A lot of this article is not really news to anyone who pays attention, but the fact that it was penned by a GOP staffer of 30 years. Thirty years.
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire (modern - the Lincoln thing is pretty worn out, especially in light of all their recent efforts to disenfranchise minorities and bigotry towards Obama) party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
I think the article also does a decent job of pointing out the Dems complete incompetence in several cases.
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?
Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is fond of saying, "we won't raise anyone's taxes," as if the take-home pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?
Televangelists have long espoused the health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim it gospel. If you are wealthy, it is a sign of God's favor. If not, too bad! But don't forget to tithe in any case. This rationale may explain why some economically downscale whites defend the prerogatives of billionaires.
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
Wow. There's a lot of scary shit from the mouths of people who help run our country. I guess I'll end up reading the entire thing. Oh also, damn Republicans, you crazy!
I hope there's more to that than this (I expect there is nonetheless).
These kinds of wording and small nuances are heavily influential and yes, it's been known for awhile, didn't Jon Stewart even hint on these changes of terminology awhile back?
Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
I bet he's a communist agent provocateur who is completly biased and unfair towards the right.
/sarcasm
The part about language is SO true and something that always gets disregarded. People act like language per se is neutral and can't be used to further someone's goals.
God reading articles like these make me pissed off and completely depressed at the same time. I live in a mormon area so I'm surrounded by mouth-breathers who ignore logic and rationality and regurgitate the same kind of nonsense that the author described in that article.
I'm sure we are far past the point where we have become a complete joke in the eyes of the international community, and although I know that there are so many good people in this country, the amount of sheer idiocy, corruption, and greed makes me wish that I didn't have to associate myself with it.
I used to think that once all of the "older generation" died off with their old ideas in about 40 years we'd be left with a more enlightened type of society. With so many people still being indoctrinated, I'm starting to think that this may just be a naive assumption by myself. Everything sucks.
Anyway, as expected, barely any worthy information that anyone who has been reading all the news coming out of Washington doesn't know or have an inkling about.
If the Democrats acted more like Anthony Weiner (politically), we wouldn't be in this mess. Obama needed to go on TV 3 days a week to lay everything out in the open. He should've told the public exactly what he was doing, exactly what the Republicans in the House were doing, and exactly how his plans could have worked, and how the Republicans care nothing about the general welfare of the American people. He needed to fucking show some spine and fight fire with fire, because the public is stupid like that.
If the Democratic party had not conceded so much, or been so ineffective at their policy making in 2009, the shit in 2010 could have been avoided and we wouldn't have idiots in the House playing "bulldoze the country". I'm so sick and tired of both parties. If the Democrats actually play the game, maybe more Independents would lean their way, especially after the Republican clowns showed their true ignorance and bigotry.
in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies
Holy shit. Never thought about gerrymandering that way.
This is both awesome and disgusting at the same time. Free talking points combined with skewed election results...will definitely be watching for more stuff like this in the future.
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
Even though I am fairly liberal myself, I find that characterization a bit extreme. The republican party was most definitely not "founded" on such ideals: it is Mr Lincolns party after all. It was not until the 20th century that the "radical" republicans exchanged roles with the democrats.
The reality is that the republican party is not some secret conspiracy out to support the billionaires at the expense of the people: it is a regional populist party, and they do a very good job at representing the views of their constituents(even if some of those views may be, in my opinion, misguided).
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
Even though I am fairly liberal myself, I find that characterization a bit extreme. The republican party was most definitely not "founded" on such ideals: it is Mr Lincolns party after all. It was not until the 20th century that the "radical" republicans exchanged roles with the democrats.
The reality is that the republican party is not some secret conspiracy out to support the billionaires at the expense of the people: it is a regional populist party, and they do a very good job at representing the views of their constituents(even if some of those views may be, in my opinion, misguided).
The position of political parties a hundred years ago is fairly irrelevant imo. The fact of the matter is that right now we have a party which blatantly ignores science, spouts religious scripture in official state government meetings, and defends the interests of the super wealthy while simultaneously demonizing the poor. I mean seriously, we have congressmen from NC banging locks together, (as a metaphor for gay marriage) and citing bible verses as supporting arguments for state legislature.
I think calling them fucking crazy isn't too much of a stretch.
Well anyone who isn't blind, even a capitalist or such, knows that the republicans are the most devious and calculating manipulators there are.
Christ haven't you people ever watched Fox News? It's propaganda for crying out loud, it fills all the merits.
I say this objectively, nothing I've said is based on prejudice but rather empiric facts that any normal person can track down and prove to be correct.
This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
EDIT: For the record, yes, I understand that this guy is a "republican." However, he clearly comes from the David Brooks wing of the republican party -- the liberal types who were dreamily jerking off to Obama speeches during the 2008 campaign.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
Eh? The article doesn't bemoan the "lack of civility" in Washington so far as I read, and I actually did just read the entire thing right now.
What I took from the article is that Republicans are better tactically than Democrats, and he delineated some of the tactics used. Not exactly "moral" so to speak, but not illegal either so it's fair game if your opposition is going to be as stupid as the Democrats appear to be in this article.
So yea... Republicans are smart bastards at getting votes, Democrats are electorally ignorant in comparison. That's how I would summarize this article.
Most interesting was the quote of President Eisenhower. I would never expect it coming out of a Republican these days, though to be fair I am no student of how the party has shifted in the past 50 years.
President Eisenhower Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
So why is the Democratic Party so ineffective? They must be doing something right, it wasn't long ago that they controlled the President and Congress, and there was a real chance that they would get the Supreme Court. But overall I agree that they never seem to be able to harness the same fire that the Republicans seem to marshal so easily. I can't believe that they are not capable or talented, is there some reason that they always pull their punches?
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed...[into] the gospel of wealth and corruption.
That is an absurdly simplistic and ignorant claim. Many many Christians would not take their religion to be supportive of wealth and corruption. The opinion of televangelists and whoever else you claim to be mending Christianity to their own ends does not define Christianity to the majority of its followers. Your statement hints at an assumption that Christians are sheep, just like the economically disadvantaged whites who the staffer assumes (emphasis on assumes) to be influenced by televangelists. Anyone with a sliver of knowledge about the religion knows that it can't be simplified into something that is corrupt.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
Eh? The article doesn't bemoan the "lack of civility" in Washington so far as I read, and I actually did just read the entire thing right now.
What I took from the article is that Republicans are better tactically than Democrats, and he delineated some of the tactics used. Not exactly "moral" so to speak, but not illegal either so it's fair game if your opposition is going to be as stupid as the Democrats appear to be in this article.
So yea... Republicans are smart bastards at getting votes, Democrats are electorally ignorant in comparison. That's how I would summarize this article.
The author discusses the lack of civility as one of his points about republican tactics in the article, particularly where he's discussing the use of the filibuster.
I disagree with this contention that republicans are "smarter" than democrats tactically/politically, which is why republicans are winning. The problem with democrats is that their policies are not in line with what the American people want. Take Obamacare, for example. At no point did the American people want Obamacare as it was passed, yet that's what we got. It's been an unpopular piece of legislation since its inception. We are at a point where democrats and republicans are presenting significantly different policy ideas for moving forward in this country. I'd posit to you that the American people don't like what Obama and the democrats are selling right now, which is why the polls show that they're on the ropes.
On September 08 2011 07:20 EtherealDeath wrote: Most interesting was the quote of President Eisenhower. I would never expect it coming out of a Republican these days, though to be fair I am no student of how the party has shifted in the past 50 years.
President Eisenhower Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
This quote has been making the rounds on blogs and facebooks recently, and I find its use rather disingenuous. Basically no one (other than Ron Paul and maybe a few other fringe republicans) are advocating the abolition (ie elimination) of social security, medicare, and welfare. What a lot of republicans (not all, mind you) are advocating is reform of those programs to put them on sounder fiscal footing. Of course, it's very convenient (and apparently easy) for democrats to misrepresent the "reform" of these programs as "abolition." (see Paul Ryan).
On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote: This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
The tele-evangelists and megachurches are a joke. Don't take them seriously or consider them in any way related to real Christianity. Also...the guy was using it as a parallel, he wasn't actually commenting on the actual megachurches.
now I'm not a republican but I have to say "rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country." is kind of misinformation Abraham Lincoln was a Republican so it is rather recently that the level of insanity has skyrocketed
I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed...[into] the gospel of wealth and corruption.
That is an absurdly simplistic and ignorant claim. Many many Christians would not take their religion to be supportive of wealth and corruption. The opinion of televangelists and whoever else you claim to be mending Christianity to their own ends does not define Christianity to the majority of its followers. Your statement hints at an assumption that Christians are sheep, just like the economically disadvantaged whites who the staffer assumes (emphasis on assumes) to be influenced by televangelists. Anyone with a sliver of knowledge about the religion knows that it can't be simplified into something that is corrupt.
Do you feel the same way about the 9-11 hijackers and Islam?
On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote: This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
The tele-evangelists and megachurches are a joke. Don't take them seriously or consider them in any way related to real Christianity. Also...the guy was using it as a parallel, he wasn't actually commenting on the actual megachurches.
See it's easy to dismiss those groups as "not real" or whatnot, but you have to realize just how many people are involved in organizations like this. They may not be "real christians" in your book, but they vote, and in record numbers.
What strikes me as odd is that there are actually people, who are assumingly not upper-elite class, defending the republic party.
It only takes a sliver of insight to be able to see that this is the party of the wealthy. Since politics is run by money, they do everything to get in power and look after the interests of their financial backers. So, how are a bunch of middle and lower class people on forums defending these people? How do you justify destroying your own financial security, TL Republicans? Based on ideals thinking that if you'd worked harder, you'd have been part of the upper class of society?
On September 08 2011 07:55 HoldenR wrote: What strikes me as odd is that there are actually people, who are assumingly not upper-elite class, defending the republic party.
It only takes a sliver of insight to be able to see that this is the party of the wealthy. Since politics is run by money, they do everything to get in power and look after the interests of their financial backers. So, how are a bunch of middle and lower class people on forums defending these people? How do you justify destroying your own financial security, TL Republicans? Based on ideals thinking that if you'd worked harder, you'd have been part of the upper class of society?
MURRKAN DREAM BRO FOK YER IF I WORK REAL HARD AT MY DADS CAR WASH ILL BE RISH TOO!
Naw seriously, you wont get anything but pretentious 18 year old who haven't actually done anything yet tell you how the world works, as an answer to your question. It's better to walk away at this point man. dont drag yourself through the mud with these kdis
On September 08 2011 07:44 Bill Murray wrote: "WHERE ARE THE JOBS, STEVE"
steve jobs only took 1 dollar a year away from apple as his pay(if you're not counting his shit ton of stock in apple which is taxed at a different rate depending on how he uses it)
At no point did the American people want Obamacare as it was passed, yet that's what we got.
Source please?
Most of the content of your posts, xDaunt, is as or even more unsubstantiated as you claim the article in the OP is.
Let me try to find a source but i believe a specific poll pointed out that the words obamacare w.e on the national level was put down by the majority, but then if you ask people about individual things all inside of that bill they would overwhelming agree with it. Which goes with misinformation campaign political people use, just like the change from the words global warming to climate change, just due to different wording people feared it less and took it as less of an issue. Making the point people believe the lies lawmakers make up about something in order to brand it shit even if it's a good thing for many many people.
The only mystery to me is how the Democratic party has managed to survive this long. In African democracies, almost all political factions operate like the Republicans: they are ruthless, corrupt to the core, and single-minded in their pursuit of power at any cost.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
those republicans hate sciience. They only use horse drawn buggys and never use computers or medicine.
democrats are pro science. Their belief lets them give out loans to failures of green startups that are politically connected and let huge companies like ge pay no taxes.
At no point did the American people want Obamacare as it was passed, yet that's what we got.
Source please?
Most of the content of your posts, xDaunt, is as or even more unsubstantiated as you claim the article in the OP is.
Rule 1 of politics: Polls only matter if they are in your favor. If Americans overwhelmingly don't want cuts to Medicare\caid\SS, Republicans just re-frame the issues as one of "Wasteful spending" - which gets positive polling results, of course.
On September 08 2011 07:37 Arrian wrote: No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush.
#2: The increase in debt is the stimulus package. Any economist worth his salt can explain to you why we need stimulus packages, and why they are not bad debt.
Are republicans creating more green jobs?
Spark notes to US economy political finger pointing:
There is nothing that any politician can do to bring the manufacturing sector back to the united states. It's been attempted many times and we're still unsuccessfully pouring money down that toilet. There will be no manufacturing in the united states for as long as China uses what essentially is slave labor.
The united states operates a healthy service economy, but the downside to such is that it's impossible for any politician to snap fingers and create demand for a service without digging holes in the ground and filling them back up.
The only way to create demand is to spend money on education and research. If we train more scientists and engineers and have them invent new products, we'll create new demand and new jobs. Now guess which party contributes the most to education. (disclaimer: both parties do contribute well enough to research in general, but not enough to energy research.)
imo the parties are not the problem... it the people behind each party that the problem... but i guess you can't expect "role modal" politicians to led their people without gaining some personal benefit...
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Surely you're not talking about medicare or medicaid, which have been outrageously successful at reducing poverty among elderly citizens and the chronically ill? What are these unsuccessful programs you are referencing?
No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
It's just strange to see people frame taxes as a question of liberty when the patriot act has been reauthorized and cemented, Obama continues to torture and kidnap people, and the government seeks ever more authority to spy on it's own citizens.
Ugh, as a Republican I've felt like I've become an independant by the very nature of hardcore Republican tactics pushing me away. My brother (A republican politician) told me to vote for Obama because he seemed to be level headed. Edit: Nevermind, ha. I'm amazed how fast this thread devolved into a shitstorm. There are inherant problems with both Republicans and Democrats and the first step to solving any of that is respecting both sides.
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
Even though I am fairly liberal myself, I find that characterization a bit extreme. The republican party was most definitely not "founded" on such ideals: it is Mr Lincolns party after all. It was not until the 20th century that the "radical" republicans exchanged roles with the democrats.
The reality is that the republican party is not some secret conspiracy out to support the billionaires at the expense of the people: it is a regional populist party, and they do a very good job at representing the views of their constituents(even if some of those views may be, in my opinion, misguided).
The position of political parties a hundred years ago is fairly irrelevant imo. The fact of the matter is that right now we have a party which blatantly ignores science, spouts religious scripture in official state government meetings, and defends the interests of the super wealthy while simultaneously demonizing the poor. I mean seriously, we have congressmen from NC banging locks together, (as a metaphor for gay marriage) and citing bible verses as supporting arguments for state legislature.
I think calling them fucking crazy isn't too much of a stretch.
I agree that it is irrelevant for the present situation, but the OP stated "founded," so I felt that his statement should be clarified.
I disagree that the republicans are insane, in my opinion they are pragmatists, doing what a representative politician should do: represent the opinions of their constituents. I work as an engineer at a factory in the countryside, and as such I interact often with people who would be considered to be pretty typical of the republican base.
The vast majority are evangelical christian, poorly educated, and lower middle class-working poor. The opinions they espouse are pretty-much identical to those that my rather ridiculous, tea-party, local representative espouses.
When you examine many of their opinions, they are seemingly irrational: why would the working poor oppose a health care plan that helps them more then anyone else, or a support a tax break on the rich? I do not feel the answer lies with some sort of fox-news-billionaire conspiracy, but rather with something much more simple: fear.
They are afraid of losing their jobs and their way of life. They have gotten the short end of the stick from scientific advancement: their jobs were replaced with automation, and they are faced with decreasing social mobility, as the economy becomes more technology oriented.
The past world, whether it ever existed or not, of social mobility for a person with just a high school diploma is looked on with rose colored glasses. This memory was the ideal that you could work hard and make it rich in the world, even with little education.
In the midst of this climate you have democrats who espouse social views that do not align with those of the highly traditionalist rural poor/middle class, and who present economic plans, which on the surface appear to not be in line with their ideal of work-reward. The republicans meanwhile, do an excellent job of representing the social values of the rural population, while also espousing the economic ideal that they so crave: work hard and get rewarded.
I do agree with the sentiment made in the article quoted by the OP that the Democrats have udderly failed to communicate. You can't speak like a Harvard professor, and expect people with only a GED or a barely earned high school diploma from a failed school to understand what you mean or why. You need someone like Bill Clinton, who can summarize complex policy issues in simple terms, like his famous "Don't ask, don't tell," reform.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
None of this information is new. These are common political tactics and ploys. I imagine that democrats have similar things going on.
Word's like "obamacare" and "the patriot act" are similar to "the new deal" or "no child left behind". Naming something has a powerful way of persuading uninformed citizens. Obama ran on a very popular hispanic saying "Si se puede". He knows the power of rhetoric as do politicians of both partys.
Politicians are always playing rhetorical games in order to garner votes and win elections. The only surprising thing here is that these strategies were actively discussed.
As far as his economics statement, saying things like "X company was profitable so why aren't they hiring people" is an obvious economic fallacy. Corporations are driven by profits. If hiring someone lowers their profit margin, then why would they do it?
And finally, his analysis of the small "wealth" christianity movement is correct. The republicans are known for supporting churches to be non-profit organizations even in situations where it's obvious that they are in it for more. Fortunately, this is a very small minority of christians and is unlikely to ever become mainstream.
Overall, this article doesn't really provide any insight beyond what was already known or speculated to be known. The only thing that surprised me was the apparent openness about the political strategy.
After reading the whole article, he just appears to be disenchanted with the republican party and maybe the whole political system as a whole, but it seems to me that he must have been very naive to begin with.
The entire system is based around getting voters and finding a majority of voters in order to win an election. Notice how republicans have backed off the gay marriage issue lately? They are realizing that a significant number of potential republicans are turned away by that issue. By not talking about it, they don't have to confront potential voters with an issue that would immediately turn them away.
Don't think democrats are innocent either. Democrats know exactly how to appeal to hispanic and latino voters in this country. By using words such as "union", "si se puede", and etc they are capturing a group of voters that in the end are probably idealistically closer to the republican party.
All in all, this is why I will vote for Ron Paul. The only candidate that does not engage in this political discourse and is truly the most honest politician in all of Washington. He is running as a republican in hopes of rebranding the party to become more libertarian leaning and the tea party is a direct result of his influence (the real tea party, not this neo con tea party nonsense).
On September 08 2011 08:29 McFeser wrote: Ugh, as a Republican I've felt like I've become an independant by the very nature of hardcore Republican tactics pushing me away. My brother (A republican politician) told me to vote for Obama because he seemed to be level headed. Edit: Nevermind, ha. I'm amazed how fast this thread devolved into a shitstorm. There are inherant problems with both Republicans and Democrats and the first step to solving any of that is respecting both sides.
Amen to this!
What is it with political threads on TL? The only one that seems remotely civil is the Rep Nominations thread. I would posit that it is pretty clear there are issues on all sides here and that railing against the opposition gains nothing.
Finally, to the OP. Please can you reword your "news" item so that it isn't blatantly obvious that despise the GOP. At least try to show some semblance of balance. If you want a decent discussion, put out a decent OP.
The polling data stretches back all the way to when the bill was signed into law.
And for the record, you shouldn't even need to look at a poll to know that the bill was incredibly unpopular when it was developed and passed. Just look at what happened at all of those town hall meetings during the summer before the bill was passed. Also look at how difficult it was for democrats to pass the bill DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A FILLIBUSTER-PROOF SENATE MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Obamacare, more than anything else, led to the huge GOP gains in 2010.
in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies
Holy shit. Never thought about gerrymandering that way.
This is both awesome and disgusting at the same time. Free talking points combined with skewed election results...will definitely be watching for more stuff like this in the future.
Texas passed a similar law requiring a photo ID to vote, and exempted people above a certain age (I believe 70?) from having to follow it - it should surprise nobody that, over the last decade the 65+ demographic has swung hard GOP. They did this under the guise of stopping voter fraud, even though Perry's own independent panel found that the main source of the extremely small amount of actual voter fraud in Texas had been mail in ballots, but the law did not do anything to restrict this form of voting (surprise: most mail in ballots are for Republicans). I'm not sure if Texas has tried to screw around with DMV hours of operation or not.
Last summer New Hampshire tried to make it more difficult for college students to get state residency and be able to vote. (don't know if this succeeded)
Seems like Republicans aren't confident in their ability to continue selling their message in the mid-long term future -- unsurprising since people under the age of 30 overwhelmingly reject social conservatism, even those with more libertarian economic views.
On September 08 2011 07:12 Krehlmar wrote: Well anyone who isn't blind, even a capitalist or such, knows that the republicans are the most devious and calculating manipulators there are.
Christ haven't you people ever watched Fox News? It's propaganda for crying out loud, it fills all the merits.
I say this objectively, nothing I've said is based on prejudice but rather empiric facts that any normal person can track down and prove to be correct.
Not that I am against what you've just said but....you just said that your statement was entirely objective and isn't based on prejudice. Everyone's opinions are prejudice no matter how hard you try. To say otherwise is sort of foolish. I agree that Fox News is full of propaganda but it isn't all bad or biased (alot of it is). Also, trying to find empirical facts about peoples intentions ( IE "the republicans") is paradoxical (even though, in a "perfect" world, it shouldn't be.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk.
Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it.
im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
I would have to add that the republican party is the worst possible custodian of money due to their tendency of getting involved in all kinds of wars, needlessly increasing the defense budget, and just generally throwing money out of the window as shown by the recent tea party escapades. Republicans support small government in name only. (Except for the tea party. Those guys do support small government.)
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
Republicans support small government in name only. (Except for the tea party. Those guys do support small government.)
This is exactly right. It's also the reason why Republican politicians got hammered in 2006 and 2008, and the reason why tea party Republicans have been replacing "establishment" Republicans.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker.
That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker.
That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
I would have to add that the republican party is the worst possible custodian of money due to their tendency of getting involved in all kinds of wars, needlessly increasing the defense budget, and just generally throwing money out of the window as shown by the recent tea party escapades. Republicans support small government in name only. (Except for the tea party. Those guys do support small government.)
Exactly, like i said BOTH parties are/have been terrible, I only currently am supporting the Republican party just as long as they stick to the basics, and i Totally agree with you about the war thing, way too much money is spent on wars that aren't necessary. Don't get me wrong, I got no problem with war but It's too expensive these days to go to war just for the hell of it.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker.
That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology.
No i'm not wrong. OFC average productiveness is greater in the US, but in THIS particular case its not.
You guys are using two different words.
As individuals chinese might be more efficient, but thanks to the great capital that the united states has accumulated, workers in the US are more productive in terms of real dollars. Given the same resources, it is possible the chinese would be more productive, but that is very hard to measure.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker.
That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology.
The polling data stretches back all the way to when the bill was signed into law.
And for the record, you shouldn't even need to look at a poll to know that the bill was incredibly unpopular when it was developed and passed. Just look at what happened at all of those town hall meetings during the summer before the bill was passed. Also look at how difficult it was for democrats to pass the bill DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A FILLIBUSTER-PROOF SENATE MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Obamacare, more than anything else, led to the huge GOP gains in 2010.
2: Favorable and unfavorable do not reveal spectrum; people might not like the law because they think it goes too far...or because it doesn't go far enough. A better breakdown might cover both other categories as well.
Neutral polling organizations largely agree with Rasmussen's trend, that most people don't like Obamacare. However, once broken down into "too little"/"ok"/"too much"/"repeal", it very slightly favors the "too little"/"ok", within a margin of error. This is a couple months old, so it might have changed recently.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment.
Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population.
On September 08 2011 08:43 darmousseh wrote: None of this information is new. These are common political tactics and ploys. I imagine that democrats have similar things going on.
Word's like "obamacare" and "the patriot act" are similar to "the new deal" or "no child left behind". Naming something has a powerful way of persuading uninformed citizens. Obama ran on a very popular hispanic saying "Si se puede". He knows the power of rhetoric as do politicians of both partys.
Politicians are always playing rhetorical games in order to garner votes and win elections. The only surprising thing here is that these strategies were actively discussed.
As far as his economics statement, saying things like "X company was profitable so why aren't they hiring people" is an obvious economic fallacy. Corporations are driven by profits. If hiring someone lowers their profit margin, then why would they do it?
And finally, his analysis of the small "wealth" christianity movement is correct. The republicans are known for supporting churches to be non-profit organizations even in situations where it's obvious that they are in it for more. Fortunately, this is a very small minority of christians and is unlikely to ever become mainstream.
Overall, this article doesn't really provide any insight beyond what was already known or speculated to be known. The only thing that surprised me was the apparent openness about the political strategy.
After reading the whole article, he just appears to be disenchanted with the republican party and maybe the whole political system as a whole, but it seems to me that he must have been very naive to begin with.
The entire system is based around getting voters and finding a majority of voters in order to win an election. Notice how republicans have backed off the gay marriage issue lately? They are realizing that a significant number of potential republicans are turned away by that issue. By not talking about it, they don't have to confront potential voters with an issue that would immediately turn them away.
Don't think democrats are innocent either. Democrats know exactly how to appeal to hispanic and latino voters in this country. By using words such as "union", "si se puede", and etc they are capturing a group of voters that in the end are probably idealistically closer to the republican party.
All in all, this is why I will vote for Ron Paul. The only candidate that does not engage in this political discourse and is truly the most honest politician in all of Washington. He is running as a republican in hopes of rebranding the party to become more libertarian leaning and the tea party is a direct result of his influence (the real tea party, not this neo con tea party nonsense).
I largely agree with this post.
Also just look at the last three decades of elections: Reagan defeats Carter Reagan defeats Mondale Bush defeats Dukakis Clinton defeats Bush Clinton defeats Dole Bush Jr defeats Gore Bush Jr defeats Kerry Obama defeats McCain (yes I know, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and you can debate Florida. Still the other 7 were reasonably decisive)
In each case the candidate who had better branding and a better emotional appeal to voters won. Reagan and Clinton in particular understood this and had the qualities to win people over on a personal level, and their re-elections were never seriously in doubt. Yes, I think you can argue that Obama had this magical quality during his 2008 campaign and has since failed to connect with people. If the 2012 election is close, that might have been something that could have made a difference at the margins.
Also as darmousseh mentions, there are examples where Democrats have won the language battle and used it to further their policy agenda. Civil rights, gay rights. ("rights" are a positive thing) Choice as a code word for abortion. Democrats have done a fantastic job tactically of capitalizing on people's misunderstanding of climate science (in practice, most people "on the street" who believe in it are about as ignorant of the science itself as the denialists are). Voters of both parties are overwhelmingly ignorant about economics.
Unfortunately the proper strategy seems to be to simply do a better job of this than the other side. Probably a reason why politics has become more of two cultures who shriek at each other and have contests of turnout rather than a forum where large swaths of undecideds are wooed by policy debates. (and if this is about who wins the culture war, then Democrats should be very concerned about the next ~8 years and very optimistic about everything beyond that, given the diverging patterns in voting by age)
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma.
Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment.
Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate.
Equally silly is praising Perry for having a good job creation record. People in general can't seem to understand more than 1 variable at a time.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment.
Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population.
Just FYI.
They're talking about when Romney was governor, at which time Massachusetts had sub-5% unemployment. In fact, Huntsman, in a further demonstration of how retarded he is, just said in the debate that he had a better job creation record than Romney because he created more jobs when Utah had a 5.9% unemployment rate while Massachusetts had a 4.9% unemployment rate at the same time. Brilliant.
The polling data stretches back all the way to when the bill was signed into law.
And for the record, you shouldn't even need to look at a poll to know that the bill was incredibly unpopular when it was developed and passed. Just look at what happened at all of those town hall meetings during the summer before the bill was passed. Also look at how difficult it was for democrats to pass the bill DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A FILLIBUSTER-PROOF SENATE MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Obamacare, more than anything else, led to the huge GOP gains in 2010.
The public rejection of the healthcare doesn't really suprise - even as rather sporadic consument of american media it was impossible for me to evade the heavy negative and partly quite ridicolous rhetoric (If I had gotten 1€ everytime I heard 'socialist' or 'communist' during those debates...) firework that was used to run it down.
On a sidenote: Did you take a look into the wording rasmussenreports chooses for their polls? I've only had a couple of lectures on data ascertainment, so I'm no expert by any means, but there are some polls in which the language of the questions seems pretty skewed in favor of one specific answer. A short research afterwards revealed that they had the least accurate election forecasts for 2010 and their polls tend to poll favorable for republicans (and their topics) in comparision to most other pollsters.
The questions for the poll you cited look reasonable (if we are just arguing about the quanity and not the quality of the disapproval), but it is still a rather displeasing fealing to get numbers from a site that seems have a general bias about it, especially if semantics post is true, who makes a good argument on why the results in this poll may despise the bill even though people actually may agree with its (the bills) content.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate.
Equally silly is praising Perry for having a good job creation record. People in general can't seem to understand more than 1 variable at a time.
How much of this debate have I missed?
Basically nothing. It started 20 mins ago. Romney and Perry went at it a bit.
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma.
Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
The thing is, we are not talking twice as rich, we are talking factors of ten or twenty, and you are right that effort should not factor into it. What should factor into it is utility. You need to compare the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 1,000,000 a year, versus the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 20,000 a year. The standard of living for the person making 20,000 a year is increased more by that additional dollar, then the standard of living for the person making 1,000,000 a year is decreased.
When you redistribute wealth, you are doing what is called a transfer payment. Ideally a transfer payment neither creates wealth, nor absorbs resources, it simply redistributes it. Obviously when you get to a certain level of taxation then resources begin to be absorbed: the incentive for additional productivity at both the low and high ends are attenuated. This effect does not prevent a happy medium from being found. The fact that current tax rates on high earners are lower then historical norms, would indicate that we are far below the level that would disincentivize the wealthy from contributing further.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment.
Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population.
Just FYI.
They're talking about when Romney was governor, at which time Massachusetts had sub-5% unemployment. In fact, Huntsman, in a further demonstration of how retarded he is, just said in the debate that he had a better job creation record than Romney because he created more jobs when Utah had a 5.9% unemployment rate while Massachusetts had a 4.9% unemployment rate at the same time. Brilliant.
I see, that really is retarded on MSNBC's part. And mine -.-
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone? Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma.
Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
Your post doesn't make sense. You state that you "find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective", which is fair enough. But then you go on to try to justify that wall street bankers are working much harder than minimum wage earners. Even if you took your premise that somehow wall street is the equivalent of two full time jobs, the numbers don't stack up.
Here is an interesting stat, the "earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968". Essentially the high earners are earning more than 10 times more than minimum wage. You can't justify that by somehow proving that wall-street is "harder". There are reasons for the difference, but working hard, as you said, is a ridiculous premise to base income/tax comparisons on.
Your bleating about that wall street workers deserve these levels on income because they went to school and studied hard, is hollow when you need significant resources to do just that. Sure some will make it, but it is far more likely that your supposed wall-street hero came from a relatively wealthy family.
Don't feel sorry for the rich, in teh grand-scheme of things, their problems are insignificant.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote: This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
The tele-evangelists and megachurches are a joke. Don't take them seriously or consider them in any way related to real Christianity. Also...the guy was using it as a parallel, he wasn't actually commenting on the actual megachurches.
Errr... what is "real Christianity"? I'd say that any kind of Christianity practiced by a large enough sect qualifies when talking about the effects of Christianity in the political sphere.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone? Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
Doesn't seem to be working at teh moment. The US has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. (15-35%)
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today)
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote: Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone? Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
Maybe we already tax our corporations less than most of the world?
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today)
I agree with you. It was indeed a response to mandates on business to provide coverage or single payer incarnations. I hit them with a stick because they often ideologically backed up the proposal, rather than saying, "Look, this is just a shitty compromise we have to make."
It is a more of a critique of the ever elusive meaning of personal responsibility.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
The point she is out of step with what most americans believe.
The president is supposed to represent the people. If heaven-forbid she made it into the office, do you really want someone who believes in divine intervention deciding of foreign policy with Iran? You want someone with strong ideals, that at least looks rational. Abdicating in favour of your husband's wishes, just shows a willingless not to think for yourself.
From an outsider's point of view, she scares the crap out me.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today)
I agree with you. It was indeed a response to mandates on business to provide coverage or single payer incarnations. I hit them with a stick because they often ideologically backed up the proposal, rather than saying, "Look, this is just a shitty compromise we have to make."
It is a more of a critique of the ever elusive meaning of personal responsibility.
The problem with policy is that it is fairly transparent and concrete. Much better to campaign on rhetoric, that way you can always change your tune. By allowing a conservative option for his health-plan Obama tried to out-wit the reps by giving them ground. He under-estimated how flexible republican ideals are.
"What's this? Obama moving right? Well let's just go further..."
If the reps were happy with Obama, they would be toast. You just aren't allowed to agree in Washington
I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed...[into] the gospel of wealth and corruption.
That is an absurdly simplistic and ignorant claim. Many many Christians would not take their religion to be supportive of wealth and corruption. The opinion of televangelists and whoever else you claim to be mending Christianity to their own ends does not define Christianity to the majority of its followers. Your statement hints at an assumption that Christians are sheep, just like the economically disadvantaged whites who the staffer assumes (emphasis on assumes) to be influenced by televangelists. Anyone with a sliver of knowledge about the religion knows that it can't be simplified into something that is corrupt.
Those televangelists are televangelists because they are incredibly popular. You can say they're not the majority (I would like to know why you think they aren't) but you can't deny that a lot of people think that way.
It's possible that you don't quite realize what Christianity once was? I say that not because I think you're ignorant, but because you are offended by that characterization which seems fair enough to me. Things are very different now. In earlier times (like the first few hundred years after Christ) people took much more seriously verses along the lines of 'it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven.'
There are some preaches who still interpret things that way, but from what I've seen this is rare. But I have only loosely studied this stuff and I could be very wrong. Again if you have good reasons to think that the majority of Christians are different than we're characterizing, let me know.
edit: lol I just realized it says its my birthday but that's tomorrow
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
Wow this is exactly what I thought the GOP was like from the inside no ones more surprised then me to find myself right about it.
The GOP is led by people who want to win. Fuck trying to be right let the people who give us money tell us what they want and we'll win every year we can. Thats their curse and blessing. I belive the Dems are right but they can't get shit done or win.
Still makes me really sad how bad our government is.
On September 08 2011 09:57 Sideburn wrote: Wait, the URL says teamliquid.net but I'm clearly reading a thread on 4chan's /b/. What is going on here?
how so? i don't see nude / gruesome picts every other post.
But the amount of people stating their uneducated opinions as fact on both sides is astounding!
"All republicans are stupid heartless retards who just want to keep the rich rich and demonize the poor! I disagree with them on principle as they are republicans! They are destroying our country and are stupid ignorant science hating religious zealots. This is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain (IE: anyone who agrees with me)"
"No way, all democrats are spineless sissies that want to hand our freedom over to the terrorists and our money to the undeserving. Nothing a democrat says can ever be reasonable. This is demonstrably true and known by anyone who has been paying attention the past 10 years and isn't a slack jawed retard (IE: people who agree with me)"
Truly awe inspiring stuff in this thread. Also the lack of nude pics every other post is cause to lament, IMO.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma.
Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
The thing is, we are not talking twice as rich, we are talking factors of ten or twenty, and you are right that effort should not factor into it. What should factor into it is utility. You need to compare the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 1,000,000 a year, versus the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 20,000 a year. The standard of living for the person making 20,000 a year is increased more by that additional dollar, then the standard of living for the person making 1,000,000 a year is decreased.
When you redistribute wealth, you are doing what is called a transfer payment. Ideally a transfer payment neither creates wealth, nor absorbs resources, it simply redistributes it. Obviously when you get to a certain level of taxation then resources begin to be absorbed: the incentive for additional productivity at both the low and high ends are attenuated. This effect does not prevent a happy medium from being found. The fact that current tax rates on high earners are lower then historical norms, would indicate that we are far below the level that would disincentivize the wealthy from contributing further.
Utility shouldn't factor into it either. All you've done is make the argument that those with less money value each individual dollar more. I fail to see how that is any justification. What should factor into it is how much the company wants to pay its workers, as it's a private entity, I believe it should be able to dictate itself. If they value the CEO at 239023x the amount of an employee, then they clearly see a ton of utility in that CEO regardless.
Regardless I'm talking merely from principle, I don't see much wrong with the way current tax brackets are structured because I don't think 35% is a ridiculously high amount. I do think the rates in many European countries are appallingly high, however.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole.
The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around!
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
First of all, it is silly to attack her for her looks, in my opinion she is a very fine looking woman, but that surely has no effect on me! >.>
Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
EDIT: For the record, yes, I understand that this guy is a "republican." However, he clearly comes from the David Brooks wing of the republican party -- the liberal types who were dreamily jerking off to Obama speeches during the 2008 campaign.
Roddy Piper wants you to put on these sunglasses, bro. Open your eyes.
On September 08 2011 10:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: So politicians play games with the political system to win political contests.
News flash from 2500 BC.
I agree with this completely. Government and politics is one big fucking game, and Democrats don't seem to understand this quite as well as Republicans.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
I have always hated the GoP. Recently it's been a lot worse then usual. I still have no idea what the hell they are spewing but it's definitely not in the interest of the country. I'm just sick and tired of seeing the constant amount of BS in the news in regards to the Republicans. I don't understand their idea of, "Let's let the middle society suffer and suffer, and not touch the billionaires."
I remember reading the poll on how Washington is doing. It's been heavily unsatisfied. Like way past 50%. I think at least with most people of the middle income are just sick and tired of this and wants to re-elect basically everyone in the Congress at this point. They are not looking for our interest anymore and I'm just tired of them giving lame excuses to protect the rich while the rest of us suffer through the economic problem.
Democrats are no saints either, at least they are honest. GoP on the other hand's latest tactics are basically to disturb, and cock block anything and everything. I just want things to work at this point, and it won't happen unless all of Washington gets replaced by more competent people.
On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote: [quote]
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
Given her history of passed and attempted legislature during her political career, I'd say the two are one and the same.
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
There's very little evidence one way or another for how the Supreme Court will decide other than that it will be a 5-4 vote.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
I read a very interesting article in today's paper briefly describing how Newt Gingrich ruined Congress (my words), according to Congressman Jim Cooper, article by Joe Nocera.
The basic idea is that before Gingrich, the Speaker of the House tried to speak for the whole house! and not just his party. Some of the comments talk about the 24/7 media putting politicians in campaign mode all of the time, or risk saying stupid stuff.
There are some interesting comments and you can see which ones are popular at nytimes.
Just because the Dems no longer have the carte blanche they had does not mean things are broken in Congress, regardless of how many times the media tries to perpetuate that idea. Things are working just fine, actually, just the way it was designed to.
(Recommended by 5 readers)
I will never forget Newt's comment when the Republicans were pushing their Contract With America. Many of the things the democrats wanted for the country were echos of what the republicans wanted. Rather than being happy that both parties wanted to achieve some of the same ends Gingrich blurted out, "The democrats have stolen our agenda!" He showed then that who was in charge was much more important than what got done.
Jim Cooper is my representative in congress and is one of the few statesmen left in politics.
Recommended by 365 readers
That is representative of the Times' readers' opinions, but I must say as I read this article in hard copy during lunch today, I found myself agreeing--someone who is traditionally conservative leaning.
I just finished that article from the OP. At first it appeared like a bunch of leftist ranting, but it did make several interesting points, which if true, are totally disgusting. I would be interested to see a non leftist (middle or center-right) response from someone not crazy (someone aligned more like Huntsman--not Perry, at least as far as their beliefs on evolution and climate). Actually the Times article has a little to do with what the OP article talks about--the language and combativeness adapted by the right.
I'll always wonder myself why so many corporations are reporting record profits during this recession yet unemployment remains terrible. Maybe if a number of needed jobs weren't being performed in foreign lands for low wages (yet good in those poor countries), the mega rich corporations would have something to spend their giant coffers on, instead of hoarding their wealth.
It's terribly true that so many parts (but not all) of the right, politicians, corporations, by all means practice Old Testament beliefs instead of any of those in the New, such as the article refers to in the Sermon on the Mount. I have yet to see anyone refute that particular sermon as a bad thing, yet the religious right does an incredible job of pretending it doesn't exist. To put it into perspective, I'm Mormon and increasingly unlikely to vote for Romney, or any Republican except maybe Huntsman, the more I see of their fake pandering to the poor.
The article does itself a disservice though, by calling most of the Republican constituency "ignorant" or "uneducated," even though I understand why when you see Republican candidates talk about lowering the corporate tax rate (and this helps miss Olive Garden waitress??? etc. etc.).
My friend from Singapore briefly mentioned online how stupid our government was for the whole debt ceiling crisis. If countries about as far away as you can possibly get from the U.S. felt the economic fear of the debt ceiling issue and potential default, I really have to ask if the Republicans are insane.
I don't really buy that the Dems are afraid of them though, yet in the spirit of the notorious RedLetterMedia review of Star Wars, how easily can anyone think up any of the catchy talking points of the left? Hope? Change? Oh, I can remember some "bad" ones the right uses: "Socialist" "Communist," or as the article pointed out, "Entitlement." Even after reading that article, I simply cannot recall the name of the health care act, and even though I resent the name that stuck due to its utter disrespect, I cannot remember anything but "Obamacare."
On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote: The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Where do you think those tax dollars come from?
If government provides every American with Medicaid/care through tax dollars, every American is forced to spend money on a product the government "offers", whether they use it or not.
To spend is to tax. I support single-payer and I get this.
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
There's very little evidence one way or another for how the Supreme Court will decide other than that it will be a 5-4 vote.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence out there. Here's some:
1. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.
2. US v. Lopez
3. US v. Morrison
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it isn't because of how close or far it is to socialism. It's a question of whether the government can force an individual to purchase something from a private entity.
On the other hand, the Constitution easily allows the government to collect taxes and to provide services. (see: medicare, the military, social security) Single payer or even a British-style NHS are almost surely within the bounds of what the Constitution allows.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
I'll start with Michele Bachmann. Politifact.com is a great website if you are unfamiliar with it. In my opinion it's about as unbiased as you can get; they call out people in both parties on things they say all the time.
"When Standard & Poor's "dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don't have an ability to repay our debt. ... I was proved right in my position" that the debt ceiling should not have been raised."
Not even close to true. I'll quote the website with: "To put it in simple terms, Standard & Poor's had two main reasons for the downgrade: First, that the size of the U.S. debt is very large and growing, and second, that politicians seem unable to agree on what steps to take to reduce it."
"President Barack Obama "has virtually no one in his cabinet with private-sector experience."
Also completely false. Here are some of his cabinet members with private-sector experience: Shaun Donovan, Steven Chu, Ken Salazar
"The president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve."
In reality Obama released just over 4% of the holdings in the reserve. Pretty far from 100%.
"The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government."
Totally off. When it comes to income taxes specifically that is true, but when it comes to total federal income tax (what she said) the top 1% only pay 28.1%
"Speaker Pelosi ... has been busy sticking the taxpayer with her $100,000 bar tab for alcohol on the military jets that she's flying."
The amount of money spent on alcohol actually equates to about $7,000. Now I'm not saying that I think it's okay for any taxpayer money to be spent on alcohol, but again Bachmann is totally off with her numbers.
I've seen a number of Michele Bachmann interviews and she never seems to answer any of the questions asked. Instead she'll just give the same rehearsed speech over and over, like in this one:
I know MSNBC is definitely a left leaning network but that interview speaks for itself.
"Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history."
This was said right before the Bush tax cuts were extended. If tax cuts to the wealthy expired but the rest remained, the resulting tax increase for high earners would be 0.4% of the GDP. If none of the tax cuts were extended, the resulting increase would be 2.2% of the GDP. Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts to everyone except individuals making over $200,000/year and couples making over $250,000. Reagan signed a law that increased taxes by 1.23% of the GDP back in 1982, so Republicans who worship Reagan yet are completely against increased taxes of any sort need to rethink their views. The last time taxes were increased for more than 2.2% of the GDP was in 1942 (5.04%), so Palin is completely wrong when she says it's the largest increase in U.S. history. It's less than half of that, and less than a tenth of what Obama wanted. Sure, it's a lot more than anything recent, but we've also been through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a result the financial crisis caused by financial deregulation beginning in the Reagan era.
'Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
The truth is that the health bill (the one that was drafted at the time) allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care.
"Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined."
Bad math. The day Obama took office the gross federal debt stood at $10.627 trillion. The week this was said the debt was $14.345 trillion.
She's also done a full flip on climate change because the political scene in the U.S. has changed since 2008:
Palin in 2008: "I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution."
Palin in 2010: “We knew the bottom line [of listing polar bears as endangered] was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development, and it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.”
That's quite a flip.
'Vice President Joe Biden's meeting [regarding the stimulus in 09] "with the transparency and accountability board . . . was closed to the public."'
She's harping on Biden for a specific meeting with a single person on the transparency and accountability board, not the entire board. There were a number of open meetings and conferences Biden and others involved in the stimulus package attended, like the one on February 25th, 2009.
Rick Perry (he's just trying to keep up his public image for his career... and it's working)
"We don't get a lot of calls from this White House… I have, frankly, never had a call from them."
An earlier release, from July 6, 2009, says Perry was among five governors to participate in a conference call with Vice President Joe Biden. Of late, Lehrich said in an e-mail, Perry has been invited to be on a call with senior administration officials involved in the response to the oil spill every day since May 4. Perry "has participated on a number of those calls and has been represented by his staff on many more," Lehrich said.
'Scientists are "questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. … (It is) more and more being put into question."'
Completely wrong. There virtually no debate whatsoever about this in the scientific community, just oil companies spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to convince the public
"So we talked about the difference between 2003 and 2011," Perry said [in regards to Texas]. "And the percentage of the budget shortfall versus the budget is really not that much different than it was in 2003."
Reality: The current-spending shortfall is 40 percent larger than in 2003 while the shortfall to maintain current services is nearly 63 percent larger.
“From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.”
This was said in regards to the BP oil spill...
"We are fed up with being overtaxed and overregulated. We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food"
Federal agencies have guidelines recommending that people eat less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day, but that is just a recommendation for people who want to be healthy. No one is trying to regulate how much salt you specifically can put on your food.
Rick Perry just relies on sensationalism and appealing to the public's emotions in order to get attention. Between the constant wearing of cowboy boots, remarks about Texas succeeding, calling himself a real Texan while George Bush was a fake Texan, and parading around with guns, he's just acting in order to appeal to his base.
On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote: The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Where do you think those tax dollars come from?
If government provides every American with Medicaid/care through tax dollars, every American is forced to spend money on a product the government "offers", whether they use it or not.
To spend is to tax. I support single-payer and I get this.
I think you delineated the difference quite clearly. Let me ask you this question: would you like it if the federal government passed a law that forces you to get a bestiality porn subscription every year?
I know that the example is absurd, but that's the point. The federal government shouldn't be able to compel anyone to purchase a product from anyone. That power simply doesn't exist under the federal constitution.
I read a very interesting article in today's paper briefly describing how Newt Gingrich ruined Congress (my words), according to Congressman Jim Cooper, article by Joe Nocera.
The basic idea is that before Gingrich, the Speaker of the House tried to speak for the whole house! and not just his party. Some of the comments talk about the 24/7 media putting politicians in campaign mode all of the time, or risk saying stupid stuff.
There are some interesting comments and you can see which ones are popular at nytimes.
Just because the Dems no longer have the carte blanche they had does not mean things are broken in Congress, regardless of how many times the media tries to perpetuate that idea. Things are working just fine, actually, just the way it was designed to.
(Recommended by 5 readers)
I will never forget Newt's comment when the Republicans were pushing their Contract With America. Many of the things the democrats wanted for the country were echos of what the republicans wanted. Rather than being happy that both parties wanted to achieve some of the same ends Gingrich blurted out, "The democrats have stolen our agenda!" He showed then that who was in charge was much more important than what got done.
Jim Cooper is my representative in congress and is one of the few statesmen left in politics.
Recommended by 365 readers
That is representative of the Times' readers' opinions, but I must say as I read this article in hard copy during lunch today, I found myself agreeing--someone who is traditionally conservative leaning.
I just finished that article from the OP. At first it appeared like a bunch of leftist ranting, but it did make several interesting points, which if true, are totally disgusting. I would be interested to see a non leftist (middle or center-right) response from someone not crazy (someone aligned more like Huntsman--not Perry, at least as far as their beliefs on evolution and climate). Actually the Times article has a little to do with what the OP article talks about--the language and combativeness adapted by the right.
I'll always wonder myself why so many corporations are reporting record profits during this recession yet unemployment remains terrible. Maybe if a number of needed jobs weren't being performed in foreign lands for low wages (yet good in those poor countries), the mega rich corporations would have something to spend their giant coffers on, instead of hoarding their wealth.
It's terribly true that so many parts (but not all) of the right, politicians, corporations, by all means practice Old Testament beliefs instead of any of those in the New, such as the article refers to in the Sermon on the Mount. I have yet to see anyone refute that particular sermon as a bad thing, yet the religious right does an incredible job of pretending it doesn't exist. To put it into perspective, I'm Mormon and increasingly unlikely to vote for Romney, or any Republican except maybe Huntsman, the more I see of their fake pandering to the poor.
The article does itself a disservice though, by calling most of the Republican constituency "ignorant" or "uneducated," even though I understand why when you see Republican candidates talk about lowering the corporate tax rate (and this helps miss Olive Garden waitress??? etc. etc.).
My friend from Singapore briefly mentioned online how stupid our government was for the whole debt ceiling crisis. If countries about as far away as you can possibly get from the U.S. felt the economic fear of the debt ceiling issue and potential default, I really have to ask if the Republicans are insane.
I don't really buy that the Dems are afraid of them though, yet in the spirit of the notorious RedLetterMedia review of Star Wars, how easily can anyone think up any of the catchy talking points of the left? Hope? Change? Oh, I can remember some "bad" ones the right uses: "Socialist" "Communist," or as the article pointed out, "Entitlement." Even after reading that article, I simply cannot recall the name of the health care act, and even though I resent the name that stuck due to its utter disrespect, I cannot remember anything but "Obamacare."
Interesting post. The profits from corporations are being driven by the expansion of "emerging market" growth. Places like Brazil, south east asia, and in some cases China. It is like hedging, play it safe in the big economies but put a small side bet on the little ones. Well that little bet is paying off now, which is why the growth in jobs is not happening in the established economies. There is simply more money to be made elsewhere.
As for the rest of your psot, I think the problem most people have with overtly religious candidates, is that they are very anti-intellectual. Policy should be based on rigorous analysis, and objective reasoning. If the candidate is oppposed to this, that is a very bad sign for the way they would govern. Sadly, objective rigorous reasoning does not often follow a staunchly religious candidate (Bush's position on stem cell research is a classic case).
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
The first one is a name list.
The second two were...5-4 decisions set fifteen years ago. Renquist and Souter are gone.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the fourth point.
As for his first point - all but Kennedy are virtually guaranteed to vote PPACA unconstitutional if they can do so in any remotely defensibly manner. Kennedy has been trending towards a fairly Republican viewpoint on regulatory and business issues, so he probably leans a bit towards "Unconstitutional" going into the case.
On September 08 2011 10:34 xDaunt wrote: I think you delineated there difference quite clearly. Let me ask you this question: would you like it if the federal government passed the law that forces you to get a bestiality porn subscription every year?
I know that the example is absurd, but that's the point. The federal government shouldn't be able to compel anyone to purchase a product from anyone. That power simply doesn't exist under the federal constitution.
I know it's hard to get the point, but federal services are paid for by the people of this country. If you're going to offer Medicare to everyone, you're forcing spending on Medicare on the citizenry, regardless of if individuals take advantage of it. It'd be exactly like forcing a bestiality subscription on everyone, even if you threw the magazine away.
Saying that this is somehow less socialist than a tax on...not getting health care...is absurd.
On September 08 2011 10:41 Signet wrote: As for his first point - all but Kennedy are virtually guaranteed to vote PPACA unconstitutional if they can do so in any remotely defensibly manner. Kennedy has been trending towards a fairly Republican viewpoint on regulatory and business issues, so he probably leans a bit towards "Unconstitutional" going into the case.
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware that it's going to swing on Kennedy, that's why I said it would be 5-4 either way.
But Kennedy is really weird when it comes to SC decisions.
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
The first one is a name list.
The second two were...5-4 decisions set fifteen years ago. Renquist and Souter are gone.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the fourth point.
There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
I think that the real question is whether the rest of Obamacare will be stricken down. My guess is that it probably won't be.
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it isn't because of how close or far it is to socialism. It's a question of whether the government can force an individual to purchase something from a private entity.
On the other hand, the Constitution easily allows the government to collect taxes and to provide services. (see: medicare, the military, social security) Single payer or even a British-style NHS are almost surely within the bounds of what the Constitution allows.
I understand the reasoning for the legal challenge. I am simply commenting on the fact that after all the hulla-baloo about how the US was headed for a socialist state with Obama as the dear-leader; that Obamacare was the thin edge of communism; it would be absurd for the Reps to choose anything that is more socialist than Obamacare.
On September 08 2011 10:43 xDaunt wrote: There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
Kennedy has an inconsistent voting record when it comes to party-line decisions.
Saying that the current Supreme Court has hostility towards all "government overreach" is absurd to the extreme; the two cases in between were done by a different Supreme Court than the one today.
On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote: [quote]
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
First of all, it is silly to attack her for her looks, in my opinion she is a very fine looking woman, but that surely has no effect on me! >.>
Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
You've obviously turned a blind eye to the faults of your candidates. That's too bad. You're a lost cause.
Her husband tells her what to do. That's your first warning bell. She hasn't been quiet about this either. When she's Commander-in-chief, you better hope her husband is half way around the world without satellite phone access.
She has stated that the U.S. was founded on Christian theocracy and should become one...again. Warning bells, ding ding ding.
In the Minnesota Senate, she proposed a constitutional amendment to the state's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
Her excuse for dismissing climate change is laughable. I would respect her stance if she actually did a little sleuthing. As it turns out, she thinks "carbon dioxide is natural and thus can't be dangerous".
She's been recorded and heard numerous times making up stuff she thinks is in the Constitution. If she weren't a congresswoman, this wouldn't be a problem, but she is, and she wants the Presidency. I really want her to read past the first line. I'd understand if she messed something up, which she occasionally does and no foul against her, but she's fucking making shit up.
If you want to talk about her stance on the economy. Taxes are too damned high + gas prices below $2. That's the extent of her knowledge on the economy.
As for social policy. Creationism taught alongside Evolution, constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Teach Creationism in World Religion classes, not in Science classes, and banning gay marriages in the Constitution is against her beloved small government policy.
There are some good things you can find about her I'm sure, but on the supposedly important stuff, nope.
On September 08 2011 10:43 xDaunt wrote: There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
Kennedy has an inconsistent voting record when it comes to party-line decisions.
Saying that the current Supreme Court has hostility towards all government overreach is absurd to the extreme.
You're taking a rather simplistic view of Supreme Court and how it votes. None of the justices vote straight party line, despite what some might have you believe. The justices, including Kennedy, tend to be very consistent when you look at their reasoning and approaches to deciding cases over the course of their careers. For example, if they have a particular position or view on a subject such as the scope of the commerce clause, they tend to hold that view throughout their careers. Kennedy was part of the majorities in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, which strongly suggests that he has bought into the "new federalism" of the other conservative justices. This is why most legal scholars are betting that he'll be part of the majority that strikes down the individual mandate.
On September 08 2011 10:52 xDaunt wrote: You're taking a rather simplistic view of Supreme Court and how it votes. None of the justices vote straight party line, despite what some might have you believe. The justices, including Kennedy, tend to be very consistent when you look at their reasoning and approaches to deciding cases over the course of their careers. For example, if they have a particular position or view on a subject such as the scope of the commerce clause, they tend to hold that view throughout their careers. Kennedy was part of the majorities in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, which strongly suggests that he has bought into the "new federalism" of the other conservative justices. This is why most legal scholars are betting that he'll be part of the majority that strikes down the individual mandate.
Of course none of the justices vote strictly party-line, they just vote that way upwards of 80% of the time in the last two decades. Except, on the current SC, Kennedy, who has done so "only" around two-thirds of the time. Kennedy has voted against the Fed for the commerce clause twice, but has voted for the "necessary and proper" clause for the Fed twice. Normally, the two are linked in most rulings, but Kennedy doesn't seem to feel that way.
“When the inquiry is whether a federal law has sufficient links to an enumerated power to be within the scope of federal power, the analysis depends not on the number of links in the congressional-power chain but on the strength of the chain.”
Seems to be clearly ambiguous in terms of the both commerce and the necessary and proper clause in terms of the individual mandate.
I'd like a source for "most legal scholars", incidentally. "Most legal scholars" who write news articles seem to think that it'll be a coinflip for Kennedy, after the Vinson ruling.
I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
Probably because Beck isn't a former 30-year member of the Democratic Party. But what the hell do I know?
On September 08 2011 07:37 Arrian wrote: No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush.
This is a misunderstanding. Obama inherited the financial crisis, revenues are lower because of the depressed economic circumstances(obviously) and the increased unemployed and impoverished also increased payouts of unemployment benefits and food stamps. Deceased revenue + increased costs = more debt.
These are all due to policies and events (largely) outside of the control of Obama. Its not like he pushed through legislation to increase unemployment and food stamp programs. Yes he extended some unemployment benefits, but as a percentage of total US gdp these were miniscule relative to real contributors to debt (war, although you could argue obama contributed to this as well. and bush era tax cuts) There is a severe misconception that one person has the ability to undo a decade of of economic buildup and consequences.
So yes, government debt increased while Obama was in office, but BECAUSE of him? No.
edit: Although Obama pushed legislation of health care reform, A. this was to actually REDUCE individual health care costs in the long run, and B. Do you have universal health care yet? No. any spending associated with this has yet to kick in to a significant degree.
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole.
The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around!
..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God.
There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries.
Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet.
Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP.
The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
Probably because Beck isn't a former 30-year member of the Democratic Party. But what the hell do I know?
I think you miss his point. It is not so much about the reliability of the source, but the tone in which in the source is written. If you put together an OP which clearly has an agenda, do you really expect balanced responses?
These 'tell-alls' are always a very suspect as they are generally designed to make a quick buck for the disgruntled employee in question. There are literally hundreds of different 'tell-alls' each of which has little to nothing in terms of importance. You'll see staffers on both sides give differing stories about their experiences and the like. Its not a good idea to take any political message from these memoirs.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet.
Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP.
The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread.
How can you compare Beck to the author? Yes maybe you can argue that they are both just trying to push their political views, but Beck screams of extremism and demagoguery. Even FOX dumped him because his extremism was scary away corporate advertisers.
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole.
The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around!
..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God.
There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries.
Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses.
Actually, you're completely wrong. The Prosperity Gospel is not biblical. Please go to 10 of your local churches in your area and poll the lead pastors and congregations. You'll find that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding main stream christian beliefs.
I think you'll find most Christians will agree God can bless you, but being good Christian does not lead to wealth, nor does wealth mean you were a good Christian. There is no casual relationship there. And it's a dangerous theology to preach as biblical fact.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet.
Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP.
The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread.
How can you compare Beck to the author? Yes maybe you can argue that they are both just trying to push their political views, but Beck screams of extremism and demagoguery. Even FOX dumped him because his extremism was scary away corporate advertisers.
Seriously people is it really that hard to see.
This author has an agenda that he is clearly pushing. The OP pushes it further with his selection of quotes and thought bubbles. If you want a decent discussion, leave out as much bias as possible. I am not holding up Beck as some model of balance, neither am I saying this author is somehow unreliable. I am merely stating that these political threads descend into crap because the discussion is framed as me against you.
How do you discuss with someone when they don't even attempt to be balanced?
On September 08 2011 11:32 Chargelot wrote: Did anyone think politics was a tea party? Stuff like this happens. Worse stuff happens. Everyday. On all sides.
Stuff like the debt ceiling debate does not happen everyday. There is HARDLY "worse stuff" than the US defaulting on its national debt. You just don't understand in the slightest the sheer enormity of the ensuing financial crises that would have followed.
People like you would argue: well, we got good legislation out of it that would have cut our deficit! Maybe, but this is like taking 10 thousand people, and telling the president that you are going to have them starve unless him and congress do what you tell them to, and if he doesn't agree, it's all the presidents fault
Not only that, but Obama's plan would have reduced the deficit even further, but nevermind that. Clearly he's out to get us.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
It's a wall of text but I just read the article. (I read the Harry Potter novels so I know I wall of text when I see one. ) It just makes me more angry. The people who hold their beliefs on the right and do so honestly from their heart I assign no blame. Each of us chooses to be informed from the sources we choose. If some choose the Bible so mote it be. I say we can agree to disagree. Let the peaceful public discourse begin.
The people who ruffle my feathers are the ones who step on your neck to reach your wallet. They know they are standing on your neck. They just don't care. The Eric Cantors (R Virginia) of this world. The Jason Altmires (D Pennsylvania) who claim that health care for everyone is just too expensive. The K Streeters. Who believe that God blesses the rich with money so that they may hold sway over the rest of his less favoured (read poor) children. Because God hands out a report card and it looks just like a bank statement to these guys.
Oh well. Good luck to us all. Rich and poor alike. Because who will carry water for them and shine their Bentleys when all the poor are gone? It's a class war. Pure and simple.
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong.
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet.
Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP.
The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread.
How can you compare Beck to the author? Yes maybe you can argue that they are both just trying to push their political views, but Beck screams of extremism and demagoguery. Even FOX dumped him because his extremism was scary away corporate advertisers.
Seriously people is it really that hard to see.
This author has an agenda that he is clearly pushing. The OP pushes it further with his selection of quotes and thought bubbles. If you want a decent discussion, leave out as much bias as possible. I am not holding up Beck as some model of balance, neither am I saying this author is somehow unreliable. I am merely stating that these political threads descend into crap because the discussion is framed as me against you.
How do you discuss with someone when they don't even attempt to be balanced?
I didn't even read the OP. You can ignore the thought bubbles and his opinions remain well thought out.
He makes every attempt to be balanced. former republican, clearly indicates that he feels democrats make many of the same mistakes, but that the republicans just go too far.
But even then, i'm not looking for a "balanced" article. I'd rather learn about natural selection than how we need to "balance" our education system with natural selection and creationism (for example).
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers.
The cool thing about all this is that even IF there's even a remote possibility that it's all truth that the GOP has been trying to mess up congress and shit for 50 years the effects could of been a lot worse. Sure there's corruption and what not, that's normal. The US government is still much cleaner than most. If anything just a fun read =)... long though.
On September 08 2011 07:55 HoldenR wrote: What strikes me as odd is that there are actually people, who are assumingly not upper-elite class, defending the republic party.
It only takes a sliver of insight to be able to see that this is the party of the wealthy. Since politics is run by money, they do everything to get in power and look after the interests of their financial backers. So, how are a bunch of middle and lower class people on forums defending these people? How do you justify destroying your own financial security, TL Republicans? Based on ideals thinking that if you'd worked harder, you'd have been part of the upper class of society?
I'm not terribly educated on this subject, and I've been through enough of the general forum to know that everyone seems to hate fox news and republicans.
Can someone please explain why? I can't really weigh in on this article because no one has given me a relatively unbiased tutorial.
Interestingly enough I see a lot of people trashing the author and the source, but very few people are disputing his factual claims - that Republicans support corporate donors and billionaires at the expense of everyone else, and are not genuine when they talk about the need to reduce the deficit, etc.
Yes the Democrats are in the pocket of corporations as well, but at least they nominally support policies which are good for society, as opposed to actively promoting the fiction that global warming isn't real and that our taxes are anything but historically low.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers.
Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think?
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers.
Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think?
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. I'm not even sure that I want a federally-provided single payer system as opposed to simply providing some funding to the states and letting them figure out what to do with it. However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers.
Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think?
However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers.
Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think?
However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
On September 08 2011 12:36 xDaunt wrote: However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
Cynically (but I think somewhat truthfully), a lot of the current political atmosphere has to do with partisan and cultural mistrust of "the other side" as much as it does with actual policy differences among the public at large. A sizable part of the Republican base might support such a system if it was proposed by a Republican president -- like how they say "only Nixon could go to China" or Reagan be given the free reign to peacefully talk with Gorbachev.
To be fair, Democrats allowed Bill Clinton to enact welfare reform and free trade that they probably would have fought a Republican president harder on, and for that matter they haven't opposed Obama's tax cuts the same way they did when Bush was proposing them.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
The point the article makes, pretty well in my opinion, is that the GOP is basically fear-mongering and obstructing anything that runs contrary to protecting their lobbyists while convincing the general populace that it's in their interests too, so I'm not sure how much it was a good thing that many people wanted the GOP to shoot down Obamacare. Let's face it, how many people really understood the deal if death-panels became such a big issue (seriously, how does crap like that even become an issue in US politics? It was absurd, patently untrue and without basis yet was very seriously discussed...)
Personally I think Obama has been ineffectual and has failed to repeal a lot of things he was put in power to do - the Patriot act should be flushed where it belongs, wire-tapping should be ended, he needs to go after lobby powers (what's the point of a micro-financed president if he isn't there to attack special and vested interests?), military spending needs ot be cut down. I also feel like he's tried far too hard to be bi-partisan, strangely. He is trying to not upset the applecart by refusing to even countenance the notion that Bush basically is a war criminal, and refusing to really attack the GOP on what they are doing. They have locked down US politics repeatedly since the elections, as the article mentions, and nobody seems to care! It's funny how they will talk about being bi-partisan when it suits them, but it has to be entirely on their terms. Obama might have been able to do more if he'd been able, but we'll never know.
My favourite bit during the whole Deficit crisis talks recently - you remember? Where the GOP basically held the world to ransom, risking ruining everyone's livelihoods? - they fought tooth and nail to have a very short-term deal done just to make the whole fucking thing an election issue. It constantly amazes me that they get votes from people, but let's face it, both parties are pretty piss-poor. The US needs a real multi-party system.
Also wanted to add this from the article, for me the saddest part: [2] I am not a supporter of Obama and object to a number of his foreign and domestic policies. But when he took office amid the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, I wanted him to succeed, so that the country I served did not fail. But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country. Note that the mainstream media have lately been hailing McConnell as "the adult in the room," presumably because he is less visibly unstable than the Tea Party freshmen
I think a lot of the GOP right now are acting as if the very most important thing in the entire world is that Obama fail. Never mind that him failing as President is costing each and every one of us, never mind that the price of failure, right now, is almost inconceivable economic meltdown affecting the entire world, never mind that he is trying to do something with the worst mess a president has been left with for many decades. Point scoring is more important than the wellbeing of America. Doesn't that scare anyone else? It terrifies me, and I'm not even American.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
There's nothing inherently evil with socialism. Many countries are socialist, and the liberal parts of America are probably leaning toward socialism while trying never to use the term due to the negative stigma attached. After the bull shit that's occurred in the recent past and are still happening due to the conservative forces, over compensation is to be expected as well. It's not bizarre at all to me.
Also I'm not sure what Obama has done, seems like more damage is done by his compromising disposition and passivity than anything else. Looking at the political climate, I don't think Bush's legacies are going away any time soon, at least not in the next election.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective.
It's not like an international gaming site is a novel concept to me. I've been in sites with similar age and national demographics, with entirely different political and religious ones.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
Because TL is a whole community from all over the world? You have noticed there are a lot of swedes around here haven't you? Most laughing at the things american's likes to call socialistic.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective.
It's not like an international gaming site is a novel concept to me.
Then it shouldn't be mindboggling to you that there is support for the system that exists in the vast majority of first world countries. Socialist isn't even a dirty word over here.
I would be very, very surprised if you could find a site with an international user base that had views in line with the American right. Your right wing is batshit insane by any non American standard. The same applies with religion because the proportion of people who are actively religious in America is very much out of line with the rest of the western world. Your country is weird and interactions with the rest of the world will seem surprising and even alien.
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
Even though I am fairly liberal myself, I find that characterization a bit extreme. The republican party was most definitely not "founded" on such ideals: it is Mr Lincolns party after all. It was not until the 20th century that the "radical" republicans exchanged roles with the democrats.
The reality is that the republican party is not some secret conspiracy out to support the billionaires at the expense of the people: it is a regional populist party, and they do a very good job at representing the views of their constituents(even if some of those views may be, in my opinion, misguided).
The position of political parties a hundred years ago is fairly irrelevant imo. The fact of the matter is that right now we have a party which blatantly ignores science, spouts religious scripture in official state government meetings, and defends the interests of the super wealthy while simultaneously demonizing the poor. I mean seriously, we have congressmen from NC banging locks together, (as a metaphor for gay marriage) and citing bible verses as supporting arguments for state legislature.
I think calling them fucking crazy isn't too much of a stretch.
I agree that it is irrelevant for the present situation, but the OP stated "founded," so I felt that his statement should be clarified.
I disagree that the republicans are insane, in my opinion they are pragmatists, doing what a representative politician should do: represent the opinions of their constituents. I work as an engineer at a factory in the countryside, and as such I interact often with people who would be considered to be pretty typical of the republican base.
The vast majority are evangelical christian, poorly educated, and lower middle class-working poor. The opinions they espouse are pretty-much identical to those that my rather ridiculous, tea-party, local representative espouses.
When you examine many of their opinions, they are seemingly irrational: why would the working poor oppose a health care plan that helps them more then anyone else, or a support a tax break on the rich? I do not feel the answer lies with some sort of fox-news-billionaire conspiracy, but rather with something much more simple: fear.
They are afraid of losing their jobs and their way of life. They have gotten the short end of the stick from scientific advancement: their jobs were replaced with automation, and they are faced with decreasing social mobility, as the economy becomes more technology oriented.
The past world, whether it ever existed or not, of social mobility for a person with just a high school diploma is looked on with rose colored glasses. This memory was the ideal that you could work hard and make it rich in the world, even with little education.
In the midst of this climate you have democrats who espouse social views that do not align with those of the highly traditionalist rural poor/middle class, and who present economic plans, which on the surface appear to not be in line with their ideal of work-reward. The republicans meanwhile, do an excellent job of representing the social values of the rural population, while also espousing the economic ideal that they so crave: work hard and get rewarded.
I do agree with the sentiment made in the article quoted by the OP that the Democrats have udderly failed to communicate. You can't speak like a Harvard professor, and expect people with only a GED or a barely earned high school diploma from a failed school to understand what you mean or why. You need someone like Bill Clinton, who can summarize complex policy issues in simple terms, like his famous "Don't ask, don't tell," reform.
The republicans are indeed great at selling policies... I mean they somehow got the poor's support on taxation on assets of the wealthy upon their death, when it doesn't affect them at all. All because the Republicans are good at milking the poor's need for some kind of raison d'etre-in this case ideals like Liberty, freedom etc.
Meanwhile, you have the 1-3rd richest man in the world begging to be taxed harder.
I have read trough your selection of "best bits" and sincerely non of them really made me outraged or anything, it's just the usual political bullshit , i have expected a bit more after that intro
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption.
What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole.
The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around!
..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God.
There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries.
Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses.
Actually, you're completely wrong. The Prosperity Gospel is not biblical. Please go to 10 of your local churches in your area and poll the lead pastors and congregations. You'll find that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding main stream christian beliefs.
I think you'll find most Christians will agree God can bless you, but being good Christian does not lead to wealth, nor does wealth mean you were a good Christian. There is no casual relationship there. And it's a dangerous theology to preach as biblical fact.
Had a longass response written to this and accidently closed the window, so forgive me if I'm brief here but I'm kinda raging at what I just did .
There are many passages in the scripture that saying if you trust in God, he will reward you, etc. etc. and sometimes it refers to wealth.
Much of western Christianity, specifically those Protestant, have gone with the general notion that making wealth is a good thing. Saddleback Church, arguably one of the largest and most prominent churches in the world, has had an entire sermon on how generating wealth is glorifying God. I know, because I attended it. While I admit I was wrong on the issue specifically stating that God will reward good Christians with wealth in particular, there are many verses that say they will be rewarded, and it's not exactly a stretch to interpret that as wealth, so I fail to see why it wouldn't qualify as being Biblically based.
Sorry for the shorter, shittier reply of what I originally had, but that's a TLDR version.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk.
Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it.
im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit.
Chile ain't a thirdworld country and is probably better off than the united states.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk.
Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it.
im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit.
Chile ain't a thirdworld country and is probably better off than the united states.
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
You're talking about the same party that passed Medicare Part D under Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if half of the party would pass some kind of limited single payer system.
I agree with you that Obamacare sunk the democrats in 2010 and is going to sink them again in 2012. However, I wouldn't confuse the unpopularity of Obamacare with a lack of popular appettite for health care reform -- even reform that includes some form of single payer system. The democrats' and Obama's biggest mistake with Obamacare is that they locked the republican party out of the negotiations. They made it a partisan bill, because they felt that they didn't need the republicans at the bargaining table. Quite frankly, they were kinda right. They had a majority in Congress and a super-majority in the Senate. They could pass whatever they wanted without one republican vote. Nonetheless, it was still a political mistake. Leaving the republicans out made it really, really easy for republicans politicians and party members to adopt a unified position in opposition to the democrats and Obama. More importantly, what ultimately was passed was an incredibly flawed bill that Obama and the democrats now own. If Obama and the democrats had been more inclusive of Republicans in the health care negotiations, they wouldn't be in the mess that they are in now, and the tea party may not have blown up as much as it has (I think it still would have given the scope of Obama's deficit spending).
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective.
It's not like an international gaming site is a novel concept to me.
Then it shouldn't be mindboggling to you that there is support for the system that exists in the vast majority of first world countries. Socialist isn't even a dirty word over here.
I would be very, very surprised if you could find a site with an international user base that had views in line with the American right. Your right wing is batshit insane by any non American standard. The same applies with religion because the proportion of people who are actively religious in America is very much out of line with the rest of the western world. Your country is weird and interactions with the rest of the world will seem surprising and even alien.
The right wing in this country looks that way to a lot of people inside the U.S. too, not just other countries. Yeah, they're bat-shit insane.
I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed...[into] the gospel of wealth and corruption.
That is an absurdly simplistic and ignorant claim. Many many Christians would not take their religion to be supportive of wealth and corruption. The opinion of televangelists and whoever else you claim to be mending Christianity to their own ends does not define Christianity to the majority of its followers. Your statement hints at an assumption that Christians are sheep, just like the economically disadvantaged whites who the staffer assumes (emphasis on assumes) to be influenced by televangelists. Anyone with a sliver of knowledge about the religion knows that it can't be simplified into something that is corrupt.
Yeah, televangelism =/= a representative picture of Christianity. Not saying there isn't corruption in the religion, but making blanket statements like that is ridiculous.
On September 08 2011 06:56 Nanikure wrote: God reading articles like these make me pissed off and completely depressed at the same time. I live in a mormon area so I'm surrounded by mouth-breathers who ignore logic and rationality and regurgitate the same kind of nonsense that the author described in that article.
I'm sure we are far past the point where we have become a complete joke in the eyes of the international community, and although I know that there are so many good people in this country, the amount of sheer idiocy, corruption, and greed makes me wish that I didn't have to associate myself with it.
I used to think that once all of the "older generation" died off with their old ideas in about 40 years we'd be left with a more enlightened type of society. With so many people still being indoctrinated, I'm starting to think that this may just be a naive assumption by myself. Everything sucks.
Well, my country is probably worse when it comes to greed and corruption. The only difference is we don't have the military might to spread our "way of life" to countries around the world that disagree with us. As far as I know, the international community is mostly pissed of at USA because of that and consider USA a joke because of that.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
At least you can sarcasticly recognize you're problems. I love how you just say, Cede my rights! .... What are you specifically talking about?
"I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government."
LoL. I think a large portion of the country is "Fat".. The government has been drowning the country in lies since the end of Franklin. In fact it's my personal belief, before this.... Idea that America was the worlds super power. It was a perfectly stable and healthy country. (it's funny what thinking you're best can do)
I knew it was bad, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. Part of that stuff sounds like pre 1933 Germany, not a present day democracy (might have to start using quotation marks when talking about the US "democracy").
It's articles like this that make me glad I live in a country with more than 2 political parties. We have our crooked politicians like everyone else, but it's nice to have alternatives available, rather than choosing between the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
looks like an intersiting read. I always wonder though if any of this stuff he talks about is embelished at all. he did LEAVE the party however, so couldn't he just be trying to give it a bad name?
not that the GOP or dem party need that anymore, buthey
The whole party system is a joke. There are good individuals in government but they cannot act as individuals or base decisions off of constituent needs because they MUST do what the party tells them to do which greedy individuals at the top are controlling. The architecture of the party system is very corrupt. Even if a member of Congress wants to do the right thing there is extreme pressure just to do what they are told to do.
I hope we see a rise of independents but it's extremely doubtful. It's such a catch 22 with the way our voting system works. There is no incentive to vote independent and everyone just seems to vote so someone else can't win.
On September 09 2011 00:09 Rob28 wrote: It's articles like this that make me glad I live in a country with more than 2 political parties. We have our crooked politicians like everyone else, but it's nice to have alternatives available, rather than choosing between the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
But with Layton's death (Leader of the Left side party, NDP)... Harper (Leader of the Right side party, Conservative) will have his way for the next few years.
I feel sorry for you guys in the US. After reading that article, I am disgusted, appaled and enraged that something like this is allowed to happen in broad daylight and that although everyone knows something is wrong, not much can be done.
On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote: Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple!
Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese
not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain.
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk.
Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it.
im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit.
The only person I've actually seen condescend on others due to their nationality in this thread is you and you're American. You're contradicting yourself in the worst way. In addition, Apple has made a hell of a lot of money from sales in China as well as the rest of the world. Apple outsourcing production is part of the 'free market' which America has promoted and benefited from for years. Maybe you and your friend should either get an education and do something that the Chinese can't do to get a good job and wage, otherwise suck it up and be prepared to compete with them with regards to wages. Sulking on an internet forum and bashing on the Chinese will not help.
On September 09 2011 00:09 Rob28 wrote: It's articles like this that make me glad I live in a country with more than 2 political parties. We have our crooked politicians like everyone else, but it's nice to have alternatives available, rather than choosing between the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
Every country is marching in the same general direction. Debates in every country get more and more polarized with only the extreme opinions making the most noise and getting the most attention. You end up with only red vs blue. Pro-skub vs Anti-skub. All debates hinge on who shrieks one of the two main opinions the loudest. Zero discussion on compromise and moderation. For all of their insanity, the Republicans are absolute geniuses when it comes to politics. They literally held the country at gun-point during the debt-limit raise last month and in the end they managed to generate MORE support. In a fair and just world they would be run out of town and replaced with people that give a crap about the well-being of the country they're supposed to protect.
I think it's only a matter of time before every country starts acting this way. The US just beat everyone to the punch because we've got a more unscrupulous political process and a big religious base. They can say as much crazy stuff as they want, and they get away with it. Once they realized this kind of sensationalism gets them lots of attention (thus support), they dialed the crazy up to 11.
Until voters start punishing this behaviour, it will continue to get worse. I have little hope for the Jersey Shore generation.
It's funny I remember reading about this in a media & politics class as well as a political psychology class I took in college. It's amazing how wording something a certain way sends a message to the people. In 2006 both parties were discussing the plans for the future of the Iraq war and President Bush wanted to send in more troops. It was the difference between like a "surge" and some other word. The way it gets absorbed by the media and then eventually consumed by the everyday American is fascinating. Republicans, hate them or love them, know how to send a message that intimately touches the American people to support something they don't necessarily want to support. Democrats are not very good at doing this as they're playing on the counter-offensive in this battle. They're already two steps behind and it shows when the policy makers are typically the Republicans while the Democrats just get shoved around until they feel like something is better than nothing.
I think it's evident with the election and I think Jon Stewart [recently] sarcastically poked fun at the Democrats lack of fire in their messages to the people and he uses Kerry's election platform as an example.
It seems like the best man is the one who can massage the minds of the people with a heartwarming yet promising message, regardless of what actually will happen. Think about the recent tea-party uprising. It still makes me sad [and I think if you looked at any posts I've made in political threads here on TL, my opinion has remained consistent] when people think the tea party is supportive of some wild policy promises that would realistically never happen unless you removed all social programs to account for the budget losses. In this example I'm referring to less "taxes" primarily.
Really great article, even if unfortunately it isn't for the most part too shocking. The manipulation of both the media and the opinions of less informed voters has really skewed political discourse in this country to the point of absurdity. It feels like we're actually regressing and I don't know what the hell can be done about it. The Republicans really know what they're doing, which is pretty frightening if you think about it.
One part I found particularly alarming was how well this applies to modern American politics:
As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.
Is the Democrats' problem really the messaging or is it their actual message? Let me present an alternative explanation: a majority of Americans simply aren't buying what the modern day Democratic party is selling.
If anything, Democrats generally have to hide what their real intentions are in order to get into office and pose as being more conservative/moderate than they really are. Take the Obamacare bill as an example. Did Democrats draft that bill in any manner that even remotely resembled an open process? Of course not. It was all done behind closed doors. I can still remember Nancy Pelosi's inane statement to the press of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Really?! How about Pelosi forcing a vote on a 2500+ page bill (or however large it was) when Congressional members only had a couple of days (I think it was two days) to review it? The Democrats knew damned well that what they were drafting was not popular, and they did everything that they could to hide it until it was passed.
Republicans aren't "winning" right now because they are outsmarting Democrats with better "messaging." Americans had most of two years to see what unfettered Democratic rule looks like, and they didn't like it.
On September 09 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote: If anything, Democrats generally have to hide what their real intentions are in order to get into office and pose as being more conservative/moderate than they really are. Take the Obamacare bill as an example. Did Democrats draft that bill in any manner that even remotely resembled an open process? Of course not. It was all done behind closed doors. I can still remember Nancy Pelosi's inane statement to the press of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Really?! How about Pelosi forcing a vote on a 2500+ page bill (or however large it was) when Congressional members only had a couple of days (I think it was two days) to review it? The Democrats knew damned well that what they were drafting was not popular, and they did everything that they could to hide it until it was passed.
I've talked about it before in when the legislation first came up. The legislation is an unholy mix of cost shuffling, wealth transfers, individual mandates, and government regulation. It's arguably much worse than a health care system run entirely by the government because people who know the law well will be able to profiteer off of the exploits built into the complicated system. The hospitals and health insurance agencies seemed to have their fingerprints all over it.
As with most major pieces of legislation, if people knew what was actually in the giant bills, they probably wouldn't like it. It's a mixture of overly complicated or not desirable. The same is true of the PATRIOT act, another rushed piece of legislation.
The Democrats for all their campaign rhetoric didn't deliver. It's an about-face in anti-war, civil liberties, and anti-lobbyist. Only thing they can still cobble up the tax-the-rich rhetoric and by rich they mean everybody except themselves (lawmakers are very rich) and their friends.
On September 09 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote: Is the Democrats' problem really the messaging or is it their actual message? Let me present an alternative explanation: a majority of Americans simply aren't buying what the modern day Democratic party is selling.
If anything, Democrats generally have to hide what their real intentions are in order to get into office and pose as being more conservative/moderate than they really are. Take the Obamacare bill as an example. Did Democrats draft that bill in any manner that even remotely resembled an open process? Of course not. It was all done behind closed doors. I can still remember Nancy Pelosi's inane statement to the press of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Really?! How about Pelosi forcing a vote on a 2500+ page bill (or however large it was) when Congressional members only had a couple of days (I think it was two days) to review it? The Democrats knew damned well that what they were drafting was not popular, and they did everything that they could to hide it until it was passed.
Republicans aren't "winning" right now because they are outsmarting Democrats with better "messaging." Americans had most of two years to see what unfettered Democratic rule looks like, and they didn't like it.
You should know that the final healthcare bill was almost identical, in every way that matters, to Republican proposals from the 90's. It was a center-right bill, with big giveaways to business (insurance and pharma), patent extensions, and minimal increases in government benefits (most of which came in the form of subsidizing private insurance for poor people instead of just supplying it directly). The main cost control measure, the insurance exchange, is a market-focused plan. It's conservative economics 101.
Lets not forget that the mandate, which is the most controversial part of the bill, was taken directly from the Republican position plan in the 90's. In many ways, it's weaker. Originally it was an employer mandate instead of an individual mandate.
The trouble is clearly messaging. The public consistently polls in favor of liberal positions on all kinds of issues. The public option, for example, was a popular idea. It got cut from the healthcare bill in favor of more conservative plans.
In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
P.S. I also spotted the words nexus, dragoons, and arbiter.
I found that article rather hard to read. I'm a math/science guy, and I'm all for the clarity of ideas being expressed. I find that when the writer tries to plug in big words left and right, it can fuzzy the meaning to a large portion of readers.
That being said, the most disgusting part of this entire article for me was the following statement:
"But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president."
It seems apparent that the US government's 2 party system has become so polarized; and its members so partisan, that the government is slowly losing its ability to function and serve its purpose.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Your argument is completely false. There was an article not too long ago in the NY Times that clearly showed that a majority of Americans support a good majority of the policies the Democrats support, but somehow still do not all vote for the Democrats. I will try to find the article but if you're going to claim that most Americans reject "what the Democrats are selling", the LEAST you can do is mention NUMBERS.
edit: I just found the article, you can read it here. Let me just quote two sentences from it, utterly destroying your argument in the process:
Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.
It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
Either way, we'll find out if the Republican's aggressive, obstructing and downright childish conduct over the last presidential term is going to get rewarded, or punished, in the coming election. I know which outcome I'm hoping for.
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote: It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
It's called a filibuster. You need 60 votes in the senate in order to end debate on a bill and move onto a vote. That means that any party with 41 senators can, if they vote in a block (as republicans do), block any piece of legislation that goes through the senate (aside from certain spending/budget measures which can pass without super-majority approval). Historically, this has been used rarely. Since 2008, it's been par for the course. There were plenty of democratic votes to pass a bill with a public option. It was just procedurally impossible due to the senate's cloture rules.
Also, I'm not a democrat, so please don't call it "my party."
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
I'm not even sure where to begin here. The reason Republicans can get away with holding the global economy hostage is two-fold: 1) The average voter understand virtually nothing about the debt ceiling or what it would mean if it were not extended, and 2) Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are absolutely terrible at messaging. If for some reason you can't see it in the debt ceiling debate, look back to the 9/11 first responder aid bill that they tried to get passed in December last year. Providing healthcare for 9/11 first responders who got sick due to their service is probably the most popular idea in history. Republicans held it up in order to secure the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. Any half decent politician could make them pay for that stance, but the Democrats failed to.
In polls, Americans consistently choose increased taxes (especially for the wealthy) over any spending cuts. You should also know that most deficit problems have nothing to do with the kind of cuts proposed. In the last decade, Clinton's surpluses were turned into massive deficits thanks to a few factors: the Bush tax cuts, military spending related to Iraq/Afghanistan, other increases in military spending, Medicare part D, TARP/stimulus, and extension of unemployment benefits. In short, that's tax cuts, war, prescription drugs for old people, and rescuing the economy.
It’s true, your explanation is simpler. It also happens to be almost completely divorced from reality. Polls showed that Americans preferred compromise over principle. They showed that, in places where people wanted deficit reduction at all, they greatly preferred tax increases (especially on wealthy people and corporations) over spending cuts and especially entitlement reform.
Republicans framed the entire debate. Democrats are so bad a messaging that they just went along with it. The entire conversation took place on conservative territory.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
I actually don’t know the poll number on this, and it’s not really worth the effort to find enough polls to get a representative sample. It might be true that Americans like Gitmo and prefer military trials for detainees. I really don’t know.
Though it’s worth noting, that this is an example of an area where Obama campaigned on a liberal position but enacted it to a conservative policy, which really works towards my earlier point…
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
B definitely happens, but I think for a different reason.
I’m curious what you mean when you say Democrats “mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare.” The bill looks nothing like what liberal members of the party wanted. If the healthcare bill is your prime example of passing a liberal conspiracy on the American people, you’re case is pretty flimsy.
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote: It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare.
Kennedy died in August of 2009, and took the 60 vote super-majority with him. You're so far off base it's not even funny.
Also you're counting Lieberman as a Democrat, which is usually a mistake.
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote: It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, false. Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's senate seat in February 2010, which meant that the Democrats (+ independents) no longer had 60 seats.
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote: It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare.
Kennedy died in August of 2009, and took the 60 vote super-majority with him. You're so far off base it's not even funny.
Also you're counting Lieberman as a Democrat, which is usually a mistake.
I'm trying to find the exact voting record from the senate vote on Obamacare in December 2009. Wikipedia lists it as 60 - 39, with all 39 republicans voting against it, 58 democrats voting for it, and two independents voting for it (Lieberman and Sanders). Clearly the republicans weren't able to filibuster it with just 39 votes.
Lierberman is a reliable democrat when it comes to most fiscal/domestic issues, which is why he caucuses with the democrats. He is fairly conservative on foreign policy.
Its a shame he waited until after his retirement to write this. It probably would have made no difference, but the whole thing did kinda read to me like somebody who had cashed all his chips and is only now telling you how the game is rigged.
I'm not a US citizen but I follow American politics quite closely, possibly more closely than my own countries partly because the impact America has on the world but also because it so often seems like a work of fiction. The future looks bleak.
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote: If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this.
It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem.
On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote: If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this.
It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem.
Human beings are not designed to be this rich.
OOohhhhh I'm mad right now...
Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote: If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this.
It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem.
Human beings are not designed to be this rich.
OOohhhhh I'm mad right now...
Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
Erm no. That has nothing to do with the basis of capitalism, which is that the means of production are privately owned and that an important part of the profit is re-invested in the company. There's nothing about capitalism that prevents being long-sighted about the universe around us, especially if changes in the universe can have a long-term negative impact on the economic environment.
On September 09 2011 04:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
That's not a capitalist system. That's a market failure system.
A proper capitalist system accounts for market externalities and ensures that competitiors pay the true costs of production. Otherwise, we don't have a competitive free market.
What we have in America today is far from a true capitalist system. No one can honestly argue that we have a free market when the largest corporations recieve some of the biggest subsidies while evading their tax responsibilities and funding political opposition to anything that might make them pay for the externalities they're exploiting.
It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American. I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote: If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this.
It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem.
Human beings are not designed to be this rich.
OOohhhhh I'm mad right now...
Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
Erm no. That has nothing to do with the basis of capitalism, which is that the means of production are privately owned and that an important part of the profit is re-invested in the company. There's nothing about capitalism that prevents being long-sighted about the universe around us, especially if changes in the universe can have a long-term negative impact on the economic environment.
But being long-sighted about the universe usually means you're lessening your profit cause most 'long-sighted' actions don't come for free and force certain expenses and/or cuts from you. That makes your business vulnerable to competitors who can expand faster, sell their products for less money, ... This is not a question that can be answered by a clear black-and-white answer, since you're image or firm philosophy and your good deeds may win you customers and thereby profit. But true capitalistic logic is to decrease production costs and maximize profit by any means - if you don't do it someone else will.
On September 09 2011 05:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote: It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American. I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
I don't think you guys will end up like us, but I could be wrong. A lot of the conservative stuff works purely off jingoism and fear. I am not sure you guys have as much of that. Here we have people who will hear Obama is a muslim, there thats the end of it. They won't actually look into that claim. They hear <X> is socialism and socialism is like totally what Stalin did and bam, that is fact to them. Bachman gets up and talks about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, she doesn't have to say what they are or what was unconstitutional about it, they don't care.
People are getting way to into politics about this. This is more about "<X> is communist!", "its a baby killer!", "thats like what the nazi's did", and "death panels" thing that the right is doing at the moment and how it works. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on, that isn't good for us as a country. Both the left and the right should be in agreement here. It isn't any better if someone on the left starts doing something similar. Both sides should be free of this, but they won't stop as long as it works.
On September 09 2011 05:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote: It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American. I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
I don't think you guys will end up like us, but I could be wrong. A lot of the conservative stuff works purely off jingoism and fear. I am not sure you guys have as much of that. Here we have people who will hear Obama is a muslim, there thats the end of it. They won't actually look into that claim. They hear <X> is socialism and socialism is like totally what Stalin did and bam, that is fact to them. Bachman gets up and talks about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, she doesn't have to say what they are or what was unconstitutional about it, they don't care.
People are getting way to into politics about this. This is more about "<X> is communist!", "its a baby killer!", "thats like what the nazi's did", and "death panels" thing that the right is doing at the moment and how it works. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on, that isn't good for us as a country. Both the left and the right should be in agreement here. It isn't any better if someone on the left starts doing something similar. Both sides should be free of this, but they won't stop as long as it works.
This kind of thing gets on my tits as well. Every crazy quote you just listed has been a part of Republican rhetoric for the last four years. I don't recall anything similar from the Democrats. I want someone to cite even half as many incidents of Democratic representatives calling the Republicans nazis either in this presidency or even under Bush's reign. I sure as shit can't find them. Where the hell was the Ben Gleck show where we got our worst fears pandered to while someone publicly called George Bush a racist, white-supremacist, religious nut job, poor-hating, warmonger, all in the name of a quick buck? It didn't happen.
The fear-mongering, volatile, hate machine is powered entirely by one side of the political spectrum right now, yet people think it permeates the entire process? You really have to admire the Republicans and how they drag common perception down to their level.
Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans. The fact that the Senate gives such a hugely disproportionate amount of power to the Republican leaning small states should be terribly obvious to you.
On September 08 2011 07:37 Arrian wrote: No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush.
Definately the best post in the topic, I heard the same thing on Fox News the other day.
...
I don't understand how you can make such a bland statement. Obama doesnt rule the world's economy as far as I know, he can't make it all better by just moving his wand.
This thread sure delivers, I dont understand how anyone can disagree on the fact that the Democrat's ideas when it comes to economy are, lets say, more realistic then any of the Republican's idea. The only reason Republicans (nearly) always come through is the fact that they are really good at making it sound evil to your typical american who doesnt understand a single word of what hes being sold. You really have to be pretty deeply involved with one of the parties not to notice that.
On September 09 2011 06:06 Egyptian_Head wrote: Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
How do quantify a person's merit though? Here in the good ol USA that's already the case if you consider money to equal merit.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980:
1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal
That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House.
The Democrats in Congress are too liberal? You have got to be kidding me.
It just shows how good the propaganda and messaging is from the Republicans/Neo-cons to have people actually believe that crap.
I think we can all see the problems inherent in this expression of opinion. Mostly that you're assuming conclusions have been made that are in fact simply your opinions...
Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
Oh my.
Meritocracies are horrible ideas. (For very obvious reasons).
(Mostly that it is impossible for a meritocracy to become anything but an Soviet-style oligarchy).
(Which doesn't mean Communism necessarily, it just means the structure of the leadership cadre is similar).
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Wait, what?
1. You contradict yourself at the end of your post ("the entire political spectrum would have to move left... to create a 50/50 split").
2. Gerrymandering is used to disenfranchise both parties by whoever controls the State legislatures, which have historically been fairly split between the parties.
2B. Gerrymandering by federal law to create minority-majority (aka Democratic) districts has been going on for 45 years, are you opposed to that as well?
3. Population distributions? That is determined by people themselves, where they live. Not by a political party.
4. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2 to 1 (~40% to ~20%). With similar proportions for "conservative leaning independents" and "liberal leaning independents," with the rest saying they are "moderates" who tend to lean liberal on social issues mostly and centrist to slightly conservative on fiscal issues.
Anyone suggesting that America is not a majority center-right country is fooling themselves.
On September 09 2011 06:06 Egyptian_Head wrote: Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
How do quantify a person's merit though? Here in the good ol USA that's already the case if you consider money to equal merit.
That is the the problem. And I do think I might be going a little to the extreme by removing the vote entirely after all people must have some recourse to improve there situation.
Here is a basic outline of merit that I would use though.
Knowledge of the state and how it functions. Knowledge of international affairs. Knowledge of how the economy functions and what is important for your countries economy.
You get the idea, A test would be used with universities judging the results (non applicants judge only). The top 20% are considered along the following lines
Who has the least business interests? Most community service? How they live there everyday life.
and so on.
Added to this I would make ruling quite unpleasant.
Those in power have no right to privacy. Those in power have no right to property. (They may collect any property they own after they give up power). They shall earn no salary but the government will pay for expenses within reason.
No one with impure motives would accept these conditions.
Because I am not in favor of dictatorship, the ruler can be voted out with 75% of the population voting for it, however they cannot vote someone new in, they can only remove.
All numbers are subject to change, tis is just a basic outline of how I would do it.
The Democrats in Congress are too liberal? You have got to be kidding me.
It just shows how good the propaganda and messaging is from the Republicans/Neo-cons to have people actually believe that crap.
I think we can all see the problems inherent in this expression of opinion. Mostly that you're assuming conclusions have been made that are in fact simply your opinions...
Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
Oh my.
Meritocracies are horrible ideas. (For very obvious reasons).
(Mostly that it is impossible for a meritocracy to become anything but an Soviet-style oligarchy).
(Which doesn't mean Communism necessarily, it just means the structure of the leadership cadre is similar).
This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980:
1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal
That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House.
I would point out that conservative doesn't imply republican. I would consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates because they are far too extreme on the social aspect and some of them even fiscal issues..
Anyway that all seems pretty offtopic as I pointed out in my last post here. It isn't really relevant who is 'winning' or whatever - these kinds of tactics are wrong.
This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office.
So what?
You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy.
If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in?
Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the...
It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to.
This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office.
So what?
You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy.
If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in?
Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the...
It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to.
First of all, you can combine the two. Secondly, how is democracy superior? I see both systems as bad.
Could you explain to me, how a country can be a democracy when most people have no clue about what the people they vote for really want/will do? How are the people in control if the leaders get power by populism and brain washing (religion and hate spreading against "terrorists", "communists" "socialists" "immigrants" or any other label, which they falsely connect to various bad things that happen in the country), and if these leaders clearly do not have the goal of doing the best thing for the people? How can the senate represent the people if they receive funding from corporations (which want something in return), and if they earn nearly 1 million per year on average, when the average annual income in the country is around $30.000?
Same question on privatization. How can people think corporations are better at all, in the case of for example health care or water supply? A government taking care of health care or the water supply will have the goal of providing the health care/water. A corporation doing this will use the service as a tool to always earn more and more profit. The goal is no longer providing an extremely important service, the service and the civilian are tools to generate money.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980:
1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal
That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House.
Of course this country is center-right, but when did I ever claim that somehow Republicans were center-right?
My point was just that the far right has a much larger proportion of political power than it deserves. The democrats aren't even center-left, they are practically middle of the road or center-right. If voter turnout of all demographics were equal across the board, the Republican party as it is right now wouldn't even exist. It would have to shift its policies further to the left to survive.
I was never claiming that somehow self described liberals outnumbered self described conservatives, only that the number of people who agree with the heavily-right Republicans is not proportional to the amount of political power they hold. If you held a gun up to the head of every American and asked them to choose between the two parties, the majority would be with the Democrats (probably reluctantly, but that's just how our politics are). The Democrats fail because their support base (which is larger than the Republican support base) doesn't vote or if they do vote, it is worth less.
This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office.
So what?
You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy.
If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in?
Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the...
It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to.
The last word have to be given to the people as a safety, if things are not going well they can change things, I am not a complete idiot. I am only in finding better people to rule, the current system does not bring those most qualified to rule to the position. I only want merit based as long as it brings better results, if adding a safety net to the system brings better results I am fine with it even if it goes against a system of merit.
The reason the people cannot be trusted to put someone into power is because people are easily mislead by single issues, the hot topic of the day. They are mislead by policy choices of candidates, hell not only this but candidates straight up lie. People are fed bad information and vote accordingly. This just creates to many problems, people can be trusted with removing leaders though because you know when things aren't going well, it doesn't have the same problems as voting in people. Democracy in its current form ensures mediocrity in leaders, it ensures that people who have money will always determine what goes on. Although party politics is the real villain here. I am open to people being voted in if we get rid of political parties and candidates are chosen by merit. Though it is not my preferred option but it might be necessary.
I have decided I am going to to say voting is fine, there is no objective way of determine the best candidate, however it is easy to determine the best x% very roughly given a set of criteria, truth is anyone in the top x% is probably fine. Let people vote for them, it will keep them happy.
The only to ways to be removed are death and being voted out or resigning. Term lengths are irrelevant when people in power are not allowed property nor privacy.
How to decide what merit is? Easy, this is something the people can do, besides the obvious knowledge requirements I spoke of earlier, a national discussion can be held to find out what people think is important in a leader, not policy wise though. If the people feel that university education is important then that can be a determination of merit. If lack of business interests is something they feel is important then so shall it be. This can happen every ten years to update it even. I am fine with the people deciding this, it will be there leader after all. This doesn't have the same problem as voting someone in because there are no policy decisions here, just people saying what they expect a leader to be. This is better because it limits the people who can stand for leadership, there can be no deception because whether or not they are chosen to stand is done well before the people even know who they are. Look for people who conform to what people want not, voting for the best of a bad lot.
I am not advocating some sort of dictatorship where the people have no choice in the matter. Rather the goal is to ensure a better caliber of leader. So no this is not a meritocracy in a strict sense, I suppose it can be called democracy, (if a bit limited), although I wouldn't it is very much still a merit based system. The people might have to play a bigger role than I would like but whatever, its all about whatever brings the best results.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980:
1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal
That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House.
I included an article on the previous page which demonstrated that you were wrong regarding Republican views being in the majority. Why did you fail to acknowledge my post? Let me quote myself:
There was an article not too long ago in the NY Times that clearly showed that a majority of Americans support a good majority of the policies the Democrats support, but somehow still do not all vote for the Democrats. I will try to find the article but if you're going to claim that most Americans reject "what the Democrats are selling", the LEAST you can do is mention NUMBERS.
edit: I just found the article, you can read it here. Let me just quote two sentences from it, utterly destroying your argument in the process:
Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.
On September 09 2011 05:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote: It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American. I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
I don't think you guys will end up like us, but I could be wrong. A lot of the conservative stuff works purely off jingoism and fear. I am not sure you guys have as much of that. Here we have people who will hear Obama is a muslim, there thats the end of it. They won't actually look into that claim. They hear <X> is socialism and socialism is like totally what Stalin did and bam, that is fact to them. Bachman gets up and talks about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, she doesn't have to say what they are or what was unconstitutional about it, they don't care.
People are getting way to into politics about this. This is more about "<X> is communist!", "its a baby killer!", "thats like what the nazi's did", and "death panels" thing that the right is doing at the moment and how it works. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on, that isn't good for us as a country. Both the left and the right should be in agreement here. It isn't any better if someone on the left starts doing something similar. Both sides should be free of this, but they won't stop as long as it works.
This kind of thing gets on my tits as well. Every crazy quote you just listed has been a part of Republican rhetoric for the last four years. I don't recall anything similar from the Democrats. I want someone to cite even half as many incidents of Democratic representatives calling the Republicans nazis either in this presidency or even under Bush's reign. I sure as shit can't find them. Where the hell was the Ben Gleck show where we got our worst fears pandered to while someone publicly called George Bush a racist, white-supremacist, religious nut job, poor-hating, warmonger, all in the name of a quick buck? It didn't happen.
The fear-mongering, volatile, hate machine is powered entirely by one side of the political spectrum right now, yet people think it permeates the entire process? You really have to admire the Republicans and how they drag common perception down to their level.
I never really thought of that. Aside from a few Bill Brasky quotes and some Janine Garofalo ranting, I can't find anything.
I think it's dangerous. There are people that actually sit in front of the tv and go "He's right, Obama is a nazi" when they should be saying "He's right, Obama's health care plan isn't right for the nation because we don't have the structure to support such a system yet", etc. Those kinda people are being taught that Obama is a "socialist nazi muslim", aliens rape farmers, and that wrestling is real, because they don't have an actual news source that will tell them otherwise.
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote: It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
Either way, we'll find out if the Republican's aggressive, obstructing and downright childish conduct over the last presidential term is going to get rewarded, or punished, in the coming election. I know which outcome I'm hoping for.
Huh. Interesting article. But it certainly leads me to think that you guys need some serious Senate reform. That is limiting the length of filibustering. You guys did it to Congress and it might be time to do it with the Senate. It would appear that the Republicans have found and perfected a serious exploit and are Marine-SCV rushing every single game. I mean, well done I guess, but deadlocking government completely negates the idea of changing government through people's choice. The only reason it isn't always deadlocked is the Democrats aren't as good at it. I'd almost like to see (if Obama loses) that the Democrats also perfect the art of obstruction and completely deadlock government, if it would mean that the it would force the government to seek Senate Reform.
I suppose the Machiavellian would applaud the Republican's obstructionist tactics as they are using all possible methods to win. But when government has been ground to a halt, somebody might want to look at fixing it so that government is sem-functional.
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote: In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans.
Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980:
1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal
That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House.
One thing to note is that you are comparing definitions of what makes a "conservative" and a "liberal" across different time spans. I'm not sure if you are intentionally failing to mention this, or don't find it important.
Someone could probably argue that many people could argue that Obama is a radical conservative because he has been opening up US land to energy companies (alaska, gulf, although both not nearly as fast as the oil companies would like), lowering taxes, while considering a reduction of of social security.
Or that Bush is a radical socialist because TARP enacted in his term directly bailed out US banks.
It's too easy to point at just a couple points in a presidency and make sweeping generalizations. But those types are points tend to care more about winning an argument than reaching the truth or finding a mutually beneficial common ground.
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
More than once, just so you know. You're probably right about the US being more conservative than not, though, especially by our socialist standards in Europe.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt.
That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this.
Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree.
However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents).
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close).
More than once, just so you know. You're probably right about the US being more conservative than not, though, especially by our socialist standards in Europe.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt.
That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this.
Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree.
However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents).
This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt.
That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this.
Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree.
However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents).
This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
I am sorry, but you must not follow fair and balanced sources of information regarding your own god damn government.
I am even tempted to call you a fucking idiot.
If you think that holding the world at hostage for an "debt ceiling" increase (which has been approved 87 times in previous history) is "winning" the debate you sir are retarded.
What the hell do you think would happen if the US defaulted? Jesus Christ.
The very fact that most actual republicans would easily approve such an increase except for the novice Tea Party Ass hats that have no understanding of how your government system works, is evidence of your total asshatery.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt.
That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this.
Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree.
However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents).
This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
They're not meaningless because they show that a majority of US citizens DISAGREED WITH THE REPUBLICANS. Can you get this through your head? The Republicans rejected tax increases. The majority of the people wanted tax increases.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases.
"Hugely" means nothing. What figure can you come up with? I've seen many conservative economists put forward numbers like 3 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases or 4 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases. Obama proposed a 3 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases plan. Again, even conservative economists and the American people supported this approach.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table
False, like I just pointed out.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:which is why they won the debt ceiling debate
False, they "won" the fight because they were more willing to sacrifice the economy to get what they wanted. And they certainly did not win the debate.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
You have a tendency to believe your views are somehow the views of the American people. Do you have any numbers to back up what you just said?
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote: - Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point: Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!).
Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe.
It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans.
You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance.
I'm not saying i know what the right level of taxes is, or the right level of entitlements, or the right size of government. These are really really really hard questions that no civilization has been able to completely agree on, much less find the right answer. I just know if i have to pay taxes, I want it to be spent as efficiently as possible to the benefit of all americans (a metric for which is a huge debate in and of itself!), as I'm sure we all do. But having that discussion can't be reasonably achieved through jingoism and demagoguery which so much of the republican party have been utilizing almost as a matter of policy.
We are collecting 14-15% of GDP in taxes. We are spending 24-25% of GDP.
Now. Looking at history...there is a limit of around 19% GDP that the US Government can take in...no matter what the tax rates are.
So.
15 Trillion * 19% GDP = 2.85 Trillion.
You can raise taxes until you get your 2.85T in revenues, and whatever spending is beyond that... will (must) be eventually reduced down to that level.
That is where the ratio of proposed Tax Increases to Spending Cuts comes from.
Now I don't really care what the 19%~$2.85T is spent on. Spend it on aircraft carriers or foodtamps.
What I'm saying is that there is a line in the sand there at 19% of GDP that mathematically you can not cross (for long).
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote: - Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point: Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!).
I think we're talking about two different things. "Death panels" (as coined by Palin) refer specifically to the administrative bodies that will determine how care will be rationed to those covered under the medical insurance program. Though I doubt that there will be "death panels" that determine whether individuals should be treated on a case by case basis, at the very least, there will be "death panels" that determine which conditions will receive what types of treatment. Look at how Oregon's Medicaid program works for an example of what this might look like. The term "death panel" may be silly, but it describes a real and necessary component of a government-provided health care system.
When people talk about "means testing," what they generally refer to is the decision to make access to a government program contingent upon material (ie, Rich people likely will not have access to Medicare and Social Security in the future because those programs will be means tested)
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe.
Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem. Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea). Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy. That said, republicans were prepared to compromise on the issue during the "grand bargain" negotiations. If I remember correctly, the last proposal on the table from republicans was something in the neighborhood of $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 trillion in new revenues over 10 years.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans.
This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance.
I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: I'm not saying i know what the right level of taxes is, or the right level of entitlements, or the right size of government. These are really really really hard questions that no civilization has been able to completely agree on, much less find the right answer. I just know if i have to pay taxes, I want it to be spent as efficiently as possible to the benefit of all americans (a metric for which is a huge debate in and of itself!), as I'm sure we all do. But having that discussion can't be reasonably achieved through jingoism and demagoguery which so much of the republican party have been utilizing almost as a matter of policy.
And that's the rub with the federal government. It's not spending money efficiently right now. Why give it more of our money without making the custodians of our funds accountable to us? Washington has been so flush with money that it isn't even trying to be efficient. It's time for the feds to tighten their belts.
Referring back to the OP article, I found it more than a little amusing to see that Obama has put forward a new bill, straight-forwardly titled the American Jobs Act. Maybe he read this article too. Also a strong opening move for the election next year - if the Republicans support it, he created jobs. If they fight it, they are stopping Americans get jobs. Revenge for them trying to make the debt ceiling an election issue?
Referring back to the OP article, I found it more than a little amusing to see that Obama has put forward a new bill, straight-forwardly titled the American Jobs Act. Maybe he read this article too. Also a strong opening move for the election next year - if the Republicans support it, he created jobs. If they fight it, they are stopping Americans get jobs. Revenge for them trying to make the debt ceiling an election issue?
I have the feeling that Republicans will mire the whole process to the point where the proposal becomes a water-down and half-assed attempt to put forth something meaningful. The fallout will be Republicans saying "look at the american jobs act and how it failed. Boo Obama" (and their base will eat it up)... Democrats will not have the spine to actually follow through and in turn will alienate more of their base.
On September 09 2011 11:55 RCMDVA wrote: We are collecting 14-15% of GDP in taxes. We are spending 24-25% of GDP.
Now. Looking at history...there is a limit of around 19% GDP that the US Government can take in...no matter what the tax rates are.
So.
15 Trillion * 19% GDP = 2.85 Trillion.
You can raise taxes until you get your 2.85T in revenues, and whatever spending is beyond that... will (must) be eventually reduced down to that level.
That is where the ratio of proposed Tax Increases to Spending Cuts comes from.
Now I don't really care what the 19%~$2.85T is spent on. Spend it on aircraft carriers or foodtamps.
What I'm saying is that there is a line in the sand there at 19% of GDP that mathematically you can not cross (for long).
We have not crossed 19% of GDP because it has never been tried. Other countries do it easily.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote: Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem. Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea). Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy. That said, republicans were prepared to compromise on the issue during the "grand bargain" negotiations. If I remember correctly, the last proposal on the table from republicans was something in the neighborhood of $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 trillion in new revenues over 10 years.
This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
And that's the rub with the federal government. It's not spending money efficiently right now. Why give it more of our money without making the custodians of our funds accountable to us? Washington has been so flush with money that it isn't even trying to be efficient. It's time for the feds to tighten their belts.
I butchered your post because because I'm much better at TvZ than teamliquid quoting syntax, and I agree we appear to be talking about completely different things regarding means testing.
I feel we are turning into a policy argument, rather than an argument on the means with which different politicians achieve their goals (although I am personally curious as to the republican proposal for new revenues, as I have not heard or read anything to that effect).
A few quacks will always exist in every party, but the entire republican party is becoming so hostile to intellectualism that it is preventing any nuanced debate of the issues. When party LEADERSHIP does not speak out that, for example, Obama was born in the US because they are afraid of making their constituents angry, that indicates a serious problem with our the politicians and constituents in the republican Party. I don't want to say we shouldn't debate, but we shouldn't perpetuate the ignorance of constituents (by not telling them how wrong they are) in order to gain their favor! (I feel similarly about creationism). The entire party is being pulled by the extremists and republicans that I actually admire (whether i agree with their policy or not) are lost in the fray.
We have not crossed 19% of GDP because it has never been tried. Other countries do it easily.
The 19% number is Federal only. Throw in State/City/County taxes and you get around the mid 30% range. A little less than Europe which are around 40%.
And of course that depends on where you are in Europe. We're not a homogenous society here, we don't all follow the same laws and tax codes. In the UK taxes can go up to around 50% of earnings over a certain level, for example.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote: - Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point: Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!).
I think we're talking about two different things. "Death panels" (as coined by Palin) refer specifically to the administrative bodies that will determine how care will be rationed to those covered under the medical insurance program. Though I doubt that there will be "death panels" that determine whether individuals should be treated on a case by case basis, at the very least, there will be "death panels" that determine which conditions will receive what types of treatment. Look at how Oregon's Medicaid program works for an example of what this might look like. The term "death panel" may be silly, but it describes a real and necessary component of a government-provided health care system.
I see that you have completely stopped replying to any of my posts, perhaps because it's a bit inconvenient to reply to someone who has just proved your wrong. No matter, I'll keep debunking your laughable talking points.
First of all, the term "death panel" is ridiculous and nothing more than a scare tactic, that's all there is to it. Don't try to excuse it, you would be outraged the roles were reversed and the Democrats were the ones using the term.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe.
Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem.
False. Pretty much every economist on the spectrum agrees that there is a revenue problem, including Reagan's budget director and plenty of economists who worked for Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. What you say is even false on two levels, since government spending is most welcome to get out of bad economic times. Anyway, here's a table that completely debunks your claim that we don't have a revenue problem: it is a "summary of receipts, outlays, and surpluses or deficits as percentages of GDP". We are at 14.9% for both 2009 and 2010, and you have to go back to 1950 to find a figure as low. You are wrong.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote: Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea).
False, it's certainly not only Keynesians that believe this. Have you ever studied economics? Even Friedman was not completely against spending, he simply pointed out that the Keynesian multiplier does not work as predicted in every situation. Besides, the kind of spending advertised by Obama in his latest speech is spending that would be necessary anyway and that supporters of Friedman would certainly not oppose, namely spending to improve infrastructure and education. What's more, these days Republicans are even against the monetary policy of the Fed (see Perry and Romney's comments regarding Bernanke), meaning that they've completely turned their backs to serious economists across the spectrum. I'd like to add that the CBO and other budget offices have showed that raising taxes on the wealthiest would not hurt the economy and would considerably help in reducing the deficit, allowing programs that are VITAL to the economy to be maintained (in short: it's a better economic policy to raise taxes on the wealthy and save those programs than not raise taxes on the wealthy and slash those programs, the latter being what the Republicans support). Again, you are wrong.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote: Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy.
False, it was terrible policy, like I just pointed out and like every serious economist has argued.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans.
This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
Nobody said the entire deficit would be covered by raising taxes, so nice try with your strawman. The point is that raising taxes on the wealthy would still contribute considerably. This segment from the Daily Show is pretty good to understand why your talking point is bs.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote: You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance.
I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read a scientific article defending or critical of "trickle down economic theory" (I suppose you're referring to supply-side economics)? I think I know the answer. Again, you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
EPT
) It just makes me more angry. The people who hold their beliefs on the right and do so honestly from their heart I assign no blame. Each of us chooses to be informed from the sources we choose. If some choose the Bible so mote it be. I say we can agree to disagree. Let the peaceful public discourse begin.
