Comments about ‘Letter: Obama shows allegiance to the far left’

Unfortunately, people believe what they want to believe. It's a truth that is irrefutable in the context of today's political world. As evident in the daily discourse, letting facts get in the way of "belief" is something most people avoid. Calling Obama a "left-wing socialist" does not hold up in view of the realities evident to all who take the time to pay attention. It only verifies that the crazies have cast the real world aside for their alternate universe.

To "LDS Liberal" again, you are wrong. The Satellite Television Extension Act of 2010 requires that if a satelite company wanted to carry 1 local station, they had to carry all of them. It wasn't a matter of notification for emergency boradcasts since emergency broadcasts are on all local stations simultaneously.

The Waxman-Markey Act information is widely available, the bill was discussed in the NY Times article "House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change". Unfortunately we are not dependant on Bonneville Power here, that is a Washington State thing.

The body repair shops, especially the dealerships, like Larry H. Miller. This is according to my neighbor who runs a salvage yard and sells most of his parts to dealerships and automotive repair shops. Again, you are wrong, the shop buys the parts and charges you for the part PLUS overhead. And here you claim to even have any idea of running a business.

But, I guess the bottom line is that you agree with me that the government has mandated many new regulations that have added to the cost of doing business. Again, you agree with me that the government has slowed business growth through mandates.

All that I ask is that religious organizations be given the absolute, un-proscribed right to determine for whom they will or won't perform marriage ceremonies (read: I don't want the government telling the LDS church that they have to perform same-sex marriages in their temples or chapels, and I would want other religious organizations to be free from similar government mandates); beyond that, I really don't care what any other consenting adults do with regard to formalizing their familial relationships (I figure that's their business, and not mine).

Bottom line folks as long as Red Shirt..is convinced that business..the economy..and profits are of primary importance in America He/She will always find some way to find fault with any effort to civilize and or imporve society.

Civilization does come at a cost for tyranny, and the tyranny of modern capital is unquestioned...by anyone concerned with the fate of humanity.

homebrew: "Religion will die out just like Belief in Zeus, and other gods in the past. Werewolves, and vampires and witches. Lions and tigers and bears."

Do you mean lions and tigers and bears are myths, too? Oh my. They seem so corporeal at the zoo. Dang, another misconception bites the dust.

RedShirt and others on regulatory costs:
The fact that a regulation increases costs of production does not in itself render the regulation a bad thing. One function of regulation is to internalize externalized costs. In the particulate air pollution example in my OP, the medical bills and cleaning costs are externalized-- they are borne by people who did not consume the product whose production produced the pollution. In effect, the victims are subsidizing the consumers of the product because the consumer does not pay the full cost of the product, the victims pay part of it. Regulations, such as those for emissions controls, internalize the costs. If the producer passes the cost on to the consumer, fine, then the consumer bears the full cost of the product and can make economically rational decisions in the free marketplace. That benefits us all. [continued...]

RedShirt and others on regulatory costs (continued):

Economic theory says that regulation CAN be good and corrective for market failure. That said, what probably irks you is inefficient regulation. In my OP, I noted that regulation can be good if cost:benefit

Your moral values are totally subjective. Religion doesn't belong in politics because there's a good chance it's entirely made up. And, if you stand far enough out in the right, it leaves a lot of ground that is, from your perspective, extreme left.

With respect, I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi, in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It was wonderful. It gave social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important aspect of our shared lives. As the rabbi himself noted, he’d married many couples before, but never one that already felt as married as we clearly were.

People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. And their religions may carry out different rites, and may set their own conditions for those rites. That's about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge that we may all never agree, nor do we have to.

Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship legally, civilly, so that we are not legal strangers to one another.

We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to have for dinner and decisions about life and death.

Heterosexual couples get to protect their most important relationship with a single marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.

(continued, continued):

Dagnabbit. A 199 word exegesis on regulation, externalities, increasing marginal costs, decreasing marginal benefits, and economic inefficiency lost in the vapor because the DesNews software apparently interpreted a "less than" sign as HTML code and truncated my post. It's too difficult to recreate it again; suffice it to say that regulation is not necessarily a bad thing simply because it raises consumer costs, and posts that whine about increased costs without taking benefits into account suffer from shallow analysis. I'll grant that poorly designed regulation can be economically inefficient and may not solve the problems they were intended to solve in the best way, but the complaint that "regulation increases costs" doesn't cut it.

My 4th and final post.

A very, very few of these comments are on the subject of Obama's allegiance to the Far Left.
I appreciate those comments that addressed this issue and gave supportive information.
Thank you.

Here we go again. The "righteous" vote Republican and the "Wicked" vote Democratic. Wall Street left unregulated good. Obama and the regulators bad. Good grief!

To "Lagomorph" unfortunately reality has shown that we are beyond the theoretical beneficial stages of regulations. As the DN article "U.S must act before being pushed off the fiscal cliff" published a couple of days ago shows that the GDP had recovered by March 2009, and since close to the end of 2010, the GDP has been dropping.

If regulations were a benefit, should the GDP be increasing?

Nobody is saying eliminate all regulations, but, as many CEO's and businessmen have pointed out, the regulations today would prevent them from repeating what they have accomplished.

Again, we are beyond the point where regulations are providing any benefit, they are now sucking life out of business.

The good news is there is a clear and distinct choice in this election between a Far left Marxist Socialist with zero business experience OR a governor / business man / president of 2002 Salt Lake Olympics and core capitalist. Those of you who think socialism is cool - take a look (a long hard look) at Europe today. Take a look at Greece for the best and most recent example of the complete failure of socialism. The nation is out of money - the entitlement well is dried up and people who were promised so much in entitlements are being left with nothing. From a pure economic perspective this sad state was completely predictable and America will find itself in the same ugly place in 4 years or less under Obama. No mystery here folks. The problem lies in the ignorance of too many of the electorate - especially the young college age electorate and their gullible complete ignorance of Obama and his policies. For example how many know that Obama has accumulated more debt (5.5 trillion) in the past 3 years than any previous president. Too many are like Alfred E Newman of Mad Magazine - "what, me worry?".

@ patriot 12:51 p.m. May 24, 2012

"The problem lies in the ignorance of too many of the electorate - especially the young college age electorate and their gullible complete ignorance of Obama and his policies."

What about, per the Serj Tankian song *the unthinking majority*, here in Zion who blindly follow Willard? You can apply all resume padding rationale & it still comes down to a "demographic" reason.

BO & MR both have Ivy league degrees like their 3 predecessors. Other than Clinton, it would be a major reach to call the last 24 yrs mediocre.

Only to someone on the extreme far, far right of the political spectrum would President Obama seem to 'show[s] allegiance to the far left’. To those of us who are in the middle of the political spectrum, he is clearly center-left. The "far left" is well to the left of him.

re: Furry1993 6:57 p.m. May 24, 2012

To a Libertarian such as myself, There is no doubt the current CiC's place on the political spectrum is as Furry states.

To me, there is little (policy) difference between Obama and Romney. They are both getting Very Large Crude Carriers full of cash from Wall St. Any of you who think things will change w/ Mitt as Potus are naive, delusional, or both.