Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trevorum

Political trends

Recommended Posts

Quoted from above:

--------------

"Please state similar examples of power control by Democratic leadership.."

 

Why? Will similar examples change your mind? A person sincerely wanting to know of such examples will research the matter themselves rather than entrusting the task (simple though it may be) to a character who writes "jibberish."

 

Callooh! Callay! posts may occasionally illuminate things some wish weren't so. But this isn't a research service. The curious ought find sources written in a register they comprehend. Then, minds fortified with information on par with their vituperation, with reading practice and careful study, confusion could give way to clarity and their reading comprehension might improve such that these posts will no longer read as gibberish."

 

Translation for the rest of us: "Ummm, I can't prove the BS I'm spouting so I'm going to continue to claim I'm right without providing any proof and demanding that you do my work for me".

 

Typical tea bagger nonsense.

----------

End Quote:

 

 

Begin continuation of "typical tea bagger nonsense:"

 

Ah yes, that typical "tea bagger nonsense..." superior minds take on the task of translating it, lest its meaning go over the heads of sputtering ankle biters. And yet it's so inscrutable that even the translation reveals more about lefty logic than it does about tea-baggery.

 

The little snippet of translation above tells us that in lefty logic, if one declines to be diverted from one's course in order to address a challenge to provide information already available to the challenger (and that the challenger is likely not receptive to anyway), then he must be spouting BS.

 

It tells us that in lefty logic, if I pique your curiosity but then decline to serve you in the capacity of expositor and organizer of facts you're interested in (or actually not interesting in at all, but "requesting" anyway so as to busy me with a pointless errand), then it's me who is "demanding that you do my work for me." Do tell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.. But, still things were good.. And I don't think the Republican party can take that much credit for it. He was a great smoozer to get things through that he wanted to. And he made it his goal to balance the budget.. And it was not using the Republicans play book of lowering taxes and starting wars. He raised taxes.. And wonder of all wonder, business still was able to thrive!

 

Now this time around you maybe can say that the reason Obama was not able to pass much that would have made part of the national debt due to ideas he enacted was due to the Republican house filabustering everything.. But, you can also say that the reason the economy has not rebounded with more jobs is because of the Republican house filabustering everything.. So we will never know if the job surplus bill would have helped.. I am though quite certain Republicans fix of deregulating wallstreet, will not help.. It will just go back to them robbing mainstreet for their own personal wealth, until their schemes catch up to them again and the ecomony tanks even lower, and they bail leaving the American taxpayer to clean up their mess again.

 

As Clinton stated "It's the arithmetic!".. and then he pointed out why the Republicans ain't got none!(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I soundly condemn Clinton for some personal failings, I give him credit for being more realistic in the fiscal sense than anyone since. He also had the benefit of fiscal restraints and policies that were put in place by previous administrations, but at least he carried through with them.

 

I also have to admit that the first (but not the last) huge transgression I credit to Bush (W) was to exploit what he convinced most of us was going to be a big surplus by cutting taxes rather than using it to pay for the wars or the debt. As a fiscal conservative Bush was a fraud. But then, most of the country drank that Flavor Aid as well. ;)

 

I fault Obama and agree with Romney. It might have caused some pain for families but I would have allowed the auto industry to restructure rather than bail them out. If I wanted to support the auto industry it would have been better to use the money to replace the old fleet vehicles of various governments rather than lending cash to the incompetents who led those companies to ruin in the first place. I fault Obama for not having put bankers in jail and instead, raining money on them as well.

 

And I'll write this again, I see great merit in Romney's lack of passion or perhaps even empathy. It is what would (hopefully will) allow him to make hard decisions dispassionately, rather than kicking the whole shebang down the road for our children's children's children.

 

I support Romney's approach because I think it will be better to bear this pain now and have most of it borne by the people who created the problem...than to put all that off on innocents who have yet to be born. Yes it would be very painful. We brought it on ourselves.

 

Now I could be wrong and Romney might just follow the same failed path that Obama is following. But if that's the case, it doesn't matter who's in the oval office does it? Same outcome. But if there's a chance that Romney will rein in the spending and make the hard decisions that need to be made, I say give him a chance.

 

As for medicare, if that's insurance then it should be capable of sustaining itself without going broke. If that's insurance, the let it really be insurance as opposed to the deception that it actually is, and a costly one at that. If it's insurance, let the beneficiaries pay the full cost of the insurance. Anything less IS a welfare handout.

Same for social security. If it can't stay solvent without adjustment, then make the adjustment. Means test it. Remove the income cap. And yes, cut the benefits if people haven't contributed enough to justify them. I just can't figure out why it is that we protect old people like they are holy and let children go hungry and remain ignorant. It doesn't make any sense. If resources are limited, focus them on the young. That is where the future is, not in elderly people who are going to do little other than gobble up resources in their last year of life.

 

I'm angry with Obama about Simpson/Bowles! Even that tepid attempt at fiscal responsibility was quietly ignored. I'm willing to give Romney a chance to show something better than that response. If Obama is re-elected, be prepared for a lot more of the same. He's already taxing us and we don't even see it. Every time there's a QE round, that's a stealth tax on all kinds of investments and savings. The inflation will eventually come. And that will be that.

 

I don't agree with everything Romney promotes. I don't support the low tax rate on long-term investments. To me people who do real work for their incomes ought not to pay a higher rate than people who don't work for the income. It's a matter of ethics. If anything, people who work hard to make a living ought to be the ones who pay a lower tax rate, as opposed to those who made so much they can sit back and play with investments. But here I also know I'm at odds with the so-called 'conservatives' and others who support their government subsidies in the form of lower taxes. What I can't figure out is why the wage earner who puts in hard hours every day doesn't agree with me. I guess that's another round of Flavor Aid. ;) At least I'm not the one drinking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

packsaddle - your throwing granny off the cliff! Shame one you!

 

as for this statement of yours

 

And I'll write this again, I see great merit in Romney's lack of passion or perhaps even empathy. It is what would (hopefully will) allow him to make hard decisions dispassionately, rather than kicking the whole shebang down the road for our children's children's children.

 

I support Romney's approach because I think it will be better to bear this pain now and have most of it borne by the people who created the problem...than to put all that off on innocents who have yet to be born. Yes it would be very painful. We brought it on ourselves.

 

Now I could be wrong and Romney might just follow the same failed path that Obama is following. But if that's the case, it doesn't matter who's in the oval office does it? Same outcome. But if there's a chance that Romney will rein in the spending and make the hard decisions that need to be made, I say give him a chance.

 

 

It makes no sense.. Romney is all for keeping the tax stimulus plan.. Obama plans to see it ended. That is the whole reason Democrats are excited and wearing the "Off the Cliff buttons".. Not Granny off the cliff, but in January both the end date of the tax stimulus plan ends, and also an agreed upon budget slashing proposal goes into effect.. A totally new tax plan can be proposed then (which does let the rich pay 0% or some other rediculous figure..) Also the Republicans will have to negotiate or live with a tax slash to their beloved military spending..

 

Romney wants to keep the tax stimulous, have the rich pay less (and says the middle class / poor won't pay more, but it will happen if he cuts alot of programs that help the midle class / poor.)

 

Romeny's plan is to keep the tax cuts and if he is going to balance the budget. It will be while the rich sail off in their yachts and don't pay a dime toward it.. The poor don't have the money, so the full debt would be on the shoulders of the middle class, which is getting smaller and smaller as more of us sink into poverty.

 

So why is the tax stimulus a bad decision from Bush, but Romney doubling down on the same plan a good decision of Romney's????

 

Ryan's Plan is to balance the budget in something like 2040.. And that's if we have absolutely no unforseen problems.. And still the independent Analysts say it will not work even with no unforeseen problems.. Romney on some days says his plan is to follow the Ryan plan, then on other days he has his own plan..

 

I was not a fan of the Auto, and wallstreet bailouts, but mainly because I thought the auto industry could not come back so feared we were throwing money we didn't have away.. Wall street in my opinion did not deserve the bailout.. But, when the loans were repaid, then my issue with it was removed (except wallstreet still did not deserve it, and like I said did not use it as it was intended..)

 

But Wall Street is sound and that is a good thing for our retired parents who are living off of investments from it (the ones you wish to throw off the cliff.) And there were alot of jobs saved, not only auto industry jobs, but companies who manufactured car parts.. So, in the long run.. It was a huge gamble that paid off.. (Although wall street still did not deserve it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that part of his policy is something I disagree with too. Has Obama changed it? Has it been renewed? What did Obama sign on 17 December 2010?

What about the Bush energy plan? Yep, it's pretty much still in play. What about the Patriot Act? You guessed it. What about Gitmo? Yep. Do I need to go on?

I guess if I really wanted to punish the American people (and we surely deserve it) I'd vote to keep Obama (Bush warmed over). But I'm willing to give a new guy a chance to see if, like Beavah pathetically mused at the beginning of the Obama administration, maybe he can come up with some kind of novel plan to get us out of all this mess...what a laugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in 2010 a continuation for the Bush taxes was renewed. It was only renewed for 2 years, I don't understand quite why they couldn't just stall and let it end at that time, something about where the economy was at that time.. I heard some explanation, but have forgotten what it was..

 

This video explains off the cliff.. The first two or three minutes start with a scene from the Thema & Louise movie about driving off the cliff, so do not be concerned that it is the wrong video I hooked you up with..

 

Democrats are making buttons and getting really excited about this. Republicans are sweating bullets..

 

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/19/12843963-democrats-take-a-harder-line-on-going-off-the-fiscal-cliff?lite

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a fiscal conservative Bush was a fraud. But then, most of the country drank that Flavor Aid as well. "

 

Yes he was a fraud. But then, he was elected by a minority of voters the first time and only a slim majority the second time, so I don't think you can accurately say that "most of the country" agreed with or supported him, even at the time of his election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend at work has a large Rmoney bumper sticker in his cubicle. Yes, he is an Obama supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sentinel947, oh how I dearly wish that instead of Clint Eastwood...it could have been 'W' warming up the crowd at the RNC. THAT would have been poetic compared to Clinton at the DNC.

 

Reconsidering Obama in that light, I have to admit that I have indeed enjoyed having a President who could compose and speak using complete sentences. I note that Romney is up to that as well, a welcome change for the Republicans.

 

Edit: Lisa, I stand corrected. You're right, in 2000 and for 6 years, the Republicans had every branch of government. It was due to the Republican majority in both houses that we did that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Packsaddle, like Bush or not, he could speak in complete sentences. You must give him that much credit.

 

Whether you disagree with someone over politics doesn't make the other person unintelligent.

 

I personally disagreed with several major Bush policies, but at least Bush had strength to his convictions. Romney and Obama pander for votes. Romney flip flops, and Obama "evolves" and promises the world for your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least Obama evolved in the direction he was heading in.. He was the one to end "Don't ask, Don't tell", and championed other rights for the gay community.. It wasn't that he was elected by claiming he wanted to make homosexuality illegal, and then evolved to be pro-same-sex marriages.. It was also discussed, and decided not to come out, as it would loose votes.. Don't know why, but when Biden announced his support for ss-marriages, it then seemed best that Obama also make his views on the subject public.. From what I hear, Biden was in the dog house for that one.. I would say, Obama declaring his position was really no surprise for most of us who had even half-heartedly followed political news..

 

Now Mitt, was for ss-marriages, and then flip-flopped to be against it..

 

Sentenal, seeing that on social matters between candidates is a coin toss. I would suggest you make your decision viewing each one on other subject matters, economy, education, foreign affairs, etc..

 

So for all your fiscally conservative Republicans, who say Republicans are the math geeks.. Explain the new thing with Republicans and polls... Since the polls are not in their favor, they had someone skew all the polls in their favor.. lo and behold, when they did that... why.. Mitt was winning!!! That is the explanation of how they can say the Ryan plan will pay down the deficit.. Without their brilliant mathmaticians, then reducing taxes and starting wars just doesn't compute.. But, with their birlliant mathmaticians there to skew the numbers, why anything is possible!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Democrat I was much happier with Clinton than Obama. Clinton was a far superior politician particular during his lame duck year. I was in DC at that time and it was amazing to watch. I also think that Clinton did more for the little guy than Obama.

 

I was very unhappy with Clinton's "zipper failures" and, at the time, wanted him to resign so we could move on to governing the country. I voted for George W the 2nd time since we were at war but boy have I regretted it.

 

It seems to me Clinton, Obama, and Romney are all pretty bright guys. George W...strikes me as average...I just don't get it. I can never completely throw him under the bus...his speech on the evening of 9-11 was well delivered and struck the right tone. For a brief period he rose to the occasion. I do believe he did the best job he could given his limited abilities in a difficult situation.

 

I am a Democrat who will support a Republican candidate if he is the better man and I think he will do a better job. I will tend to vote Democrat in a toss up. I want pragmatic centrists who will govern and get the job done. However I have seen some good men who are local Republican officials personally hounded by Tea Party types who think they are not extreme enough (I have been in the room and heard the voicemails and seen the emails).

 

I want to be fair to Romney but the Republican Party of 2012 scares me--it does not seem conservative as much as wanting deconstruction of the government by starvation, switching what is left of the safety net to a laissez-faire "good luck to ya--I got mine" environment, and is selectively fiscally responsible. Also seems to be more than a little tolerant of folks who are bigoted. It has really forced me to harden my position and vote AGAINST all Republican candidates for State and National office as much as FOR the Democratic alternative. The Republican party seems kinda dogma-crazy like the Democrats were in the 70's.

 

I only bring this up not to, obviously, convince anyone but to express the impressions that a persuadable Democrat in a swing area of a swing state with 29 electoral votes is feeling. And I am sure there are other folks like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George W...strikes me as average...I just don't get it.

 

I'm convinced that his down-home, "I'm just an average guy" routine was an act, down to the malapropisms. It can be useful to be underestimated....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test"

just one of many such 'complete sentences' by Bush.

If one wants to make the argument that he intentionally said these things in order to better connect with a barely-literate public, I guess I have to admit that possibility.

 

Edit on Bush being average: "To those of you who received honours, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say you, too, can be president ..."

TT, I was also hoodwinked by Bush. I actually believed his claims of WMD, etc. I react badly to being hoodwinked. I don't forget. I don't forgive. It's one of the reasons I'm going to try to give Romney a chance instead of Obama (he had his and failed)...although I guess I should also consider Gary Johnson.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×