EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 786
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Look at California. They have "Direct Democracy" voting on the ballot, and even when the matter is in the hands of the people, the public themselves just can't seem to raise taxes or cut spending. Instead, they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into debt. So in order to ever get anything done, you'd need a politician who did not fully represent their intentions. Or you need to ditch democracy entirely and go with a leader that can make the tough moves. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 13 2012 02:10 jdsowa wrote: Politicians are deliberately vague (or dishonest) about their plans because the American people are unable to handle an honest look at the reality of their economic situation. Look at California. They have "Direct Democracy" voting on the ballot, and even when the matter is in the hands of the people, the public themselves just can't seem to raise taxes or cut spending. Instead, they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into debt. So in order to ever get anything done, you'd need a politician who did not fully represent their intentions. Or you need to ditch democracy entirely and go with a leader that can make the tough moves. Exactly this. Democracy is fundamentally flawed. And the problem is precisely people always voting in their own interests and saying "fuck the rest of the state." I don't want to pay more taxes and I don't want my funding cut. Let them figure it out. As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 13 2012 02:10 jdsowa wrote: Politicians are deliberately vague (or dishonest) about their plans because the American people are unable to handle an honest look at the reality of their economic situation. Look at California. They have "Direct Democracy" voting on the ballot, and even when the matter is in the hands of the people, the public themselves just can't seem to raise taxes or cut spending. Instead, they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into debt. So in order to ever get anything done, you'd need a politician who did not fully represent their intentions. Or you need to ditch democracy entirely and go with a leader that can make the tough moves. Once the relationship between the people and the state is fundamentally altered, there is no going back. Welcome to California. No longer is welfare conceived as help for the destitute or health subsidies as a safety net for the sick poor. It is income given because you're a victim or a neglected sector -- a minority of some kind, social justice and all that. Teacher's unions and public employee unions are remarkably short-sighted on the fiscal cliff. They vote themselves better retirement packages and increased salaries that cannot be paid. They hope that the slide into bankruptcy will involve them getting theirs and somebody down the line being screwed (or a deus ex machina Tax The Rich rescue). Their union dues fund campaigns of sympathetic individuals. In the political half, the California Republican party is a statist group of good-old-boys unable to mount real ideological opposition to the status quo, only interested in keeping who they have re-elected and doing a poor job at anything else. It is the core reason for the Tea Party's existence in that state, highlighted by the campaign Meg Whitman ran to try to become governor of California. Examine this failure of democracy and you end up with a failure of understanding from the governed. How just is it for the citizens to get proper governorship they don't want to avoid consequences they don't believe exist? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
http://i.imgur.com/rKwA6.jpg | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Exactly this. Democracy is fundamentally flawed. And the problem is precisely people always voting in their own interests and saying "fuck the rest of the state." I don't want to pay more taxes and I don't want my funding cut. Let them figure it out. As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. you do understand that California has more people then these other states as well right? just because we have more money does not mean we have the same mouths to feed as other states. We do have a problem with spending and we have a problem with taxes, sooner or later we will fix them though, as soon as people wise up | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
Or maybe the dice will land on a nice moderate Romney, who closes loophopes, lowers taxes, and balances the budget! Who knows, thats the fun! Dice Roll 2012! It's like gambling, except when you lose, little Timmy born with a pre-existing condition goes back to being fucked in the ass by health insurance companies. edit: I guess the point of this post was that I find it incredibly hard to believe that conservatives can actually trust Mitt Romney. Also that I'm pissed at my lack of decent options. Gary Johnson would be if the sons of bitches at CNN and NBC would let him on a debate to actually get some coverage. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
You can't win an election in America if your views aren't mainstream. Because, in order to win an election, you need to have the most votes--which means you need to have mainstream views. 3rd party candidates become 3rd party candidates precisely because their views are outside of the mainstream. They could put Gary Johnson by himself on TV, and keep Romney and Obama off the air, and Johnson still wouldn't crack the double digit mark. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On October 13 2012 03:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: Oh, so you're Jack Kennedy now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E I don't know why anyone is using JFK as an example when it comes to economy... Look at Reagan, look at Bush... Deficit after Deficit with the failed trickle down ideology. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 13 2012 03:53 jdsowa wrote: Re: 3rd party candidates You can't win an election in America if your views aren't mainstream. Because, in order to win an election, you need to have the most votes--which means you need to have mainstream views. 3rd party candidates become 3rd party candidates precisely because their views are outside of the mainstream. They could put Gary Johnson by himself on TV, and keep Romney and Obama off the air, and Johnson still wouldn't crack the double digit mark. Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%. Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy. Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%. Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy. Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means. Naaaaailed it. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally. I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that? It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got. It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I don't know why anyone is using JFK as an example when it comes to economy... Look at Reagan, look at Bush... Deficit after Deficit with the failed trickle down ideology. Ermm, the Bush tax cuts were not just for the rich. That's why Obama wants to keep the bulk of them. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005 I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I don't know why anyone is using JFK as an example when it comes to economy... Look at Reagan, look at Bush... Deficit after Deficit with the failed trickle down ideology. It's funny that the party of Reagan seems to have forgotten a lot of what he did regarding taxes and the deficit. Pretty sure he would be pretty aggravated with the way Romney is playing his plan. On October 13 2012 04:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%. Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy. Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means. Woah, woah, Perot's candidacy was completely different from Gary Johnson's. For one thing, Perot actually had amazing campaign managers-something Paul and Gary Johnson both lack and is a big chunk of why their media coverage is lackluster. For another, his positions are very different, were presented differently, and appeal to a very different niche of the electorate. | ||
| ||
