religion does not impact of development.

You talk as if these people received their marching orders from the Bible. They are people with a natural inclination to oppose anything they do not understand and used the Bible as justification for their actions. The same Bible which declares that wisdom gives insight into witty inventions cannot and has never opposed knowledge. If anything it declares that people are destoyed for lack of it. Insight, development and progress are concepts the Bible clearly teaches and advances.

THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ACHIEVED IN SPITE OF THE INTRUSION AND MEDDLING OF THE RELIGIONISTS.

In order words, development and religion are not mutuially exclusive.

And so have been many other scientific innovations. Shall I list them ?

And you might want to tell us the religion of each of these scientists as you list their inventions.

@bawomolo,

Iran is a pretty closed society with a poor development index. This is a country that depends on Russian technicians to develop it's refineries. Would we consider North Korea developed too. I mean North korea has long range missiles and nuclear reactors so does that make it a developed country. It can be argued the rate of development by secular countries is higher than the rate of development by religious ones. An example of religious interference is the issue of stem-cell research among conservative Christians.

You have touched on a point hitherto ignored on this thread. What makes a society developed goes beyond science and technology which has been the primary focus thus far. A society's development encompasses its social structure and the Western society we largely describe as developed established their structure through and from their christian heritage.

The fact that Iran lacks skills in some areas does not nullify the technological breakthrough their recent achievements testify to. My contribution was just to show these folks how stupid their logic is. Iran is as religious as they come and yet have achieved what many secular states are yet to achieve technologically. So religion really needs to be set aside as the major reason why a society isn't developed technologically.

@Huxley and co,

sorry I've been MIA on this thread since my last posting.  I've been rather busy.

I thought the best way to r4espond to you guys right now is by way of an example.  What more country can we declare as more fundamentally religious than Iran today? Yet the same country just sent a communication satellite to space, they are building their air planes and long range missiles.  Cases like this merely tells you that religion is not the problem.

I hope to come back and establish some more points.

@negro,

This is embarassing given President Obama's principles on the job.

What principles? Please enligntene us. Obama came out to defend and support Tom Daschle a day before he withdrew his nomination. Obama's public show of support was done even though the guy's tax problems were already made public. If Obama was ready to publicly overlook the guy's tax problems, what makes you think he did not instruct his vetting team to do the same?

The same Obama that said nothing-nothing for Lobbyist is the same guy who has so far appointed at least two big time lobbyist (William Lynn and William Corr) into his cabinet. The same Tom Daschle who evaded paying taxes was also a lobbyist. To think that Obama publicly excused these guy's lobbying history is at best hypocritical. With all of these, it appears Obama's problems is not his principles, but his lack of it!

@Huxley,

Today, this disengagement from intellectualism is made more poignant by rampant spread of irrationalism promoted by the likes of the christian evangelical movements,

How can you attribute this so-called backwardness to christian evangelical movement when the countries we consider advanced actually practiced the same faith? Their faith was a springboard and a foundation upon which their society was founded and yet they are far developed than Africa.

Bash christianity for all I care, but you cannot quantifiably and rationally dump the failure of the African society on it. It just can't stick!

@topic,

RichyBlack's apt statment readily comes to mind again. 

"Hamas is a large establishment and it is very unfortunate that some undisciplined elements within Hamas" (in this case Khaled Meshaal) "have resorted to these kinds of measures."

@topic,

In response to this topic, i will mimic Richy's response on another thread.

Hamas The IDF is a large establishment and it is very unfortunate that some undisciplined elements within Hamas the IDF have resorted to these kinds of measures.

@RichyBlack,

B

ut I thought expansion is a fundamental aspect of mostly all religions. I mean Jews welcome new converts and Christians preach the gospel, all in a bid to expand. Ahmadinejad, is the equivalent of a Shia "born-again" and he wants to see the expansion of his religion. How is that a bad thing?

Your thoughts are noble and your contiubution relevant even though I think it is misguided. You have chosen to believe the best of Ahmadinajad even though facts show you are being naive. I'll explain.

How has Iran exported its influence recently? It's been by no other means than the sword. A case can be made that the US caused some instability in Iraq, but Iran surely manipulated that situation to further expand monotheism as they saw fit. We see Iran's influence in Lebanon and Gaza and in all cases, it involves bloodshed. Who wants such monotheistic expansion? Certainly not me.

You might also want to consider the doctrine of the Shiites that Ahmadinajad is a student of. These are the people who believe in the coming of the Seventh Imam which must be preceded by total world domination with their brand of Islam through the instrumentality of the sword. Is that the monotheistic expansion that Ahmad has in mind?

And just for the sake of your world view, please do not liken Christianity and Judaism to Islam. They are different in their beliefs and practice. Judaism does not proselyte even though Christianity does. Christianity believes in absolute peaceful propagation of its faith unlike Islam. Jesus said "whosoever wills, let him come". Jesus is the father of our faith and the Apostles who followed him showed us exactly how it is done. Islam on the other hand was propagated by the sword by Mohammed and his disciples.

So we see in Jesus and the Disciples the model of christian evangelism, while we see in Mohammed and his bunch of desert raiders their model of "monotheistic expansion". They are way different.

@Richyblack,

We're on the same page here.

Did I read that right?   You mean there can be a convergence of thought between Richyblack and Davidlylan?  Seems like there is hope for the Isreali-Palestinian conflict afterall.

@topic,

Yorubas have an adage that goes like this: "we still wipe our eyes to avoid tripping over even at a time we are weeping (men, its so difficult to translate yoruba to english). While I am ideologically opposed to what the govt in power in Tehran stands for, I am reasonable enough to know that this latest effort is commendable. While the actual intentions may not be very noble, the skill and advancement of Iran as a people is noteworthy.

That being said, one intent of the launch was fully expressed by the "expanding monotheism" phrase credited to Ahmadinajad. What exactly does that mean? Can anybody try to elucidate? Please keep in mind that communication is a very vital and intricate part of a war. Could he be refering to its use in the coming eventuality of a war with Isreal?

As Davidylan said, we cannot suspend our faculties even at a time like this when the rest of the non-western world should jubilate at the achievement of a comrade in non-westerness (if I may use those words).

@lagosboy,

By the way, have you heard the latest report about Hamas and their ever so compassionate disposition towards their people? They are so compassionate that they are seizing the food aid and blankets provided by UN.

Hamas police in Gaza seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents, a U.N. spokesman said Wednesday, threatening to fracture relations between the international agency that cares for most of Gaza's residents and the territory's militant rulers.

Hamas policemen forcibly broke into an aid warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 4,000 food parcels, said Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Gunness said the incident was "absolutely unacceptable."

He said police confiscated aid meant for 500 families after U.N. refused to voluntarily hand it over to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. Similar U.N. aid packages had already been distributed to 70,000 residents over the past two weeks.

Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas Minister of Social Affairs, did not deny the seizure of the aid Wednesday. He charged the U.N. was giving the aid to local groups with ties to Hamas opponents.

"UNRWA did not do what it said it would do, and began distributing its aid to groups that tie their activities to political activism," Kurd said.

Israeli officials have charged in the past that the militant group routinely confiscates aid meant for needy Gazans, but Gunness said this was the first time Hamas had seized its goods since taking control of the territory in 2007.

The U.N. agency provides food, education and health care services to more than half of Gaza's 1.4 million residents.

Hamas is under pressure to provide aid to Gazans, who are facing more hardship than ever since Israel's devastating three-week military offensive, which ended Jan. 18. The operation, aimed at halting rocket fire from the territory, killed hundreds of civilians and left thousands destitute after their homes were damaged or destroyed.

Tensions between Hamas and the U.N. could make it difficult for the international agency to continue providing desperately needed services.

Some international donors had expressed concern that funds meant to rebuild Gaza could fall into Hamas' hands, and the U.N. had been trying to assuage those concerns.

The United Nations is expected to take a leading role in rebuilding Gaza, because Israel and the international community will not deal with Hamas. [url]http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Middle-East\20090204\ML-Israel-Palestinians.xml&cat=world&subcat=middleeast&pageid=1[/url]

What say ye!

@lagosboy,

The same concept applies to the israeli right wing as well they have religious justification for their reign of terror.

You want to produce the charter of the religious wing you are refering to as proof of your position?

Alienitng hamas from any discussions is an excercise in futility!!!

I suppose it is the voices of people like you, Jimmy Carter and Richyblack that Hamas had in mind while writing this section of their charter: From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem.
Unfortunately, you have failed to realise that Hamas is ideologically belligerent to the talks you refer to as expressed again in their charter: The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

Hamas would not and can never be crushed it is high time u lot realised that. Hamas is a movement and not a building. Kill all their leaders new leaders would emerge.

Maybe you need to preach to Hamas that the wet dreams by their prophet Mohammed to kill all Jews is not going to be realised. this is Hamas' goal as expressed in their charter. Again, let the charter speak for itself:  the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)

It is worthy of note that the marching orders by the deranged prophet Mohammed was to kill ALL Jews. This means if Hamas, Hezbollah and co are successfull in wiping out the Jews in Isreal, they will turn their attention to the rest all over the world. The only problem Hamas and other muslims have with the holocaust is the fact that it wasn't muslims doing the killings.

As long as there is occupation there would always be Hamas. If israel were interested in peace why are they expanding their settlements in the west bank of which even the US had asked them to stop.

You might want to catalaogue how much land Isreal has given up just to have peace. You need a partner committed to peace before you can genuinely seek one. Isreal gave up land to Egypt and was in discussion to give up the Golan heights to Syria all for peace. They gave up Gaza to Egypt from whom they seized it and still there is no peace. How much of these land you refer to was occupied by Isreal when the murderous band of allah came to annihilate them in 1948? What about 1967?

There will be peace the moment Hamas renounce Mohammed and expunge those murderous intents that are clearly expressed in their charter. 

Question.  Do you support the setiments written in the charter?

@toshman,

David there are expert diplomats. toshman is no expert here. but there are expert diplomats that can secure something. there are ways to do this. this is 2009. this is not I939. forget the hitler analogy.

Here is what Hamas has to say about your position:
From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

You will find all the above in Hamas' Charter.

So what were you saying about expert diplomats again?

@pres-elect,

those who jumped ship from republican party to support hillary had similar political inclination like you. . . . political prostitutes. (forgive my use of the word prostitute, it has nothing to do with your moral rectitude. it is just a political statement.)

I know what I stand for and I am too sure that the Dems do not stand for it. They are the largest bunch of hypocrites ever assembled together in my opinion.  That being said, I never supported nor support the DNC at the expense of my conscience.  I am still waiting for you to find where you claimed I actively supported Hillary, 'cos it never happened.

some did it to undo obama (like kobojunkie et al) some did it to create chaos in the democratic primary . . . .and hence undo obama, some did it b/c they had no political ideology, they just vote for a woman whom they think is beautiful (as they went on to support sarah palin more than old john) . some did it b/c others were doing it.

@Bastage.  The statement in bold is the answer to my earlier question.  There were reports that many Dems jumped ship to vote for McCain which gave him the lead during the earliest stages of the RNC primaries. to counter that action and to weaken the DNC, the Republicans did the same thing.  the only difference is that the RNC did not hide their intentions and publicly called for their registered members to do just that.  So this was not about political prostitution, but it is about developing a strategy to defeat an opponent. It wasn't unlawful and so could not be challenged.

concerning ur support for hillary, was it not you and my kobojunkie (not sure if toshmann was among) who kept hammering on hillary? anyway i have to look for those threads. you, kobojunkie, negro-nations and toshmann have created an image of anti obamarism on nairaland. between you and kobojunkie, one has a hard time knowing who said what. but i remember very well,

I never hollered on Hillary.  You will do well to go review the thread where Hillary was discussed.  I would have personally prefered Hillary to Obama just as much as I would have preferred McCain to both of them. This does not mean I am a fan of McCain or Hillary, if just mean I am being pragmatic.

A

LL YOUR POLITICAL ANALYSIS DURING THE ELECTION WAS PROVED WRONG. YOU GUYS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM MAKING ANY ANALYSIS IN POLITICS

I don't know what you mean by political analysis, 'cos I do not think I engage in such. If you are refering to the outcome of the election, here is what I said: We finally agree on something. This election is too close to call, all the polls nothwithstanding. We were told of Kerry sweeping Bush away last election as well, and yet we know better. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=190071.msg3025647#msg3025647 
Here's another quote from me: In short, I can not put my money on this election. It is way too complicated to predict.

And here is what I had to say about Obama -
Finally. We agree on something. Regardless of policies, I really admire what he has achieved. No doubt he is a great man, and may he remain so. I do wish him well, and if he becomes the president after the elections, I will proudly call him My President. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=183071.msg2952478#msg2952478

ALL YOUR POLITICAL ANALYSIS DURING THE ELECTION WAS PROVED WRONG. YOU GUYS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM MAKING ANY ANALYSIS IN POLITICS

Can you just name a few and defend them with facts? all this dem-say, dem-say no cut it at all.

my greates joy? . . . obama won in Ohio where toshmann lives, won in minesota where u live and even a comedian was prefered to ur senator. lizard people were voted out in minnesota

And it must pain your heart that the most villified and conservative person of the lot, Michelle bachman retained her seat.  This is despite all the money the DNC poured into MN to unseat her.  Norm Coleman is a classic case of a political prostitute. he is neither here nor there and so his loss means nothing to me. Besides, Al Frnaken and the DNC are really stealing the election and it is not yet over. the case is in court. Are you following all the details?

by the way, on a lighter mood, i just looked at ur profile, nice pix  , great muscles

It's good to see you've got a sense of good taste even though I can not say that of your politics! 

By the way who are you? I suppose your username is new and you must have been on nairaland before.

@Bastage,

I kinda reckon you're gonna tell me I'm wrong there too./

This statement is right.  In other words, you guessed wrong again!!!

@Bastage,

There's a one word answer to that - "Bill".

Electorates in democracies tend to be creatures of habit - be they Republican or Democrats there is always a tendency to maintain a sort of status-quo. Hillary's political reputation was associated with her husband and was therefore seen as a known quantity.

Nope. I will wait to hear back from pres-elect before I provide the answer. Other contributions are welcome!

@pres-elect,

how different could 2 politicians be? yet tayo D and kobojunkie jumped from hillary to mccain in less than 24hrs. are these the type of pundits that we should listen to in nairaland?

I thought I'll repond to the above just to clarify some issues that you may have missed in the last election. Are you aware that at some stage in the DNC primaries some Republicans jumped ship to vote for Hillary? Why did they do that? Was it because they supported Hillary? Your answer to the above will give me an idea where you may have missed road!

@pres-elect,

Please help my memory here . Where or when have I ever acitvely supported Hillary? Where or when have I ever actively supported McCain? If anything, I have always said that McCain was the lesser of two evils when the choice was between him and Obama. I honestly wished McCain won, but that is only because I had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. McCain was never my choice in the field of Republican candidates.

You must have switched my identity with someone else and I fiind it difficult to respond to your posts because your premise is totally flawed. Maybe when you inject some facts into your posts, I will begin to take it serioously!

@Busy_body,

Don't let me stop you in your track babe, I'm outta here

It's too late already babe. Your showing up is enough to get me off track. How can I concentrate on naira and kobo when the aura of your feminine goodness permeates this forum? I may stutter and stammer, but I shall try to stay in topic once this palpitations in my heart subsides.

@doyin13,

LOL. . . .I still find this dissection of points somewhat of an acquired taste. My thoughts are too scrambled to be so neat and precise but I will try to reply you as succinctly as I can.

I do share your sentiments, even though it helps to keep me on points.

On the question you ask, ''. . . any place where economic conservatism has been freely practiced?'' Well, as at the present moment, there is no place where the sort of unfettered capitalism you propose is truly observed. ,  No reasonable man will vote for a party that offers him no succour in his time of need, leaving him to the vagaries of the market or the temperament of a wealthy benefactor.

So how can you adjudge the system a failure when it has not been truly practiced?  On the other hand, we've seen every other system of economics that are practiced globally in distress.  Whether it is in China or Rusia, everyone is groaning because they are practicing some form of bastardized free market system. No one can declare in all good conscience that this is the failure of the free market system. On your other point, I will rather be subject to the vagaries of the market than that of a politician. You can predict the direction of a free market system but not the soul of a politician. And the global problem now just suggests that even the Politician is subject to the market. When you tamper with it, it bites you back big time.

On your other point. . . .that politicians spend to achieve political goals. Well, tough. It is democracy. I wish politicians would aim for loftier, world changing goals, but unfortunately, that's a one way street to political suicide. A politician's only incentive is how many votes he can garner. And spending money on his constituents is one sure way to achieve his aim. Democrats choose to craft this parochial goal in social democratic garb, the republicans do so with nationalist tough talk.

So if a Politicians goal is self-preservation, why should I entrust my fate in his hands? In other words, I can kiss my bum goodbye if my welfare does not achieve his political end. I am therefore a pun in his hands that can be played however way suits the politicians. Now compare this to the market which alsways have one aim - profit. I can predict the direction the market is going just by the simple law of supply and demand.  This way, I can position myself to take advantage of the market. This is not the case when some politician try to manipulate it. And if this go out of balance, the market will always correct itself. I believe what is going on right now is the painful process of market correction and instead of our politicians to leave it alone, they'd rather try to fix it thereby creating more problems along the way.

I disagree that this artificial demand(I am assuming it is the subprime mess you are referring to) while being the root cause of the crisis is the primary source of the crisis as it stands today. It is the pyramid scheme of derivatives built on this shaky foundation of subprime loans by bankers, bankers who were hitherto, heroes of American capitalism, creators of wealth and of course masters of the universe.

Indeed the subprime mortgages are the faulty foundation upon which this economic downturn is built. Guess who mandated this subprime mortgages, the market? No the govt! And why did reasonable investors suspend their common sense and built this pyramid scheme of derivatives on the subprime loans? The answer againn is the same - the govt! The govt asured everyone that they will back up the subprime loans, and investors sensing a win-win situation invested in what they would have otherwise ran away from.  So we see that uneccesary participation in the markets by the govt is the alpha and omega of this whole wahala. Why no one is seeing this and acknowledging it as so still beats me.

@doyin13,

But what principles Tayo? What are these principles that tie you to the Republican party ?

You will notice from my earlier submission that I said the RNC is supposed to stand for conservatism. This represents my core values ahead of anything the Dems represent.

Conservatism, economic conservatism at least has been totally discredited. That it took this long for its adherents to see the light is what baffles me.

That is not true. Can you tell us when true economic conservatism has been freely practiced? Don't tell me the Bush administration practiced it 'cos it is not true. Bush practiced what I believe he refered to as compassionate conservatism. The truth is that the social empathy attached to practicing consetrvatism is what led to the problems experienced.

Governments simply cannot get smaller. It is impossible. Spending only goes one way, and that is up. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is where this spending should go. All that claptrap about letting the individual spend their tax dollars. . . .hogwash.

Whay can't govt get smaller or just stay at about the same size? Must Obama grow the govt as he is now doing with the so-called stimulus package? The truth is that politicians grow govt to achieve political goals. Tell me, what do you think the govt role should be in the society? Maybe when we clarify this, then we can determine if govt size can be kept within reasonable means or otherwise.

And it is this value system that prevented the Republican government from attacking the root cause of the economic crisis. It is a lot more acceptable to bailout banks than it is to bailout homeowners who took out bad loans. It would be unfair to the many who took out good loans they said. It is un-American bla bla bla. Well, 1.6 trillion dollars later, I bet they wished they had spent few hundred billions that might have staved off this disaster.

And what is the root cause of the wahala? Is it not the attempt to manipulate the market by creating artificial demand through legislation? That is not conservatism. Bush spent more money than any govt in the US hisory. So if throwing money at the problem will solve it, we would have been out of it by now. Are you aware that even Obama did not stick his neck out that the stimulus will reverse this downward spiral? They are just throwing more money at the problem for lack of better ideas and for political expediency.

It is no use enunciating principles that simply do not have any bearing in reality. ''Small government'' is a fallacy, and I was pleasantly shocked when prominent Fox newsanchor and ''low key voice for conservatism'' Britt Hume suggested as much. ''We keep harping on about small government'' he said, ''but from Reagan down to the Second Bush, our governments have gotten bigger not smaller. . .''

Reagan reduced the size of govt in real terms. He cut govt spending relative to the GDP but we are not seeing the same with subsequent govt. So what is the optimum size of govt in your opinion? Or are we going to keep growing govt until spending is equivalent to the GDP?

I can tell from your postings, you detest the idea of helping lazy black folks who live on handouts.

You see I don't. This is the same perception problem that the GOP has. I am convinced that such should be left in the private sector who can do much better. Do you know that conservatives give more of their money to the poor than socialists? I'm not sure my figures are right, but they should be very close. There was one year when Al Gore gave less than $1,000 to the poor and Cheney gave millions. But which of the two do you think people see as more compassionate? You see, govt gives money to achieve a political goal while a private citizen will do so out of real compasssion. Do you think Obama's is allocating about $8 billion to ACORN in this stimulus bill out of compassion or out of political expediency?

From your argument, you suggest blacks support the Democrats because of the handouts they are drip fed. But the thing is, the black folks who live on handouts are the least likely to vote. They are the least politically active. It is the tax paying black folks who provide active and not simply vocal support for the Democratic party. So it is a bit patronising to suggest blacks only support the Democrats because of the handouts they are given or promised by the Democratic party.

You get me wrong. It is not just what the Democrats are doing, but what is the prvalent perception of the GOP. It is that perception that is passed from one generation to another which eventually led to what we have today. Until Obama, it was the Republicans who have done more and put Blacks in position of power ahead of the DNC.

Going with David's comments, the Republican party has become a party of the anti-intellectual, gun toting, trilby hat wearing, nascar racing folks. What might have been a neurotic perception rife amongst the black community about the Republican party has become the reality. Whether it is a self fulfilling prophecy is besides the point. It is this reality that prevents still keeps the religiosity of the black community from finding a common ground with the more religious party in American politics. That is why, blacks vote en masse for Obama in California and reject Proposition whatever on the same token.

Which supports my point earlier. Blacks are really more conservative leaning and should in fact feel more at home with the RNC than the DNC.

It all boils down to a question of identity Tayo. Principles are thrown out the window as identity trumps all. Especially when those principles derive from fantasies.

While I agree with you that this is all about identity, I disagree with calling the principles fantasies. That others who should practice it do not does not deprive the principles of its practicalities. It just means that core values can be easily thrown out the window in the face of political expediency. I do believe that the RNC will have to conntend with the realities of the day where identity and style trumps substance. The question is how can they effectively combine both?

Let me just share a colleague's story with you. His son ran against another class mate to become the class captain. So while his son tried to come up with genuine things to do and convince his classmates that he was the right choice, his opponent just went around promising the electorate that he will buy everyone ice cream if they voted for him. Of course the guy who promised the ice cream won hands down. This is what I see happening in the larger society today. But what many do not know is that for a govt to give one person a dime, the same govt will first have to deprive another person of that money.

@Davidylan,

Tayo are the black dems simply there because of welfare cash? One look at the make up of the Republican party is enough to send a black person scurrying to the other side. Its almost completely a white religious club.

Of course not all the blacks are there because of welfare. Many are there and supporting the Dems 'cos of perception that they care more for the Blacks than the RNC. I say they cannot be further from the truth. It is the this lingering perception transfered from one generation to another that makes each Party what it is today.

As for the RNC, I think they have stuck to some principles without being tactful in its expression. Conservatism, which the RNC is supposed to stand for believes in the dignity of the individual without any apologies. It's just like your stance here on nairaland aganist Islam and its evil manifestations. Many here say you hate muslims which is simply not the case. You stand by a set of principles and expressing them atimes may seem mean to the other parties. Others have called you muslim hater for so long that they believe it. This is the same thing that has happened to the RNC over the years. They've not tried to explain themselves but believes that their principles and core values when understood, should expressly dispel any cloud of racism that may be hanging over them.

As a black man, I will feel more comfortable with a Republican than I will with a Democrat. The RNC's values are more in line with Africans than the DNC. Think about it.

@RichyBlack,

True, but there are many "values" blacks who would have loved to be part of the GOP but for the seeming monochromatic image of the party of Lincoln.

Is it not ironic that the Party of Lincoln is regarded as anti-black? The Democrats through FDR used a welfare system to corner the black votes, and they know it is the same welfare system that will keep them. Unfortunately for the Black community, they do not realise that the fact the Dems give them money does not mean they care about them. The Dems have only created a situation where the Blacks are dependent on them. This is why they keep growing the govt and giving just about enough to the Black community to survive and keep coming back for more.

@topic,

Quoting Warren Buffet from 4 Play's post above: "We do know over time the American machine works wonderfully and it will work wonderfully again."
So what is that American machine? I dare say it is the free market system devoid of unneccesary govt intervention and control.  A system where enterpreneuship is nutured and rewarded, where govt does not subsidise innefficiency and manipulate the basic laws of supply and demand.  These recently have not been the case and that is why we are in this mess.  And to think the same govt intervention that created the problem is the solution is to me, the height of absurdity.

@topic,

I am not an Economist and far be it from me to pose as one. I have always declared that my political stance and leanings are primarily conservative because conservatism is basically the use of common sense. Except the issue we are talking about borders on the spiritual, science and/or technology, I believe common sense will solve it. So what is the common sense approach to solving the problem at hand? I believe this is the key question that needs an answer.  Our approach shouldn't be based on philosophies and ideologies, but on pragmatism and reality.

I mentioned before that I believe the market will always take care of itself if left alone, and I still stand by that.  So to answer Ibime's query to Negro regarding a global approach to this crisis, my response is that the government should leave the markets alone.  Why? It is just common sense.  It appears Obama just realised this to be true as he said at a press conference yesterday that the crisis will and can only be solved by the people.  Just days ago, he declared govt as the solution.  But does he have the courage to follow through his conviction with action? I doubt it.  There's just too much "pork" in the bill and too many interested parties seeking to lay their hands on that money, not to stimulate the economy, but to further an agenda.

I believe it was Ibime who talked about govt buying bad assets with the hope it brings a return in the future! If such assets have potential for such, investors and enterprenuers will go for them big time.  Isn't that what investors do?  Buy cheap now while selling at a higher price in the near future! That the govt has to buy the assets reveal one of two things. Either the assets have not yet reached their bottom in the opinion of investors, or investors are not willing to take a risk knowing that the govt's actions suggests unfair competition and an undue interference by the govt.  Enterprenueship does not thrive in a situation where the govt picks winners and losers.

And let's not forget one thing.  Govts make decisions to gain political capital.  So I do agree with you guys that there will be a multiplier to that govt spending. The question however is if the multiplier will be experienced finanacially by the tax payers who will pay for the spending or by the politicians who stand to gain through succumbing to special interests!

Is that the coach wearing such a thick jacket in that hot weather?

2nd goal

Our guys are playing football o.

@Richy,

Exactly why I was disappointed in her appointment as Secretary of State; she's a hawk! Hopefully, the saner minds in Obama's inner circle (of which Hillary is an outsider) would prevail on Israel to stop its terrorist activities.

But I doubt she gave the orders regarding the strike in Pakistan!  Who will get the blame for that?

@karmaMod,

Sarcasm my dear Tayo.  
What I AM surprised at is how slow the "blacklash" is towards Michelle for wearing a WHITE dress for inauguration " "

We will be hearing a lot of silly things during this administration.  If anything, I think the distinction between Whites and Blacks will be more elevated.  The entitlement mentality undergirded by the victim mentality cannot be done away with just by the election of a Black American President.

@topic,

It is worthy of note that Obama's doctrine is not different from Bush's regarding this Isreal-Palestinian conflict.  Here is what Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had to say today: In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US supported "Israel's right to self-defence".

"The rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas (in Israel) cannot go unanswered," she said in her first news conference at the State Department http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm

Can anyone spot the difference between this response and the ones that came from the Bush administration?