View Full Version : fuck election day
oxSkylarxo
11-13-2010, 04:42 PM
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e08-douche-and-turd
Lol. Stan didn't want to vote either.
eagle2
11-13-2010, 07:11 PM
Kinda like every other polititican and political party in the country? The Democrats ignored grade school math and grade school logic when they "balanced the budget" under Clinton.
The budget was balanced when President Clinton was in office.
Obama promised that the HC bill will lower healthcare costs and decrease the deficit all at the same time!
Don't know if he specifically promised it, but if the additional taxes bring in more revenue than the costs of the bill, then it will decrease the deficit. There is a great deal of waste in our health care/insurance system. If our government is able to reduce some of this waste as a result of this bill, then, it will lower heath care costs. If the bill results in another 30 million Americans getting health insurance and prevents hundreds of thousands of Americans from going bankrupt every year from medical bills, it will have been worth it. There is no reason why every American should not have health insurance and access to decent health care.
All the math these people use is based on dreams... Republicans say they will decrease spending, which never happens. Democrats say they'll "tax the wealthy" to pay for their programs. Not only do they not do it, but even if they did, the wealthy know how to avoid paying more taxes.
Both parties live in a Dreamworld.
Since World War II, every Democratic president has been able to keep our debt to a manageable level. It was the last three Republican presidents that ran up almost all of the $11 trillion debt we are responsible for, before Obama became President. In addition, the previous President left Obama with a projected trillion dollar deficit before he even took office.
Of the two parties, the Republicans are by far the more irresponsible. Their one solution for everything is to cut taxes. Even with trillion dollar deficits and close to $14 trillion in debt, the Republicans are calling for more tax cuts. The Democrats are irresponsible too, which is a result of the American people being irresponsible. Any politician who calls for an increase in taxes is sure to loose an election. When the Democrats raised taxes in 1993, they lost Congress. Now the Democrats refuse to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, and the Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone at all.
Wealthy Americans do pay taxes. Most government revenue comes from wealthy Americans.
eagle2
11-13-2010, 07:25 PM
It is absolutely not an inaccurate statement to say that views of right wing candidates in the U.S. would be considered extreme in Western Europe. I never even thought anyone would question such a statement. They think our republicans are a freak show over there.
Its' sad that so many Americans are willing to vote for Republicans, despite their extreme views, and even worse that many Americans share these views. It's obvious to any objective person, that the Republican Party is only concerned about the wealthiest Americans, and have a complete disregard for the rest of us. Their main concerns are keeping taxes as low as possible for the wealthy, keeping wages as low as possible for working class Americans, and keeping expenses low for businesses by eliminating as many regulations as possible, regardless of the consequences. Sadly, they're able to convince large numbers of gullible Americans that making the wealthy even better off than they are already, will somehow make average Americans like themselves better off. There are some moderate Republican governors and mayors, like Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg (when he was a Republican), but at the national level, the party is under control of the extremists.
It's easy to convince them when you keep them scared of the brown people and the gays.
jester214
11-13-2010, 08:27 PM
The budget was balanced when President Clinton was in office.
You are correct I misspoke, or miss-typed. I was actually referring to the supposed "surplus" and "debt reduction" which only happened due to the creative math used by "intergovernmental loans". Basically taking money from Social security and other things not covered by the budget.
Don't know if he specifically promised it, but if the additional taxes bring in more revenue than the costs of the bill, then it will decrease the deficit. There is a great deal of waste in our health care/insurance system. If our government is able to reduce some of this waste as a result of this bill, then, it will lower heath care costs. If the bill results in another 30 million Americans getting health insurance and prevents hundreds of thousands of Americans from going bankrupt every year from medical bills, it will have been worth it. There is no reason why every American should not have health insurance and access to decent health care.
This is a dream that was created by the Democrats to make it seem like better legislation than it is. Outside of the "Non-partisan" CBO (who gets the statistics they use from the Party who submits them, i.e. Democrat) I've seen no source say there is any kind of likely chance that the healthcare rbill in its current form will reduce the actual cost of healthcare OR reduce the deficit in any way. They told us both those things would happen, don't know if you consider that a "promise".
Since World War II, every Democratic president has been able to keep our debt to a manageable level. It was the last three Republican presidents that ran up almost all of the $11 trillion debt we are responsible for, before Obama became President. In addition, the previous President left Obama with a projected trillion dollar deficit before he even took office.
Of the two parties, the Republicans are by far the more irresponsible. Their one solution for everything is to cut taxes. Even with trillion dollar deficits and close to $14 trillion in debt, the Republicans are calling for more tax cuts. The Democrats are irresponsible too, which is a result of the American people being irresponsible. Any politician who calls for an increase in taxes is sure to loose an election. When the Democrats raised taxes in 1993, they lost Congress. Now the Democrats refuse to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, and the Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone at all.
From WW2 to Reagan every President reduced the debt (except maybe Nixon/Ford one term, they might have broken even).
Reagan increased it dramatically BUT he had Democratic majorities in the House both terms, and one term Senate majority was Democrat too.
Bush Sr. who had increases even larger than Reagan: Democrat controlled Congress!
Clinton and the supposed decrease: Republican controlled Congress after the first two years.
Bush of course was totally unacceptable no matter how you look at it. Though he did catch the beginning of an Economic downturn and the end of the .com bubble. Toss in the 911 economic disaster and I'll give him a shred of credit... Atleast for his first 3 years.
Wealthy people do pay taxes. Though they spend plenty doing whatever they can to make sure their taxes are as low as possible. The massive increases the Democrats claim they'll put on to them to cover their programs never work out and never will.
Again you fail to do anything but toss about propaganda and blame while refusing to accept that anyone other than the Republicans have done wrong. Now go ahead, tell me how the Republicans were "different" back then, and the Democrats tried to do everything to stop Reagan but he was just too powerful, or whatever you can make up in five minutes of googling.
The more I read in this thread the more I realize how fucked both parties are and how people like you will ruin the chance of a strong moderate party. Maybe I should buy more gold and embrace anarchy.
Melonie
11-13-2010, 09:13 PM
^^^ all I can say is that America had one chance at following a 'different direction' under Ross Perot in 1992. In historical retrospect, America probably should have listened more closely !!!
jester214
11-13-2010, 09:36 PM
^Yeah, maybe... I couldn't vote in 92' though so I'm not taking the blame for that! :P
Kellydancer
11-13-2010, 10:41 PM
Its' sad that so many Americans are willing to vote for Republicans, despite their extreme views, and even worse that many Americans share these views. It's obvious to any objective person, that the Republican Party is only concerned about the wealthiest Americans, and have a complete disregard for the rest of us. Their main concerns are keeping taxes as low as possible for the wealthy, keeping wages as low as possible for working class Americans, and keeping expenses low for businesses by eliminating as many regulations as possible, regardless of the consequences. Sadly, they're able to convince large numbers of gullible Americans that making the wealthy even better off than they are already, will somehow make average Americans like themselves better off. There are some moderate Republican governors and mayors, like Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg (when he was a Republican), but at the national level, the party is under control of the extremists.
I did vote for a few Republicans in Illinois but these are the pro choice pro gay moderates who are decent people (social liberals, fiscal moderate/conservative). The extreme Republicans? No way. Probably the saddest thing I've heard is I often chat with this guy in California who was unemployed a year because his job went to India. Guess who he voted for in California? Carly Fiorina, who during her reign at HP outsourced 30,000 jobs! I asked him why he did this and he said because he hates the Democrats. What? To be fair many of the Democrats are that in name only and always vote against Americans (asswipe Lieberman comes to mind).
eagle2
11-14-2010, 12:05 AM
This is a dream that was created by the Democrats to make it seem like better legislation than it is. Outside of the "Non-partisan" CBO (who gets the statistics they use from the Party who submits them, i.e. Democrat) I've seen no source say there is any kind of likely chance that the healthcare rbill in its current form will reduce the actual cost of healthcare OR reduce the deficit in any way. They told us both those things would happen, don't know if you consider that a "promise".
That is the intent. They should at least have the chance for it to be implemented before anyone makes any judgments. I'm not saying their predictions will definitely come true, but we won't know until the plan gets implemented.
From WW2 to Reagan every President reduced the debt (except maybe Nixon/Ford one term, they might have broken even).
Reagan increased it dramatically BUT he had Democratic majorities in the House both terms, and one term Senate majority was Democrat too.
and the Democrats gave Reagan everything he asked for. He got his tax cuts, he got his defense build up, and he got his cuts in social spending. The Democrats are spineless. They're terrified of the Republicans, even when they have a huge majority.
Bush Sr. who had increases even larger than Reagan: Democrat controlled Congress!
For the most part, Bush continued Reagan's policies, other than a modest tax increase.
Clinton and the supposed decrease: Republican controlled Congress after the first two years.
and every Republican voted against Clinton's tax increase, which was one of the main factors in balancing the budget.
Bush of course was totally unacceptable no matter how you look at it. Though he did catch the beginning of an Economic downturn and the end of the .com bubble. Toss in the 911 economic disaster and I'll give him a shred of credit... Atleast for his first 3 years.
Wealthy people do pay taxes. Though they spend plenty doing whatever they can to make sure their taxes are as low as possible. The massive increases the Democrats claim they'll put on to them to cover their programs never work out and never will.
When President Clinton raised tax rates for the wealthy, revenue did increase significantly.
Again you fail to do anything but toss about propaganda and blame while refusing to accept that anyone other than the Republicans have done wrong. Now go ahead, tell me how the Republicans were "different" back then, and the Democrats tried to do everything to stop Reagan but he was just too powerful, or whatever you can make up in five minutes of googling.
I don't hold the Democrats blameless. They should never have gone along with Reagan and Bush's tax cuts, unless they came up with a way to make up for the lost revenue. The majority of voters didn't even vote for Bush in 2000, yet Bush got everything he asked for. The Republicans did far worse in 2008 than the Democrats did in 2000, yet they block everything they possibly can. This is one of the main differences between the parties. The Democrats will bend over backwards to appease the Republicans, but the Republicans will not compromise with the Democrats in any way.
The more I read in this thread the more I realize how fucked both parties are and how people like you will ruin the chance of a strong moderate party. Maybe I should buy more gold and embrace anarchy.
I don't care much for either party, but one party's policies are clearly worse for the country than the other's.
eagle2
11-14-2010, 12:07 AM
^^^ all I can say is that America had one chance at following a 'different direction' under Ross Perot in 1992. In historical retrospect, America probably should have listened more closely !!!
I probably would have voted for Perot had he not picked a senile VP candidate, and if he did not make all of those paranoid statements when he temporarily dropped out.
eagle2
11-14-2010, 12:09 AM
I did vote for a few Republicans in Illinois but these are the pro choice pro gay moderates who are decent people (social liberals, fiscal moderate/conservative). The extreme Republicans? No way. Probably the saddest thing I've heard is I often chat with this guy in California who was unemployed a year because his job went to India. Guess who he voted for in California? Carly Fiorina, who during her reign at HP outsourced 30,000 jobs! I asked him why he did this and he said because he hates the Democrats. What? To be fair many of the Democrats are that in name only and always vote against Americans (asswipe Lieberman comes to mind).
I can't have much sympathy for someone who is unemployed that voted for Carly Fiorina.
Kellydancer
11-14-2010, 12:43 AM
I can't have much sympathy for someone who is unemployed that voted for Carly Fiorina.
I can't either and why he voted for her I don't know. She's the worst of the bunch. I told him this. Of course he just loves Reagan and Palin and thinks all Dems are dirty.
Lieberman isn't even a democrat anymore, he's an independent who occasionally votes democrat.
Deogol
11-14-2010, 10:04 AM
I can't either and why he voted for her I don't know. She's the worst of the bunch. I told him this. Of course he just loves Reagan and Palin and thinks all Dems are dirty.
It would be nice if his come-uppance only effected him, but dumbasses like this (and I don't mean being a republican but actively voting for someone so obviously not in his favor) bring us all with them.
Dirty Ernie
11-14-2010, 10:28 AM
It would be nice if his come-uppance only effected him, but dumbasses like this (and I don't mean being a republican but actively voting for someone so obviously not in his favor) bring us all with them.
Reminds me of the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" about Kansans' (a state with a long history of activism, radicalism, and socialism) willingness to vote against their own economic self-interests.
jester214
11-14-2010, 11:08 AM
It would be nice if his come-uppance only effected him, but dumbasses like this (and I don't mean being a republican but actively voting for someone so obviously not in his favor) bring us all with them.
People don't vote economics they vote social issues. Though you can make legitimate arguments for and against the benefits of either sides economic policies to anyone... Well maybe not the wealthy and the Democrats, they always promise to fuck the wealthy, though they never do it.
jester214
11-14-2010, 11:14 AM
This is one of the main differences between the parties. The Democrats will bend over backwards to appease the Republicans, but the Republicans will not compromise with the Democrats in any way.
Like the forty five seconds of consideration they gave the Republian version of health care before they tossed it out the window?
Come on, the Democrats thought he didn't need Republican support so he ignored them. Now that they've lost their advantage and things aren't going well, they've decided they'll say the Republicans are "stopping everywhere". Change and Bi-partisanship were hallmarks of the Obama campaign, he's given us neither.
I don't expect him to change either. Clinton did it and became (on the surface) one of the most successful presidents ever. Don't seem O'bama doing that.
The countries going to shit and the powers at be would rather having a pissing contest than try to fix anything. Including the healthcare bill that a majority of Americans are uncomfortable with.
Like the forty five seconds of consideration they gave the Republian version of health care before they tossed it out the window?
The version Obama proposed IS the republican version of health care, it is almost a direct copy of what Newt Gingrich proposed when Clinton tried and what Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts. The current Republicans actually proposed nothing whatsoever. And economics is the only freaking thing people vote for.
eagle2
11-15-2010, 12:38 AM
Like the forty five seconds of consideration they gave the Republian version of health care before they tossed it out the window?
There was no Republican version of health care. All the Republicans wanted to do is tweak the system. It was estimated that the reforms proposed by the Republicans would have insured maybe another 2-3 million people, out of the close to 50 million that are uninsured. I'm sure the Democrats would have been willing to make significant concessions to get some of the Republicans to vote for the health care bill.
Come on, the Democrats thought he didn't need Republican support so he ignored them. Now that they've lost their advantage and things aren't going well, they've decided they'll say the Republicans are "stopping everywhere". Change and Bi-partisanship were hallmarks of the Obama campaign, he's given us neither.
No, the Republicans were opposed to pretty much everything with health care reform. Senator Grassley was given the opportunity to help write the bill, but chose to oppose health care reform instead.
It takes two sides to be bi-partisan. There's not much you can do if one side is unreasonable.
I don't expect him to change either. Clinton did it and became (on the surface) one of the most successful presidents ever. Don't seem O'bama doing that.
The countries going to shit and the powers at be would rather having a pissing contest than try to fix anything. Including the healthcare bill that a majority of Americans are uncomfortable with.
Clinton tried to reason with the Republicans and the Republicans tried to throw him out of the office for a BJ.
The majority of Americans either support the health care reform legislation, or want the government to do more.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/25/politics/main6899989.shtml
The version Obama proposed IS the republican version of health care, it is almost a direct copy of what Newt Gingrich proposed when Clinton tried and what Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts.
Which BTW, has been an f-ing disaster for MA. If the national model follows the MA model, we are in deep shit, I can tell you that. By no measure anywhere, has the MA model been a success in terms of lowering insurance costs (mine went up over 30% in one year!!!!) or lowering costs.
Why? Mostly because they didn't have any actual cost containment due to lobbying of big pharma and insurance companies. Until we start telling pharma (we are the only country in the world that does not do so BTW) what pharma can charge, and stop allowing them to essentially run (ruin) our health care system, all attempts at "reform" will fail.
You can't have reform without cost containment, and huge lobby $$$ from pharma, as well as insurance companies, etc, is preventing it.
Which BTW, has been an f-ing disaster for MA. If the national model follows the MA model, we are in deep shit, I can tell you that. By no measure anywhere, has the MA model been a success in terms of lowering insurance costs (mine went up over 30% in one year!!!!) or lowering costs.
Why? Mostly because they didn't have any actual cost containment due to lobbying of big pharma and insurance companies. Until we start telling pharma (we are the only country in the world that does not do so BTW) what pharma can charge, and stop allowing them to essentially run (ruin) our health care system, all attempts at "reform" will fail.
You can't have reform without cost containment, and huge lobby $$$ from pharma, as well as insurance companies, etc, is preventing it.
Republican plan is only good for big companies, shocker.
Melonie
11-15-2010, 11:11 AM
^^^ as opposed to the Democrat plan which on paper affects all businesses, but which in the real world issues exemptions to big companies and unions ?
threlayer
11-15-2010, 10:12 PM
They say that the Tea Parities have resulted in the Republican politicians becoming even farther to the right and the Democrat politicians becoming even farther left. The Republican politicians have become more conservative in a reaction to the perceived and speculated "socialist" policies of the administration. The Democrat politicians who were closer to centrists, have become supporters of the closer to centrist Republicans. So many of the remainder are farther to the left.
Further, most of the Tea Partyists are right-wing Republicans acting in the Populist agenda, promulgated by those right-wing AM radio talking pundits. I believe somewhat in Populism which has, to its credit, close feedback from the populace. But Populism's problems can be summed up by opinions formed from lack of neutral information, coupled with ignorance and a desire to simplify complex issues. And that is what the Tea Parties have largely done.
threlayer
11-15-2010, 10:18 PM
^^^ all I can say is that America had one chance at following a 'different direction' under Ross Perot in 1992. In historical retrospect, America probably should have listened more closely !!!
Disappointingly Ross Perot gave up and pulled out just when he should have stuck it out. I thoroughly enjoyed Ross's refreshing and understandable 'chalk talks.'
threlayer
11-15-2010, 10:22 PM
Its' sad that so many Americans are willing to vote for Republicans, despite their extreme views, and even worse that many Americans share these views. It's obvious to any objective person, that the Republican Party is only concerned about the wealthiest Americans, and have a complete disregard for the rest of us. Their main concerns are keeping taxes as low as possible for the wealthy, keeping wages as low as possible for working class Americans, and keeping expenses low for businesses by eliminating as many regulations as possible, regardless of the consequences. Sadly, they're able to convince large numbers of gullible Americans that making the wealthy even better off than they are already, will somehow make average Americans like themselves better off....
The centrist Republicans are not quite like this, but they are under the control of Boehnert and Mitch McConnell, who may (or may not) also be right-wingers, but mainly they are trying to cause wins for their party at the expense of Democrats and especially the country. As a de facto result you are correct!
Voting to get rid of these creeps would be very useful.
firemaiden04
11-17-2010, 03:22 PM
THIS is why I really hate Fox News/the Republican Party:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101117/ts_yblog_thecutline/fox-news-headline-of-obamas-kids-book-draws-criticism
Kellydancer
11-17-2010, 03:46 PM
THIS is why I really hate Fox News/the Republican Party:
I wouldn't blame the Reublican Party, just the nutjob tea party losers.
Speaking of these losers, I don't know if anyone watches Dancing With The Stars, but last year I started. I started watching because I really like dance and like to see people try to learn dances. Plus I'll watch if they have celebs I like (this year it was Florence Henderson and Jennifer Grey) Anyway this season they've had on Bristol Palin and she's been the worst dancer usually yet keeps getting pushed through because of the tea party nut jobs who have created websites to get people to vote for her. That's one theory and the other is that ABC is going to get Bristol to win so she can get a reality show to help her mother run for presidency. Scary thought. I knew the show was rigged beforehand but this takes the cake with someone who can't even move in the finals. I am definitely never watching again.
Yes I know it's just a show but I resent these nutjobs rigging everything. Who's to say they won't do this in 2012? I do not want Sarah Palin as president AT ALL. These people are complete homophobic racists (just look at the posts on various sites) and they need to disappear.
Melonie
11-17-2010, 03:54 PM
^^^ yes, absolutely, let's stick with Chris Matthews' 'tingling leg' instead as the benchmark for non-partisan news reporting !
IMHO the underlying point here is 'what the hell does this sort of thing have to do with any of America's REAL problems and solutions ( or lack thereof ). Such news coverage, from either side of center, merely serves to distract from what's really important.
I'm sure that beneath all of the controversy some 'egghead' was probably trying to make a tenuous point regarding Obama's 'deification' of Sitting Bull as the original community organizer. GWB and other presidents have been subjected to similar 'egghead' criticism ... arguably to a much greater extent than president Obama. All were distractions from the truly important topics of the day.
Deogol
11-17-2010, 07:34 PM
^^^ yes, absolutely, let's stick with Chris Matthews' 'tingling leg' instead as the benchmark for non-partisan news reporting !
IMHO the underlying point here is 'what the hell does this sort of thing have to do with any of America's REAL problems and solutions ( or lack thereof ). Such news coverage, from either side of center, merely serves to distract from what's really important.
I'm sure that beneath all of the controversy some 'egghead' was probably trying to make a tenuous point regarding Obama's 'deification' of Sitting Bull as the original community organizer. GWB and other presidents have been subjected to similar 'egghead' criticism ... arguably to a much greater extent than president Obama. All were distractions from the truly important topics of the day.
You are really gonna ruin this web site for me if you wake up the suckers. There are to many of them standing in the street watching the sheriff throw their shit out on the yard holding their last payment from unemployment. But hey you know, dancing with the stars and the two sides calling each other bigoted homophobes (just read the comments on Daily Kos) makes for good free entertainment on the internet.
threlayer
11-18-2010, 09:21 PM
THIS is why I really hate Fox News/the Republican Party:
<link> (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101117/ts_yblog_thecutline/fox-news-headline-of-obamas-kids-book-draws-criticism)
Not only that, but ....
Roger Ailes of Fox News: 'Nazis' are running public radio (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/11/roger-ailes-of-fox-news-has-found-a-nazi.html)
November 18, 2010 | 7:10 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133f612f4d7970b-320wi (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133f612f4d7970b-popup)Anyone who has watched Fox News personality Glenn Beck with any regularity has heard warnings of an end of life in America as we know it, specifically a Nazi-style takeover of the government. That could be the eventual end-game, according to Beck, if the big-government policies of the Obama administration go unchecked.
But in an interview this week, it was Beck's Fox News boss, Roger Ailes, embracing the Nazi rhetoric. And this time the target was National Public Radio. Speaking to the Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz, Ailes said NPR’s bosses revealed their fascist stripes when they dismissed commentator Juan Williams.
“They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude,” Ailes told Kurtz. “They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don't want any other point of view. They don't even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive."
The left-leaning media watchdog group, Media Matters, was first to note how Ailes seemed to be echoing Beck, or vice versa. Media Matters charged: “Fox's ‘Nazi’ rhetoric also comes straight from the top."
The group’s online critique (http://mediamatters.org/research/201011180009) went on to cite the many times Beck has invoked the Nazis in taking on his liberal foes. In one instance last year, the report noted, Beck compared Obama's call for the expansion of the foreign service via a "civilian national security force" to Hitler’s SS and brownshirts.
While Beck and some other Fox hosts have leaned heavily on analogies to facism lately, other media figures have invoked the same super-heated rhetoric in the past. Back in the 1990s, it was CNN founder Ted Turner who compared Roger Murdoch to Hilter. Murdoch leads News Corp., which owns Fox News.
After NPR chief Vivian Schiller spoke Thursday afternoon at the Annenberg School for Communication at USC, an audience member asked what Ailes might have meant to accomplish with his “Nazi” remark.
“I have no earthly idea,” Schiller said. “I don’t know what he was getting at. It was quite baffling to me to be perfectly honest. I think his words really speak for themselves.”
Ailes apologized Thursday to the Anti-Defamation League, saying he had been “ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word.”
He had not, however, apologized to NPR.
This, from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/11/roger-ailes-of-fox-news-has-found-a-nazi.html
layka
11-19-2010, 12:18 AM
well, there are a number of other possible explanations ... for instance that the 90+% of black voters who supported Obama did so for racist reasons ! Personally. I find THAT offensive.
Offensive or not, the history of voters casting their votes based on their own short term self-interest goes all the way back to the Roman Empire. And in terms of American voting history, voters have always tended to vote first based on 'war' and second based on 'economics'. The previous 2008 election was an exception to this rule. This year's election was not, and was clearly dominated by 'economics'.
If you want to discuss other aspects besides 'economics' consider this Machiavellian breakdown. With 90+% of the black vote going towards Democrats no matter what, NEITHER political party has much reason to accomodate issues of specific interest to black voters. Same is true of gays, greens etc. This means that Democrats can expect to receive essentially every vote from these subgroups, and also means that Democrats can also expect to continue to receive essentially every vote from these subgroups in future elections REGARDLESS of whether the Democrats actually deliver on any "promises" made. But receiving essentially every vote from these subgroups is NOT sufficient to win elections !
With 67% of the hispanic vote going towards Democrats, and with hispanic voters comprising a significantly larger group than the above subgroups combined, this is a different story. The Machiavellians would tell you to keep a very close eye on newly elected senator Marco Rubio over the next couple of years to see where this is headed !
But as this election has again shown, there is a huge group of swing voters who are primarily white, who are primarily middle class, and who are primarily located between the Northeast states and the West Coast states. These swing voters experienced the greatest 'change of opinion' between the last two elections, arguably based on their also having experienced the greatest negative economic changes to their own lives over the past two years. Outside of the Northeast and West Coast states, elections cannot be won without significant support from these primarily white, primarily middle class swing voters. And the Machiavellians would also point out that the Northeast and West Coast states are losing population (thus political clout at the national level ), while the other states are gaining.
~
Sigh, I just say this in passing. That was not racist. Prejudiced? Maybe, racist. Le Sigh....that term is used so interchangebly but alas that is another thread that I will never have enough Aleve on hand to make on this website.:-*
Excuse any typos, posting reply from mobile.
Melonie
11-19-2010, 04:42 AM
Sigh, I just say this in passing. That was not racist. Prejudiced? Maybe, racist. Le Sigh....that term is used so interchangebly but alas that is another thread
Obviously that comment was hyperbolic counterpoint to the widespread accusations that conservative white voters opposing Obama in 2008 were doing so for reasons of racism. The only real appicability is that mainstream news media spent much effort discussing the potential reasons for lack of Obama support by conservative white voters, and very little effort reporting the nearly unanimous support of Obama by black voters.
Because the nearly unanimous support of Obama by black voters was no different than their nearly unanimous support of Kerry, Gore or any other Democrat ever since Republicans started basing their election strategy around appealing to racists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).
Kellydancer
11-19-2010, 03:50 PM
Because the nearly unanimous support of Obama by black voters was no different than their nearly unanimous support of Kerry, Gore or any other Democrat ever since Republicans started basing their election strategy around .
I was going to mention that. Most black voters voted for Obama they would have if it was a white candidate. However the sad situation is that many white Democrats went to McCain strictly based on race. I've known hardcore Democrats who voted for McCain strictly because Obama was black. I won't get started on Sarah Palin and her appeal to racists (and her many alleged racist comments).
threlayer
11-19-2010, 11:34 PM
People (racists and sem-racists) forget that Obama is HALF white. He is not a ghetto-ite, is sincere, is a good family man, and is intelligent and articulate. If you don't like him, do it because of his politics.
Kellydancer
11-19-2010, 11:47 PM
People (racists and sem-racists) forget that Obama is HALF white. He is not a ghetto-ite, is sincere, is a good family man, and is intelligent and articulate. If you don't like him, do it because of his politics.
Yes. I have some issues with him but it's not because of race. Rather that I voted for him because we needed a change and he's disappointed me. To be fair after 8 years of Bush my standards were very low.
jimboe7373
11-20-2010, 12:38 AM
Yes. I have some issues with him but it's not because of race. Rather that I voted for him because we needed a change and he's disappointed me. To be fair after 8 years of Bush my standards were very low.Just curious why you are disappointed. By my take he's accomplished the following (and with near complete Republican obstruction):
1. The DOW is up 40% off lows soon after he came in.
2. The TARP loans he gave the auto co's have been paid back with interest. The other loans they received are in preferred stock and they have paid $726 million in dividends on that already. Save tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
3. He kept an economy on the verge of collapsing from collapsing.
4. Banks and Financial institutions that received money are paying it back
5. The 300,000 jobs per month that were being lost when he came in has been turned into a gain in private sector jobs for the last 9 months
6. A firm plan to leave Iraq and only 2 combat casualties in the last 5 months.
7. Finally fighting our real enemies in the Afghan border region where Bush was afraid to go.
8. Passed Financial Reform bill to protect people from unfair policies from banks and credit card companies.
9. Passed Health Care reform bill which is necessary to save the economy- 2/3's of bankruptcies are medically related.
10. Has in a short reversed the fact that EVERY country in the world hates us. We no longer have stupid fights with our allies- "Freedom Fries" etc.
11. Passed a $30 billion package to aid small business and create jobs
12. Set up $20 billion escrow fund to make sure BP paid their obligations.
13. Banks and private industries are flush with cash where many of them were about to go out of business when he came in.
14. Initiated a huge public works program to fix our neglected roads and infrastructure- getting needed work done and producing jobs
Kellydancer
11-20-2010, 12:56 AM
Just curious why you are disappointed. By my take following he's accomplished the following (and with near complete Republican obstruction):
1. The DOW is up 40% off lows soon after he came in.
2. The TARP loans he gave the auto co's have been paid back with interest. The other loans they received are in preferred stock and they have paid $726 million in dividends on that already. Save tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
3. He kept an economy on the verge of collapsing from collapsing.
4. Banks and Financial institutions that received money are paying it back
5. The 300,000 jobs per month that were being lost when he came in has been turned into a gain in private sector jobs for the last 9 months
6. A firm plan to leave Iraq and only 2 combat casualties in the last 5 months.
7. Finally fighting our real enemies in the Afghan border region where Bush was afraid to go.
8. Passed Financial Reform bill to protect people from unfair policies from banks and credit card companies.
9. Passed Health Care reform bill which is necessary to save the economy- 2/3's of bankruptcies are medically related.
10. Has in a short reversed the fact that EVERY country in the world hates us. We no longer have stupid fights with our allies- "Freedom Fries" etc.
11. Passed a $30 billion package to aid small business and create jobs
12. Set up $20 billion escrow fund to make sure BP paid their obligations.
13. Banks and private industries are flush with cash where many of them were about to go out of business when he came in.
14. Initiated a huge public works program to fix our neglected roads and infrastructure- getting needed work done and producing jobs
I just feel he hasn't done enough with the job situation, though to be fair he's tried to pass anti outsourcing bills. These failed courtesy of the Republicans and the "Dems" like Liberman (who isn't a Dem now and never was). Also he and the Dems compromised on the healthcare bill, which is a fiasco.
jimboe7373
11-20-2010, 01:04 AM
I just feel he hasn't done enough with the job situation, though to be fair he's tried to pass anti outsourcing bills. These failed courtesy of the Republicans and the "Dems" like Liberman (who isn't a Dem now and never was).. Yes, employment is a horrible problem, but nothing can be fixed overnight- we were losing an average of 300,000 jobs per month when Obama took office, we are now net gain each month for the last nine months for private industry jobs. In addition, private industry is now hoarding almost $1 trillion and isn't hiring or spending which would help the economy tremendously. He did his job in stabilizing things enough and creating the environment where they could aqcuire the money, it's on them to spend and hire.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101027/bs_nm/us_corporates_cash_moodys
Also he and the Dems compromised on the healthcare bill, which is a fiasco.Agree with you 100% here. I think the problem is he gives the American public too much credit and tries to treat them like intelligent, rational adults. He also tries to play pretty fair and high-minded with the Republicans, many of whom pretty much scoff at that and use it as a tool against him.
Kellydancer
11-20-2010, 11:26 AM
Yes, employment is a horrible problem, but nothing can be fixed overnight- we were losing an average of 300,000 jobs per month when Obama took office, we are now net gain each month for the last nine months for private industry jobs. In addition, private industry is now hoarding almost $1 trillion and isn't hiring or spending which would help the economy tremendously. He did his job in stabilizing things enough and creating the environment where they could aqcuire the money, it's on them to spend and hire.
Agree with you 100% here. I think the problem is he gives the American public too much credit and tries to treat them like intelligent, rational adults. He also tries to play pretty fair and high-minded with the Republicans, many of whom pretty much scoff at that and use it as a tool against him.
I do think it will take Obama's first term (asuming he gets re elected) to fix the economy like it did FDR's. People often forget (I include myself) that when FDR got elected the country was in shambles. It took him his entire first term to fix it up. It still wasn't completely fixed until WW2. However, FDR didn't have the whole outsourcing issues we have now. If we brought back at least half of the jobs we'd have a better economy. The problem though is many layers and I'm not sure this can happen. The Republicans don't care these jobs are gone, and neither are many Dems. Contrary to what they might say, not all of these are entry level jobs. Many are jobs like accounting and even medical jobs, supposedly a "safe" field. Add in H1-B Visas and getting a professional job now is like playing the lottery. Meanwhile people go in debt due to student loans (this is another thing needed to be fixed).
The current healthcare bill will not help anyone except perhaps the really poor. It still won't help people who don't qualify for Medicaid.
threlayer
11-20-2010, 03:39 PM
The healthcare bill is now helping children with pre-existing conditions and their families, many of whom would go bankrupt and then have to get on welfare. This should be a net gain. There are many other provisions that still exist in the bill and are being implemented more gradually. Conservative Dems and almost all Republicans assured all the comproises in the final bill that will benefit only insurance companies and their stockholders. If Obama's team did not compromise in that way, we would have gotten nothing. At least we have a start that benefits some people.
jimboe7373
11-20-2010, 04:38 PM
The current healthcare bill will not help anyone except perhaps the really poor. It still won't help people who don't qualify for Medicaid. This is a huge misconception. Never mind people's health at all for the moment- the healthcare bill is necessary to save the economy.
2/3's of bankruptcies are medically related. These are people who've worked their whole lives, paid their taxes and even paid high prices for quality healthcare. If they happen to get a serious illness, they are dropped from their current plan and refused by other companies to be picked up- Bam!, bankrupt!. They will likely lose their house and now all the people that were making money off that house will lose that part of their income. They will no longer, pay property tax, hire an; electrician, plumber, pool guy, landscaper, exterminator, repair person, painter, home improvement company, they will cancel; electric, cable, alarm monitoring, phone service, homeowners insurance and many other items. That is a huge drain on the economy and it happens millions of times a year. A big reason of passing the Health Care bill was to combat this dynamic.
It's also not true that only the poor would benefit. The current trend is untenable and as prices for healthcare grow exponentionally, more and more healthy people are dropping coverage as it's too expensive. As a result there are fewer people paying in and the proportion of claims goes way up because the people who need it have remained but many who were healthy have dropped out. This means that there is less money available to pay for the amount of claims so they have to raise prices higher- this in turns leads more healthy (and sometimes unhealthy) people to drop out because it's too expensive. It's a viscious cycle and left unregulated will implode. As a side-note, when people drop or never get health insurance, they don't stop receiving health care, they just stop paying a monthy invoice for it. They will use the emergency room and many times not be able to pay the bill. As a result the average person who is paying for health insurance has $1,500 per year added to their bill to cover the uninsured.
It totally helps people besides those that don't qualify for medicare. It helps them in that they can't be dropped for putting in a claim, it helps them in that they can't be refused for having a previous illness, it helps them in that it removes the ceiling on treatment prices. This is all after it was watered-down by the Republicans, prior to that it also afforded people some protection from overprices pharmacuticals and had a public option that would have gauranteed competition and help to keep the rates more competitive.
EVERYONE is also suffering because there is a lack of competition and collusion amongst the health care providers. They are able to raise their rates while cutting service and what's covered. They are the only game in town and prior to Obama they were able to do whatever they wanted unfettered. Health insurance rates are up 400% in some areas over the last 7 years. What I'm curious about is what were the rises in their costs that should be used as a reason to warrant that kind of increase.
I think healthcare costs were a big part of the near economic collapse we suffered. For the poor and middle class there is only so many pieces of the pie. If one part of the pie goes from $175 a mo. to $575 per mo. (as my health ins. did) that's a lot less money that they can now spend on; movies, eating out, vacations, hiring a landscaper and thousands of other things. Multiply that by a couple hundred million and it's a pretty serious issue.
Lastly, when people have healthcare they are able to spot illness early and treat it cheaply. When people don't have healthcare or have bad healthcare (ie. very high deductibles) they usually wait until they have something serious before seeking treatment and then it's much more expensive to treat.
Kellydancer
11-20-2010, 04:56 PM
I don't disagree that we need healthcare reform, we do. I just don't think this will help all of those it could. I've looked at it and in my case it will not help me. Instead I'll have to pay for healthcare, money I can't afford. Maybe in a few years this won't be the problem with me but no idea. I'm glad it will help some, but will not help everyone who needs medical. That's my problem.
Yeah but the only two options were "help some" or "help no one".
jimboe7373
11-20-2010, 08:10 PM
I don't disagree that we need healthcare reform, we do. I just don't think this will help all of those it could. I've looked at it and in my case it will not help me. Instead I'll have to pay for healthcare, money I can't afford. Maybe in a few years this won't be the problem with me but no idea. I'm glad it will help some, but will not help everyone who needs medical. That's my problem. If the public option was made available and you were able to get a high deductable policy for like $60 or so a month, that would have helped you, no?. That way you'd have coverage, you'd get your check-ups, prevent bigger stuff from developing and if something serious happened you'd get treated and then either borrow from friends or family for the deductible or pay it off over time with interest.
I didn't have insurance for a long time and know how scary it is, hopefully something becomes available for you soon.
Kellydancer
11-20-2010, 09:38 PM
If the public option was made available and you were able to get a high deductable policy for like $60 or so a month, that would have helped you, no?. That way you'd have coverage, you'd get your check-ups, prevent bigger stuff from developing and if something serious happened you'd get treated and then either borrow from friends or family for the deductible or pay it off over time with interest.
I didn't have insurance for a long time and know how scary it is, hopefully something becomes available for you soon.
Yes I could afford that. It's just that I need medical assistance (a few non life threatening issues) and can't afford anything. Eventually I'm sure things will get better for me but there are others like me or worse. Like my aunt who couldn't afford healthcare until her cancer spread and she's no longer with us.
jimboe7373
11-21-2010, 10:33 AM
This is likely why we won't see protests of the people such as existed in the 1960's and prior. In 1969, only 80-some million American people were serviced with fluoridated water compared to the 180 million + of today (last data I'm currently aware of being available since 2006). That's a very interesting theory, I certainly wouldn't put it past government. I honestly don't know if it would be such a huge factor even if it was true. Myself and most people I know drink strictly bottled water, and we're all reasonable calm LOL.
I think besides the reason given in my previous post, there is a cultural element as well. Kind of a national ethos on what's acceptable and what's not for various situations. I think the U.S. as a nation is more concerned than most about the rule of law, so that when there is a problem or conflict that we want to "protest" most often we'll go and get our permits, show up at the appointed place and carry our signs and then go home.
We also have a much less stratified society in terms of class conflict (that's starting to change though), I think that when there is big seperation between the classes and how they are treated, that can lead to a lot of hostility and violent confrontations and riots etc.
Lastly, I think people in the U.S. are more focused on themselves than anyone else. We have stuff to occupy us every minute of everday and have made entertainment a central part of our lives and being, so that if there is going to be a march on a certain day and dancing with the stars is on- many of us will take a pass on the march.
Melonie
11-21-2010, 01:52 PM
forgive the factual 'corrections' ...
1. The DOW is up 40% off lows soon after he came in.
actually, businesses began making decisions the day after Obama was elected. From that day, the Dow has indeed increased from 8500 to 11000+. However, this is measured in dollars.
2. The TARP loans he gave the auto co's have been paid back with interest. The other loans they received are in preferred stock and they have paid $726 million in dividends on that already. Save tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
Technically true if you don't count GM / Citi paying back old tarp loans with new money loaned by the govt' instead of 'their own' money, nor count the fact that the $44 shares of GM held by the gov't are now worth $34 ! As to job 'savings, those numbers are so 'cooked' as to be ridiculous.
'
3. He kept an economy on the verge of collapsing from collapsing.
And the Wall St banks thanked him accordingly !
4. Banks and Financial institutions that received money are paying it back
^^^ with the primary motivator being CEO salary caps
5. The 300,000 jobs per month that were being lost when he came in has been turned into a gain in private sector jobs for the last 9 months
technically true if you count the loss of a high paying manufacturing job and the addition of a fast food job as being equal
6. A firm plan to leave Iraq and only 2 combat casualties in the last 5 months.
Will you count Israeli 'casualties' caused by this policy ?
7. Finally fighting our real enemies in the Afghan border region where Bush was afraid to go.[/quote
At last we agree ... although many of Obama's leftist supporters don't like the extension / escalation
[quote]8. Passed Financial Reform bill to protect people from unfair policies from banks and credit card companies.
and as a result people have a tougher time getting credit approvals at all, and are charged higher interest rates when they ARE approved
9. Passed Health Care reform bill which is necessary to save the economy- 2/3's of bankruptcies are medically related.
so we're trading personal bankruptcies for small business bankruptcies
10. Has in a short reversed the fact that EVERY country in the world hates us. We no longer have stupid fights with our allies- "Freedom Fries" etc.
and Chinese subs are now firing missiles over the US west coast
11. Passed a $30 billion package to aid small business and create jobs
small businesses are avoiding this package like the plague
12. Set up $20 billion escrow fund to make sure BP paid their obligations.
and absolved them of much liability in the process
13. Banks and private industries are flush with cash where many of them were about to go out of business when he came in.
they're flush with cash because they refuse to hire / expand with absolutely no certainty re future taxes and regulatory compliance costs
14. Initiated a huge public works program to fix our neglected roads and infrastructure- getting needed work done and producing jobs
actually it was a stealth bailout of mostly 'blue' state gov't workers / teachers / contractors etc.
firemaiden04
11-21-2010, 01:58 PM
There's no pleasing some people...
jimboe7373
11-21-2010, 03:25 PM
forgive the factual 'corrections' ...
There wasn't too much "fact" in any of your corrections.
actually, businesses began making decisions the day after Obama was elected. From that day, the Dow has indeed increased from 8500 to 11000+. However, this is measured in dollars.
Well, how did it get from 14,000 to 8500 then? In any case- it was a low of 6500 in March of 2009 and is now over 11,000 so it's up 40% as originally stated.
Technically true if you don't count GM / Citi paying back old tarp loans with new money loaned by the govt' instead of 'their own' money, nor count the fact that the $44 shares of GM held by the gov't are now worth $34 ! As to job 'savings, those numbers are so 'cooked' as to be ridiculous.
I do count it as being paid back, they could have chosen not to pay it back, they could have gone out of business and been unable to pay it back. They paid it back with interest 2 years in advance and have been profitable on their own for the last several quarters. In addition they paid back almost half of the other loan with the IPO.
And the Wall St banks thanked him accordingly !
What does that have to do with anything?. A strong DOW is good for almost everyone.
^^^ with the primary motivator being CEO salary caps
Yes, that was a brilliant policy to ensure the money was paid back and quickly. Bush's bailouts had no accountability and as a result the money just disappeared.
technically true if you count the loss of a high paying manufacturing job and the addition of a fast food job as being equal
When you are in the midst of the 2nd worst economy in the history of the nation ANY job is a good thing. EVERY person who is working, paying payroll taxes and NOT on unemployment is a plus. There were and continue to be many thousands of high paying green tech jobs as well, as we discussed in a previous thread.
Will you count Israeli 'casualties' caused by this policy ?
I was under the impression Obama was the president of the United States, so I won't be counting Israeli casualties. In any case, how many Israeli casualties did Iraq cause before the U.S. military occupied Iraq?
and as a result people have a tougher time getting credit approvals at all, and are charged higher interest rates when they ARE approved
There are many people who should have a harder time getting approvals, this will cut down on defaults. People with good credit will still get approved and will recieve a low rate- this could serve as an incentive for people to get their financial affairs in order.
In addition, you well know that the reason for the reform was to protect people by capping fees and monitoring deceptive practices employed by credit card co's and banks to take advantage of consumers. It also seeks to regulate the derivative and other risky types of moves financial companies make that caused a lot of the mess we're in.
so we're trading personal bankruptcies for small business bankruptcies
Absolutely not!. According to the plan:
* Mandatory exchanges would be set up where small businesses could pool together for savings.
*These exchanges would also include a 35% tax credit for ins. costs
* Only businesses with more than 50 employees would be required to offer health insurance.
In addition: If the original plan were implemented (before trying to appease Republicans) and the public option was included, there would have been sufficient competition and that added to all the new people that would be now coming in and making payments, prices would be fair and affordable for most everyone.
With the much lower prices and the tens of thousands of people not going through medical bankcruptcy, there would be a lot more discretionary money to spend and small business and the economy would both benefit.
and Chinese subs are now firing missiles over the US west coast
This is just silly. There is no proof that it was a Chinese missile and they are the least likely of anyone to have fired it. If it was a foriegn power, it would likely be North Korea- but the likliest explanation of all is that it was an accidental launch from the U.S. military that it did not want to admit to.
small businesses are avoiding this package like the plague
There are many companies that are using funds from the program, and the point is that he put together and passed it to benefit them and to create jobs.
and absolved them of much liability in the process
Absolutely not true!
"The fund does not represent a cap on BP liabilities, but will be available to satisfy legitimate claims."
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062966
they're flush with cash because they refuse to hire / expand with absolutely no certainty re future taxes and regulatory compliance costs
They are flush with cash because Obama provided a stable enough environment where people started spending money, the economy turned 300,000 jobs losses per mo. into net private industry jobs gains for the last 9 months and other factors that resulted from deft handling of the crises.
When he came into office, the banks were close to closing their doors, most companies had extremely small cash reserves and profits and hiring were very far away from reality for pretty much every company.
We've had a huge turn-around. He did his job in creating the environment where they were able to get their hands on the $trillion- it's on them to start spending. They can do what they want, it's their money- but if they're not going to spend to create jobs- then get off Obama's jock about unemployment.
actually it was a stealth bailout of mostly 'blue' state gov't workers / teachers / contractors etc.
No, I'm talking about the $billions being spent on the bridge, road, tunnel and infrastructure projects in every town in the country that is finally overhauling our neglectic infrastucture, providing jobs and stimulating the economy.