The one and only TBD Political Thread

[mead107]

 

 

To expand on this Alpha, I want people that want to govern for all the right reasons. Institute strict term limits, no lifetime healthcare or other cushy perks (members of legislative, judicial and executive branches all get same healthcare that are military members receive - which by the way is less than satisfactory having visited several VA Hospitals). After they leave office, they lose their health care and any other benefits, just like military members that leave active duty service. Most importantly, ban all lobbying activities as BOTH political parties are at the behest of lobbyists and this form of corruption is found at ALL levels of government.

 

Need to find a sponsor for a bill that would do this.

[Flutie Flakes]

Need to find a sponsor for a bill that would do this.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately Rande, it will probably never happen. They are like embedded ticks on a host (their constituents) that allows them to remain.

 

New members of congress go thinking that they will "change how Washington works". They are low on the "totem pole" and have little power. Most learn that they either play ball or will be exiled by their respective parties. They are told how to vote and instead of representing their constituents, they represent their parties. Senior members "indoctrinate them" and over time, they become part of the hypocracy that is Washington politics.

[Delete This Account]

so, how about that weather, eh?

 

jw

[buffaloboyinATL]

so, how about that weather, eh?

 

jw

Wind seems to be blowing to the left...

 

 

[xsoldier54]

Wind seems to be blowing to the left...

 

[Flutie Flakes]

Wind seems to be blowing to the left...

 

 

Are you referring to my posts or just commenting on the weather....in case you have any questions, read the quote in red at the bottom of my post and you will understand which way the wind blows in my world.

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

Are you referring to my posts or just commenting on the weather....in case you have any questions, read the quote in red at the bottom of my post and you will understand which way the wind blows in my world.

No, my comment was not directed at anyone in particular, just having a bit of fun. As far as your posts, I am all for minimizing the roll government plays in our daily lives. When people become too reliant on the government, it stifles creative thinking, risk taking and the entreprenureal spirit that helped make this a great country. That is what ia am afraid we are starting to see more and more people accepting and it scares the crap out of me.

[papazoid]

Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14993875-first-thoughts-obamas-demographic-edge?lite

[Orton's Arm]

<p>

i answered this earlier today on ppp but the conservatives didn't like the answer. i'll try again with different wording: much of republican economic policy in the last 2 decades has been aimed at maintaining and even increasing the top heavy distribution of wealth. they have been very successful (and conversely, the dems quite unsuccessful). we have the most concentrated distribution of wealth in this country that has existed in most of our lifetimes. and it gets worse (or better depending on your perspective) every year. it doesn't take an economist to see that the system is set up for this to happen. at least the dems pay lip service to slowing, stopping or reversing it. one salient example is minimum wage. who does a low minimum wage benefit? who does it hurt? who's for and against it politically. answer those questions and you'll have the answer to your bigger question.

 

Regarding the minimum wage thing, there's a natural price point at which labor supply meets labor demand. That price point represents the wages that would be paid in a free market, absent any minimum wage law. That "natural wage" can go up. If business conditions are good, businesses will tend to demand more labor. This will drive up wages. On the other hand an increase in the labor supply will tend to drive wages down.

 

The actions Democrats have typically taken have often resulted in a relatively low natural price point for wages:

- Their immigration policy greatly increases the supply of unskilled labor, thus driving down its price (wage rate).

- Many of their policies impose additional burdens on would-be employers. Those burdens also drive down wage rates

- They often tend to impose onerous paperwork requirements or other measures which subtract from business efficiency. The less efficient businesses become, the less eager they will be to pay for additional labor.

 

Policies such as the above are why the natural price point for unskilled labor will tend to be low when Democrats are in charge. They seek to solve the problems this would create by imposing a significantly higher wage for unskilled labor than the wage the market would have chosen on its own. The problem with this is that the farther away the minimum wage is from the wage that the market wants to pay on its own, the more unemployment will be created as a consequence. If (for example) the market wants to pay $5 an hour for minimum wage, and Democrats insist on a minimum wage of $30, many jobs will be lost as a result.

 

To illustrate this, think about how you personally act. If a trusted neighbor was willing to mow your lawn for $5 an hour, and another trusted neighbor was willing to babysit your kids for $5 an hour, you would probably utilize their services more often than would have been the case, if you'd had to pay $30 an hour for them.

 

To make a long story short, I agree with you that the growing gap between rich and poor is a serious problem. Where we disagree is that I do not see what constructive measures Democrats have taken to solve this problem. I feel the correct solution is to create an environment in which the free market pushes wage rates up naturally, due to companies trying to outbid each other for workers. To create an environment like that, the labor supply needs to be low (less immigration), and the climate for business needs to be favorable (less paperwork, simpler regulations, fewer lawyers).

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

the point isn't whether conservatives agree or disagree with my premise. it's whether minority voters do. that was the question being addressed here. you haven't refuted my argument regarding that in any way. and what does the anecdote about your hypocritical friend add to the argument? do you mean to imply that everyone who wants to change the tax system into a truly progressive system is a hypocrite?

 

my bad--i took your response out of context and unrelated to the question you were replying to:

 

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

 

i don't know what all blacks, latinos and women feel, and i assume you don't either. the danger in trying to figure out what "they" want lies in the fact that there is no "they". the balance is appealing to the broadest base possible without eroding your core values. i know that the numbers i saw earlier today indicate that 55% of women voted for obama, and 45% for romney. the original poster who claimed it was only old white men voting for him is clearly incorrect, and yes, i recognize he/she was trying to make a point.

 

in response to this question, you stated, as fact, i assume, that republicans favor robber barren style government where all the dough stays with the guys at the top. i disagreed with that assessment. you went on to suggest that minorities view the republicans this way, thus republicans don't attract enough of them. i think that's too broad a brush to paint with. i do agree with you that democrats largely pay lip service to that particular voting block, and i suppose that if republicans would just tell 'em what they want to hear, they might be more successful. unfortunately, i also believe that a sizable portion of the obama 60m most definitely includes staunch democrats who will never change, as well as large clusters of entitlement-minded people, and i don't see a time where the republicans will reach them, or will want to. romney talked about them as the 47%, and regardless of the politics of spin, his point was accurate: some people wouldn't vote for hi if unemployment was 36%. i think the answer is inclusion, inviting more like-minded people to the republican table, and to continue outreach efforts outside normal media distribution outlets. i would agree the constant narrative, irregardless of the facts, is that republicans want to keep all the dough to themselves, consequently, it's an uphill climb. and, i'll submit that you are not alone in your thinking, nor am i alone in mine.

 

so--to summarize, the economy continues to stall, obama continue to display incompetence as a leader and inability to bring the country together, unemployment continues at a very high level----does the next republican can get more votes from women et al? the first question would be...is he/she a candidate with broad appeal? All other things being equal, next time around-could a ticket including Rubio influence the latino vote? My goodness, an admittedly charismatic Obama certainly proved you don't need major political credentials to ascend to the presidency.

 

as for those who favor a 'truly progressive system' of taxation, and the story of my friend, again, it was out of context to the question you were responding to. but to answer the question, i can't speak for everyone that believes in what you call a 'truly progressive system'. maybe there are a few Mother Theresa's in there. i do believe that most of the political leaders on the left are absolutely hypocritical on this issue, and i find the average Obama supporter on the street to be the same. Give them a chance to pass the bill along to the rich and then beat the tax man, they do.

Edited November 8, 2012 by timmo1805

[Buffalo 66]

Obama is a bum who should spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison!

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I'm casting for Gary Johnson, who I'm sure will win in a massive landslide of public support!

 

I washed my hands clean from US politics, going on 8 years now.

(Simon, you hit the nail on the head.)

 

So you guys are voting for former San Diego Charger D-lineman Gary "Big Hands" Johnson?

 

According to the radio this morning the election was decided already. Washington Redskins last their lost home game before election day which means the incumbent will not win.

 

http://www.oilempire.us/redskins.html

 

Boy, Shanahan's been screwing up everything.

 

After being bombarded with ads for the congressional battle between Collins & Hochul, I walk into my polling place to discover with re-districting that is no longer my district. WTF!!!

 

I'd vote for Ed Hochuli too.

 

Rosanne Barr got my vote!!! That's one sexy B word who can sing the National Anthem better than Carl Lewis. Man she's sexy!!! Go Rosanne, Go Rosanne!!!

:beer:

 

Tom?

 

My candidate will single handedly change the entire country. Everything in my life will be improved once my candidate wins. However if he doesn't win, I will spend every single day ripping the other guy and rooting for him to fail.

 

Spoken like a true American!

 

Jill Stein

 

Pic?

 

I am in real estate my man, the housing market is completely unchanged with Obamas silly credit, in fact it made it much worse for the few months after it ended. The credit didnt create more home buyers, it simply accelerated them into the future, which left no buyers post credit. But we are billions more in debt because of it.

 

And no my house was not 8 k, but considering my mortgage payment is only 600 a month, that covered the first year + where middle class Americas worse off than I got stuck paying the bill.

 

Well being Peter Pan, you do believe in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, don't you?

 

I'm of two minds about this and I haven't reconciled my position yet.

 

1. We've managed to run the country for a very long time without required photo ID for voting.

 

2. It does seem a little crazy that we don't ask for it.

 

So you're in favor of the proposal to have the Transportation Safety Authority oversee federal elections?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Not judging anyone, just stating my opinion. Not making any value judgements. Maybe I didn't make myself clear about the Priest thing. What they did is a sin. It goes against what the Church teaches. So does abortion. You can call yourself whatever you want and I am not judging you, I just don't understand why you would want to call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in the Church's teachings. Doesn't make much sense to me, but you are entitled to call yourself whatever you want and that is your right.

 

I think you're way off in your contention that if you don't buy 100% into the dogma of your institutionalized religion that you shouldn't claim to be a member of that religion (ie- your statement that pro choice people shouldn't be calling themselves Catholics)

 

Do you really buy into everything the catholic church says you should?

 

Whatever happened to free thought?

 

What about healthy dissent and healthy skepticism?

 

What about the many social issues that the church has changed positions on?

 

Isn't it possible that your church isn't always right and that it's members should contribute to a healthy dialogue on the issues where the church is possibly not right?

 

How many Catholics do you think there would be if they all took your advice to disavow themselves of Catholicism based on a disagreement with Catholic dogma?

 

i answered this earlier today on ppp but the conservatives didn't like the answer. i'll try again with different wording: much of republican economic policy in the last 2 decades has been aimed at maintaining and even increasing the top heavy distribution of wealth. they have been very successful (and conversely, the dems quite unsuccessful). we have the most concentrated distribution of wealth in this country that has existed in most of our lifetimes. and it gets worse (or better depending on your perspective) every year. it doesn't take an economist to see that the system is set up for this to happen. at least the dems pay lip service to slowing, stopping or reversing it. one salient example is minimum wage. who does a low minimum wage benefit? who does it hurt? who's for and against it politically. answer those questions and you'll have the answer to your bigger question.

 

what an arrogant point of view. it's not that conservatives 'don't like the answer', it's that we disagree with your premise. we understand fully your point of view, and we think you're wrong. we believe in compassion, we don't believe in being hoodwinked. i sat with a friend of mine not two weeks ago, his hot-button issues were catholics and their opposition to the health care mandate, along with the larger question of taxation. not 20 minutes later, he spoke of maneuvering/manipulating his income around to avoid taxation, as if the two discussions were unrelated. every time the president opened his mouth on the issue of taxation and panders to the middle class, i thought of the many tax strategies employed by people like him to beat the system.

 

this president showed his stuff over the past 30-60 days or so. bitter, ugly, angry, petty. so be it, he won, and we have to live with it. if he can come toward the center, maybe he can salvage something reasonable from his second term that the other 57m Americans who wanted him out can look toward. unfortunately, i doubt that he can, and frankly doubt he really cares.

 

Personal anecdotes aside, to what do you attribute the the polarization of the wealth distribution in this country?

[Garion]

I am wondering how many Catholics have a family member who had premarital sex, committed th sin of Onan (google it if you don't know) etc. and still consider those family members catholic.

 

But really the gay marriage bill in MD at least specifically excluded religions from being bound by the civil marriage law.

 

Judaism doesn't allow for eating of pork but they shouldn't (and wouldn't) be allowed to pass a law restricting all americans based on their religious views.

[Mr. WEO]

Whether they mirror public opinion or not it doesn't change the fact that the basis is hate. As for your second thought he hasn't increased there importance as much as he is the candidate where they thought they had a chance to be heard. Romney in public opinion caters to rich white guys. True or not perception is reality and minorities won't vote for someone who doesn't care about them.

 

Probably the dumbest statement made in this long thread so far.

 

It's clear that you don;t understand the meaning of the word hate.

[birdog1960]

my bad--i took your response out of context and unrelated to the question you were replying to:

 

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

 

i don't know what all blacks, latinos and women feel, and i assume you don't either. the danger in trying to figure out what "they" want lies in the fact that there is no "they". the balance is appealing to the broadest base possible without eroding your core values. i know that the numbers i saw earlier today indicate that 55% of women voted for obama, and 45% for romney. the original poster who claimed it was only old white men voting for him is clearly incorrect, and yes, i recognize he/she was trying to make a point.

 

in response to this question, you stated, as fact, i assume, that republicans favor robber barren style government where all the dough stays with the guys at the top. i disagreed with that assessment. you went on to suggest that minorities view the republicans this way, thus republicans don't attract enough of them. i think that's too broad a brush to paint with. i do agree with you that democrats largely pay lip service to that particular voting block, and i suppose that if republicans would just tell 'em what they want to hear, they might be more successful. unfortunately, i also believe that a sizable portion of the obama 60m most definitely includes staunch democrats who will never change, as well as large clusters of entitlement-minded people, and i don't see a time where the republicans will reach them, or will want to. romney talked about them as the 47%, and regardless of the politics of spin, his point was accurate: some people wouldn't vote for hi if unemployment was 36%. i think the answer is inclusion, inviting more like-minded people to the republican table, and to continue outreach efforts outside normal media distribution outlets. i would agree the constant narrative, irregardless of the facts, is that republicans want to keep all the dough to themselves, consequently, it's an uphill climb. and, i'll submit that you are not alone in your thinking, nor am i alone in mine.

 

so--to summarize, the economy continues to stall, obama continue to display incompetence as a leader and inability to bring the country together, unemployment continues at a very high level----does the next republican can get more votes from women et al? the first question would be...is he/she a candidate with broad appeal? All other things being equal, next time around-could a ticket including Rubio influence the latino vote? My goodness, an admittedly charismatic Obama certainly proved you don't need major political credentials to ascend to the presidency.

 

as for those who favor a 'truly progressive system' of taxation, and the story of my friend, again, it was out of context to the question you were responding to. but to answer the question, i can't speak for everyone that believes in what you call a 'truly progressive system'. maybe there are a few Mother Theresa's in there. i do believe that most of the political leaders on the left are absolutely hypocritical on this issue, and i find the average Obama supporter on the street to be the same. Give them a chance to pass the bill along to the rich and then beat the tax man, they do.

whew! ok then.

i've alluded to this demographic snippet several times on ppp but in the context of your mother teresa comment it takes on a diiferent meaning: there must be a lot of saints in the well heeled suburbshttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.html. "truly progressive" means what it says. those who make more pay more - like those well above average earners in 8/10 rich counties that voted for a candidate that will increase many of their taxes.

 

to the reply on minimum wage poster: of course it's artificial and not market drive. public assistance is artificial as well. but i'm willing to bet that some of you posting here complain about those lazy bums on welfare, all the while complaining that an artificially set minimum, living wage is too much for business owners to pay. so what would you have those folks that are qualified for only minimum wage jobs do (there will always be a percentage of society at this level). starve?

[mead107]

When is the goverment sending me a check?

[Just Jack]

When is the goverment sending me a check?

 

Any day now, but you'll have to sign for it, so go wait by the mailbox.

[meazza]

When is the goverment sending me a check?

 

They will send you wine instead.

[dpberr]

After taking a mental health day from the election, I can say that I was stunned and dead wrong about this election.

 

I'm surprised white voters stayed home. Up to 7 million didn't vote at all.

 

I was surprised at the ultimately lacking GOP enthusiasm.

 

I was surprised that despite a majority of people saying the US is going in the wrong direction, they still voted for the incumbent.

 

2016 will be very interesting. The Democrats won't have Barack Obama to run out there and I think the majority of people who voted for him voted because they like him, specifically. On off years Democrats fare badly in elections.

[section122]

Probably the dumbest statement made in this long thread so far.

 

It's clear that you don;t understand the meaning of the word hate.

Or you just believe that the fact that many people believe changes its true nature. Just because it is popular doesn't mean it isn't hate based. At one point in time segregation was acceptable and probably the popular idea does that mean its basis is not hate?

Read my original post again. To many their policies comes off as anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, and anti-minority. You don't have to like it or even agree with it but it was demonstrated in the election that the Republicans need to do some restrategizing if they hope to be successful in the future.

 

Maybe Rob puts it more eloquently than me

Edited November 8, 2012 by section122

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

The Dow isn't up. The US Dollar is down. Big difference.

 

The DOW is down? really?

 

The DOW is down from what? The markets were crashing in 2008 and when the freefall stopped the Dow sat at ~ 6.8K from 14K !!! Gradually it has been recovering.

 

You want a decent market and not an over inflated one that BURST in 2008.

 

The dollar is down because in part because Congress is divided and won't work together in a recovery not to mention the price tag of 2 foreign wars thanks to He Hwo Must Not Be Named

 

After taking a mental health day from the election, I can say that I was stunned and dead wrong about this election.

 

I'm surprised white voters stayed home. Up to 7 million didn't vote at all.

 

I was surprised at the ultimately lacking GOP enthusiasm.

 

Because the "base" knew Myth for what he was, a right leaning moderate.

 

People were "stunned" because the believed all of the lies and fake polls.

 

Obama was nominated over 36 hours ago and Florida is still counting votes. He won regardless of them.

[peterpan]

This thread is a perfect microcosm of America. We have people bickering over race and religion and why their side is better, which distracts them from real issues causing our country to fall apart.

 

Very sad.

 

The markets were crashing in 2008 and when the freefall stopped the Dow sat at ~ 6.8K from 14K !!! Gradually it has been recovering.

 

I see you don't understand the difference.

Edited November 8, 2012 by peterpan

[Mr. WEO]

Or you just believe that the fact that many people believe changes its true nature. Just because it is popular doesn't mean it isn't hate based. At one point in time segregation was acceptable and probably the popular idea does that mean its basis is not hate?

Read my original post again. To many their policies comes off as anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, and anti-minority. You don't have to like it or even agree with it but it was demonstrated in the election that the Republicans need to do some restrategizing if they hope to be successful in the future.

 

Maybe Rob puts it more eloquently than me

 

You're saying the Republicans "hate" women and immigrants and minorities? That's just crazy.

 

68% of Republican women and 30% of Democratic women are "pro-life"--do they "hate women"? 40% of Black Democratic women are pro-life. Do they "hate minorities" and women?

 

37% of Democrats and 37% of Independents are dissatisfies with the amount of immigration into the country and want a decrease. 31% and 38% would vote against the DREAM Act (which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants brought to the US if they join the military or attend college). Do they "hate" immigrants?

 

10% of Democrats and 23% of Independents said they were LESS likely to vote for Obama because of his support for same sex marriage. 24% of Democrats and 44% of Independents disapprove of his support of gay marriage. Do these non-Republican Americans "hate" gays?

 

This will be news to you, but people hold positions based not on hate, but on moral and religious beliefs (if you want to argue that religion fosters hate, you haven't yet done so), not because they "hate" other groups of people.

 

Again, your claim is poorly informed and easily refuted. It is obvious that fully quarter to a third of Democrats share the same or similar positions with the majority of Republicans on abortion, immigration and gay marriage. I bet none of them voted Republican, however. Maybe they "hate" them?

[ExiledInIllinois]

i did this yesterday. i agree, it focuses on the core issues all voters should be encouraged to use it. dr jill stein should get my vote per the survey but obama was a close second. not gonna waste my vote, so "4 more years".

 

Same here... I got Jill Stein! LOL... Obama was only a few % points off.