Where the Rubber Hits the Road

[Minor Axis]

Half the story & blaming the wrong half. In both instances, revenue rose and spending rose faster. It's the spending that needs to be cut. I heard a politician say it the other day: "We don't have a revenue problem in Washington. We have a spending problem in Washington."

Both needed to be cut and they weren't. For the party that claims the mantle of fiscal responsible, he did not act responsibly imo.

I think we should keep blaming George W. until the end of time. I mean, hell, he probably could even be blamed for the recent natural disasters.

And Minor Axis, I'm quoting this: "I just want responsible people running the show. My definition of responsible? Leadership who looks out for the health of our society across the spectrum, not just looking out for those who all ready have it made."

Is it preferable, then, to basically have a welfare state in which handouts become the norm? Oh, sorry, I forgot, that already is the norm. Dependence on the government is a tremendous problem, not a solution.

Do you blame Bush at all? He handed Obama a pile of shit. This is why Obama was elected.

Funny you assumed I implied handouts. I'm talking about a level playing field and workers who are treated like more than rats on a treadmill.

:thumbup

 

[Alien Allen]

Bush was a good liberal in the same light Clinton was a good conservative

Gonna be real interesting to see how Obama adjusts or if he just digs in deeper

I am going with the dig deeper

If he does he will be a one termer for sure. He set himself up when he commented during the summer about holding the republicans accountable for spending next year. At the time he assumed he was gonna have a democrat congress.

The house dems took a whooping. Of course Obama will claim his message just never got out. His narcissism won't allow for him to realize the message was clear and the majority reject it. Were it not for the republican machine helping to get a couple of senate seats lost the reps would have control of the senate too.

 

[Minor Axis]

Bush was a good liberal in the same light Clinton was a good conservative

Gonna be real interesting to see how Obama adjusts or if he just digs in deeper

I am going with the dig deeper

If he does he will be a one termer for sure. He set himself up when he commented during the summer about holding the republicans accountable for spending next year. At the time he assumed he was gonna have a democrat congress.

The house dems took a whooping. Of course Obama will claim his message just never got out. His narcissism won't allow for him to realize the message was clear and the majority reject it. Were it not for the republican machine helping to get a couple of senate seats lost the reps would have control of the senate too.

You just need to come to grips with the Republican Party short comings. It was 8 years of a Republican Administration, completely pro business/anti-regulation and look where we ended up. And you guys want to blame Obama and the Republican Party wants you to believe they are the party that can fix the problem they created. You must acknowledge that the last time they were in charge the economy in this country got decidedly worse after taking over from Clinton. I don't know how the Republican party can look the electorate in the eye with a straight face, of course look at the electorate, lemmings. :smiley24:

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't know how the democrats can look the electorate in eye either. They railed against Bush's spending (rightfully so) and then doubled down on that like a crack addict.

When people get power they get greedy and stupid.

I am a libertarian and I never supported the pissing away of money we never had by Bush, Clinton, and Reagan let alone the disaster Obama has perpetuated

 

[Minor Axis]

I am a libertarian and I never supported the pissing away of money we never had by Bush, Clinton, and Reagan let alone the disaster Obama has perpetuated

More jobs have been created under the Obama Admin in 2 years than created under the last Republican Admin in 8 years. Republicans fight hard for corporate tax breaks to allow U.S. corporations to export U.S. jobs. Please clarify your perception of the Obama generated disaster. Thanks!

I'll reiterate: 1 trillion dollars into government coffers over a 10 year period to reduce the deficit by letting the tax cuts expire. Why not?

Here is another idea. Lets just disband social security. I'll give up all the contributions I've made over the last 40 years. How much of the problem will that fix? Happy now?

I predict that if the Republican Party does not make job creation their number one priority and instead waste time trying to undo the new Health law, they will be making a grave mistake.

 

[Alien Allen]

Obama should have spent ALL his time and energy on the economy instead of forcing down our throat some bull shit plan called health care reform that the majority did not want and won't take effect for the most part until................ Oh yeah his first term is up Edit: His ONLY term

Got a link to that jobs claim?

Or are you including all the friggin census personnel

 

[Maulds]

Got a link to that jobs claim?

Or are you including all the friggin census personnel

Thats what I was thinking

 

[Minor Axis]

Obama should have spent ALL his time and energy on the economy instead of forcing down our throat some bull shit plan called health care reform that the majority did not want and won't take effect for the most part until................ Oh yeah his first term is up Edit: His ONLY term

Got a link to that jobs claim?

Or are you including all the friggin census personnel

Here is a llink, there are probably others: businessinsider.com.

 

[Minor Axis]

700 Billion dollar tax break for the rich. 500 billion defense budget- Republican sacred cows and these people are going to fix the economy? In a nutshell: We can't possibly afford this poor child education program. It's just too expensive.

Yes They Can- Newsweek:

Enacting the party’s “Pledge to America”—repeal health-care reform, fully extend the Bush tax cuts, and limit nondefense discretionary spending—would add more than $700 billion to the debt, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[Alien Allen]

Here is a llink, there are probably others: businessinsider.com.

that is only a short comparison

and it came from Pelosi's office to boot :24::24::24:

 

[Accountable]

The repub lip service sound byte is right. Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem .... not that the repubs have any intention of slowing their spending.

 

[Azazel]

We have a spending problem in Washington."

​

 

[Minor Axis]

The repub lip service sound byte is right. Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem .... not that the repubs have any intention of slowing their spending.

I'm waiting on the honest debate on what we want government to provide based on tax dollars and how we will pay for programs and services.

A lot of you guys hate Democrats. Hopefully it's not because they are more focused on helping the working class get a fair shot. Yes for all their programs, they need to be fiscally responsible. On the other hand, the Republican Party of which I used to belong has morphed into this manipulative pro-business, anti-working class party. They will never tell that to your face. They basically will promote trickle down economics, give all the good deals to the rich and business and you no-bodies will eventually benefit as the crumbs fall off their plates. Oh, you don't like it? Well better yourself! Move yourself into the "valuable" category by moving into management and then fight your way to the top. The problem is that society is not structured in this manner. We all can't work in management nor want to work in management. Management is not the only valuable part of a company.

Corporations don't function by way of management alone. It's like thinking that the body can survive with only a brain. And it's a mindset that only the brain is important and should be well rewarded. The rest of the body can just scrape by. This is how Republicans view workers. The decision makers and owner should be paid more, but the debate becomes should pay rates be determined by how easy you can be replaced? Are you really a valuable member of the team or is this just lip service?

The other problem is corporate greed, the quest to enrich one's self by maximizing profits while screwing over your employees, by demeaning their value.

You Libertarians can tell me if I'm wrong, the problem I have with Libertarianism (my impression) is that you promote capitalism not fettered by government regulation and you promote individual freedoms (such as Rand Paul's view that it is your right to discriminate) over that of an orderly and fair society. The debate as always becomes what is fair?

This morning was watching MSNBC and they had a guy from the Peterson Foundation (whom I've never heard of before) who was talking about debt. He supports the concept of Social Security but mentions that besides the 13 Trillion in debt we have, we also have 50 trillion in promises such as Social Security and financing U.S. debt. As it is, it is unsustainable for the future. He said they only way out is to both cut spending *AND* raise taxes. One of those alone can't fix it. Now lets revert to the Republican's message- "Vote for me and I'll lower your taxes." It is not a responsible position to promote. Republicans are hucksters appealing to the voters self interest and stupidity.

A huge problem is finding politicians who are willing to make the hard choices and actually solve the problem and not worry if they they are not re-elected the next time around. I find this to be a near impossibility. This has the makings of an interesting debate- Is Democracy sustainable or is it destined to self implode??

Someone, give me an option C!

 

[Alien Allen]

I sure do not have a good feeling about the future

You misconstrue what conservatives and libertarians feel about regulations. I am all for reasonable ones based on science. There are far too many that are based on other reasons that can not be justified but get put into effect because of political reasons and or somebody bent the ear better of enough politicians.

One area that probably is going to strangle us as much as SS is public sector retirement benefits that are insane and way more than the private sectors. That is not union bashing but just a fact. The problem is that in the private sector if there is such insanity a company will go bankrupt and or the union and companies renegotiate. With the public sector unions you have no will by the politicians to really address it. Because they get a lot of campaign money from these same unions. In MI I am hoping our new governor and all the new people in office will finally work on this and hopefully create a blueprint on how to do it for the rest of the country to follow.

 

[Minor Axis]

This chart was shown on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight, the difference between the proposed tax cuts comparing the Democrat proposal to the Republican proposed cut. Now tell me who is more responsible? Who absolutely LOVES the rich? Who is out of their frick'n minds??

 

[Minor Axis]

How can representatives govern when they spend all most all of their time fund raising?

Overheard at a Republican strategy session: "There is no frick'n way we are going to increase the deficit for the unemployed because we are all doing that for our close friends (the wealthy)."

More Money, More Troubles

Sen. Evan Bayh is retiring this year. The Democrat didn’t lose his race, and he wasn’t down in the polls. He’s just, well, leaving. And one of the reasons is that he’s tired of the money. “It’s miserable,” he says. “It is not uncommon to have a fundraiser for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner, and if you have spare time in between, you go to an office off Capitol Hill and you dial for dollars. Then the weekend rolls around, and you get on a plane and travel the countryside with a tin cup in your hand. And it gets worse each cycle.”


The problem, he argues, isn’t just that raising money is unpleasant. It isn’t just that it gives the rich too much sway. And it isn’t just that it makes people cynical (“You want to be engaged in an honorable line of work,” he says, “but they look at us like we’re worse than used-car salesmen”). It’s that it means you can’t do your job. “When candidates … are spending 90 percent of their time raising money,” Bayh says, “that’s time they’re not spending with constituents or with public-policy experts.”

 

[Accountable]

I'm waiting on the honest debate on what we want government to provide based on tax dollars and how we will pay for programs and services.

Federal? Strictly what is allowed by the Constitution, without embellishment or redefinitions. Shut down the empirical military. End federal welfare of all forms; welfare for individuals is a state/local issue, and corporate welfare should be illegal. End any retirement programs for political positions. You've gotten plenty of honest debate; you just don't like what's being said.

[... ] the problem I have with Libertarianism (my impression) is that you promote capitalism not fettered by government regulation and you promote individual freedoms (such as Rand Paul's view that it is your right to discriminate) over that of an orderly and fair society. The debate as always becomes what is fair?

"Orderly" and "free" do not exist together. You're right that we can't agree on what is fair. It's kind of hard to go further without that, but we sure as hell keep acting as if we agree on what "progress" is.

Now lets revert to the Republican's message- "Vote for me and I'll lower your taxes." It is not a responsible position to promote. Republicans are hucksters appealing to the voters self interest and stupidity.

"Vote for me and I'll tax the rich to pay for your every need." is just as irresponsible. Democrats are also hucksters appealing to the voters' self interest and stupidity. How is it possible that after all this time of me mirroring your posts that you still don't get it?

A huge problem is finding politicians who are willing to make the hard choices and actually solve the problem and not worry if they they are not re-elected the next time around. I find this to be a near impossibility.[/quot]IMO it's because we keep looking to the same place. We keep climbing a persimmon tree trying to find an apple. Let's get rid of this Republicrat monopoly, what say?

This has the makings of an interesting debate- Is Democracy sustainable or is it destined to self implode??

Someone, give me an option C!

We don't have a democracy. Going back to a constitutional republic that makes decisions democratically would be great. What we do have now is surely destined to implode, and the sooner the better.

 

[Minor Axis]

Federal? Strictly what is allowed by the Constitution, without embellishment or redefinitions. Shut down the empirical military. End federal welfare of all forms; welfare for individuals is a state/local issue, and corporate welfare should be illegal. End any retirement programs for political positions. You've gotten plenty of honest debate; you just don't like what's being said.

From who? Geesch, give me a break. I'm talking about such talk coming from our politicians. Sorry but proclaiming, "elect me and I'll lower your taxes." does not qualify.

 

[Accountable]

From who? Geesch, give me a break. I'm talking about such talk coming from our politicians. Sorry but proclaiming, "elect me and I'll lower your taxes." does not qualify.

From me, fuck you very much!

 

[Tim]

Federal? Strictly what is allowed by the Constitution, without embellishment or redefinitions. Shut down the empirical military. End federal welfare of all forms; welfare for individuals is a state/local issue, and corporate welfare should be illegal. End any retirement programs for political positions. You've gotten plenty of honest debate; you just don't like what's being said.

This goes back to my other thread. How do you propose you do this? You cannot go back, it's impossible without completely dissolving the government and replacing it with a new one.
And how would you redesign the new government where your constitution cannot be changed by interpretation in the courts?