|
|
On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past.
I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party.
Can anyone imagine Obama doing that?
And thats not even mentioning Welfare Reform and NAFTA which were and are conservative positions and policies in which Clinton stood up to his own party.
|
On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that?
I was really young, so I guess I just didn't notice the poison between the parties, it kind of makes me sad that before this there wasn't a time where it wasn't so bad.
I feel if we were in the same economic situation with the surplus that we had under Clinton administration, then yes I could see Obama passing GOP pushed tax cuts.
It's really hard for me too see Obama cutting additional taxes in the current situation of the economy and the government's debt, he's already extended some of Bush's tax policies, which were GOP pushed were they not?
Just for clarifications, didn't the Republicans make a ton of changes to the Obamacare bill. Isn't it a very moderate bill? Talking to the post below mine.
|
On August 07 2012 09:15 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
The only thing stopping Obama from being a real leftist policy-wise is the political reality that this country won't tolerate truly leftist policies. Specifically, there are too many democrats, in addition to everyone on the right, who won't support that kind of agenda. The perfect example of this is Obamacare and why Obamacare does not have a public option.
Even a cursory review of Obama's past and history shows that Obama is far more of a leftist ideologically than he publicly lets on for obvious political reasons. Hell, just look at some of his political appointments, many of whom are very left wing. Or you can argue that many Democrats don't want to make it look like they're excluding the right. There are plenty that are in contested districts that want compromise, and looking like you're excluding Republicans is a huge no-no. They're not even "Blue Dog" Democrats, just ones that want to look reasonable.
No, that is a bullshit excuse. First, no one wanted healthcare reform. There was no political will for it, and only a minority of democrats really wanted it. Obama and the other democrat leaders shouldn't have pushed it on that basis alone. However, given that they chose to do so anyway, they should have invited specific republicans to coauthor the bill. That is real compromise, and it would have saved the democrats a lot of political problems that will continue to haunt them during this election.
|
On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term.
No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009.
On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that?
He did do that, since he forced his party to extend the Bux tax cuts for the wealthy as part of the deal he struck with the Republicans (that was actually more of a capitulation to Republican demands) at the end of 2010 - the kind of deal that would not exactly have happened if Obama was anywhere close to the picture xDaunt is trying to paint of him.
|
On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that?
In that economic climate, with the deficit at the level it was then, yes I can. Comparing Obama to Clinton is apples to oranges, its a different time in America now.
On August 07 2012 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
The only thing stopping Obama from being a real leftist policy-wise is the political reality that this country won't tolerate truly leftist policies. Specifically, there are too many democrats, in addition to everyone on the right, who won't support that kind of agenda. The perfect example of this is Obamacare and why Obamacare does not have a public option.
Even a cursory review of Obama's past and history shows that Obama is far more of a leftist ideologically than he publicly lets on for obvious political reasons. Hell, just look at some of his political appointments, many of whom are very left wing.
So he's not governing like a leftist but he is a leftist because ya know, he used to be but he's not governing like one so why does it matter? Regardless, if he was that much of a leftist he would have gotten rid of Bernanke that's too powerful of an appointment not to put your own guy into if you are some sort of radical. I hope you don't mean Geitner because he's said that cutting taxes doesn't raise revenues because that's only a surprise to morons. Greenspan said the same thing about revenues.
You're not making a real argument, there's a lot of vagueness and feeling, give us better evidence. Where's your normal mix of pretty well supported argument and condescension?
|
On August 07 2012 09:29 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that? In that economic climate, with the deficit at the level it was then, yes I can. Comparing Obama to Clinton is apples to oranges, its a different time in America now.
The point is that Clinton moved to the middle, especially before the election. We have seen Obama move to the Left of his prior positions on immigration, taxes, and gay marriage right before the election.
Regardless of the state of the economy, it is clear that Bill Clinton was more of a Centrist than Obama was and understood that before elections, you move the middle. He even showed that you can take a group of politicians that hate you and want to ruin you and if you actually support some of their ideas (welfare reform, NAFTA, etc), they WILL vote for it and you can pass laws.
Obama has yet to show that.
In my opinion, he has not shown himself as someone who should be reelected.
|
On August 07 2012 08:58 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist. Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people.
No, that is a social democrat. Obama is one of those. That's center left, not "leftist."
My own politics are a bit more revolutionary.
|
On August 07 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:15 aksfjh wrote:On August 07 2012 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
The only thing stopping Obama from being a real leftist policy-wise is the political reality that this country won't tolerate truly leftist policies. Specifically, there are too many democrats, in addition to everyone on the right, who won't support that kind of agenda. The perfect example of this is Obamacare and why Obamacare does not have a public option.
Even a cursory review of Obama's past and history shows that Obama is far more of a leftist ideologically than he publicly lets on for obvious political reasons. Hell, just look at some of his political appointments, many of whom are very left wing. Or you can argue that many Democrats don't want to make it look like they're excluding the right. There are plenty that are in contested districts that want compromise, and looking like you're excluding Republicans is a huge no-no. They're not even "Blue Dog" Democrats, just ones that want to look reasonable. No, that is a bullshit excuse. First, no one wanted healthcare reform.
That's a lie and you know it. The public was sharply divided on the issue, as polls before, immediately after and in the months following the passage of the bill show. You know this just as well as I do, and those numbers don't even include the people who also wanted a health care reform but different from the bill that passed.
On August 07 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
That is real compromise, and it would have saved the democrats a lot of political problems that will continue to haunt them during this election.
No, the compromise was to abandon the public option and choose what had historically been the solution pushed by conservatives. On the other side, the Republicans refused to compromise and support the bill in any way - and certainly to sponsor it.
|
On August 07 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
First, no one wanted healthcare reform.
LOL, do you live in a fairy tale world? Everybody wanted reform, and everyone still does.
|
On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009.
So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year.
Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything.
Riiiiight.
|
On August 07 2012 09:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
First, no one wanted healthcare reform. LOL, do you live in a fairy tale world? Everybody wanted reform, and everyone still does.
next can we get some education reform please ^__^
|
On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that? And thats not even mentioning Welfare Reform and NAFTA which were and are conservative positions and policies in which Clinton stood up to his own party. I wasnt around during the reagan era, but news reports etc...it was also a hyper partisan era. Carter was hated, Nixon at least was towards the end, not sure about the start. Realistically the partisanship was always going to ramp up and will continue to, the democrats have moved left and the republicans right. The parties are finally [roughly] ideological parties. 60 years ago they werent, and ironically it was the left who generally wrote about how they wished there was ideological purity within parties, a proper war of ideas.
Well, here it is.
|
On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight.
Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything?
I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections.
|
On August 07 2012 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:58 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist. Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people. No, that is a social democrat. Obama is one of those. That's center left, not "leftist." My own politics are a bit more revolutionary.
My apologies, I didn't know classical socialists still existed. I thought you guys all died out.
|
On August 07 2012 10:10 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:16 Savio wrote:On August 07 2012 09:03 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past. I remember clearly a very poisoned political atmosphere during the Clinton years. Republicans really hated Clinton and even impeached him on purely partisan grounds. And yet, as you see in my post, Clinton signed a tax cut that was pushed by the GOP, not by his own party. Can anyone imagine Obama doing that? And thats not even mentioning Welfare Reform and NAFTA which were and are conservative positions and policies in which Clinton stood up to his own party. I wasnt around during the reagan era, but news reports etc...it was also a hyper partisan era. Carter was hated, Nixon at least was towards the end, not sure about the start. Realistically the partisanship was always going to ramp up and will continue to, the democrats have moved left and the republicans right. The parties are finally [roughly] ideological parties. 60 years ago they werent, and ironically it was the left who generally wrote about how they wished there was ideological purity within parties, a proper war of ideas. Well, here it is.
No, it is well-documented that the hyper partisanship that exists today - primarily on the Republican side - goes well beyond what could be witnessed in American politics before the 1990s.
|
On August 07 2012 10:11 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 07 2012 08:58 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist. Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people. No, that is a social democrat. Obama is one of those. That's center left, not "leftist." My own politics are a bit more revolutionary. My apologies, I didn't know classical socialists still existed. I thought you guys all died out.
Well, I'm certainly not a "classical socialist." I'm a sort of "open-source Marxist-Confucian," I guess.
At the very least, I am somebody who has lost all faith in the ability of liberal capitalist democracy to cope with the challenges of the 21st century, which is why I object to people calling Obama a leftist, because he believes in those things.
I think we need to begin a serious dialogue on alternative political-economic systems that work in the 21st century, not just blindly adhere to those that worked in the 18th.
(I should say I believe in "democracy," just not the American style of it [edit: because american democracy is fascism in democracy's clothing])
|
On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections.
You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you?
|
On August 07 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections. You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you?
Its size makes it a clear example of a substantive product of Obama's economic policies being blocked by Republican opposition, which is what was being discussed. No other such substantive bill has passed since 2010, making your assertion that plenty of such bills have passed and currently pass incorrect. I'm not talking about the various small patches that did pass, I'm talking about actual substantive bills that encapsulate Obama's economic policies, that have/would have had a very clear impact on the economy which can then be/could then have been evaluated.
Your assertion that the existing stimulus has a poor track record is also incorrect, unless you expected it to save & create tens of millions of jobs instead of "only" millions.
|
On August 07 2012 10:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:11 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 07 2012 08:58 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist. Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people. No, that is a social democrat. Obama is one of those. That's center left, not "leftist." My own politics are a bit more revolutionary. My apologies, I didn't know classical socialists still existed. I thought you guys all died out. Well, I'm certainly not a "classical socialist." I'm a sort of "open-source Marxist-Confucian," I guess. At the very least, I am somebody who has lost all faith in the ability of liberal capitalist democracy to cope with the challenges of the 21st century, which is why I object to people calling Obama a leftist, because he believes in those things. I think we need to begin a serious dialogue on alternative political-economic systems that work in the 21st century, not just blindly adhere to those that worked in the 18th. (I should say I believe in "democracy," just not the American style of it [edit: because american democracy is fascism in democracy's clothing])
Who's we? The US? The World?
You'll excuse my reservations, but the last time the wolrd had a serious debate about democratic capitalism, "we" ended up with fascism and authoritarian socialism. That, and hundreds of millions of dead people.
You'll also have to excuse my reservations regarding "true democracry". Things like that, well nice in idea, are horrific if the participants are ignorant or just plain stupid. And considering the intellectual capacity of the average american...I'd choose what we have now without a doubt over anarchism, marxism, libertarianism, or whatever you call it.
|
United States41117 Posts
Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
