Irontruth |
Heard an interesting argument for voting for Obama the other day. Basically how within days of his inauguration high level republican politicians, news pundits and talk heads voiced a strategy of not allowing him to succeed at anything to increase the odds of making him a 1-term president. Before he even did anything. If he won, it would partially be a message that that kind of strategy isn't desired from our leaders.
meatrace |
So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Andrew R |
So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Do you really think democrats are any better?
Tiny Coffee Golem |
This thread is a singularity of fail.
It's always that way with political threads. I wish it had stayed the light hearted conversation poking fun at politics in general. Alas people falsely think that others care about their opinions so they share them.
I would wager that no one's mind has been changed by anything said about politics between now and the election.
Caineach |
meatrace wrote:Do you really think democrats are any better?So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Look at statistics on filibusters in the Senate. Yes, I do.
Andrew R |
Andrew R wrote:Look at statistics on filibusters in the Senate. Yes, I do.meatrace wrote:Do you really think democrats are any better?So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Wait until we get the next republican in office and see what happens.
Comrade Anklebiter |
Alas people falsely think that others care about their opinions so they share them.
I would wager that no one's mind has been changed by anything said about politics between now and the election.
Just because I never change my mind doesn't mean I don't care about your opinion, TCG.
And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.)
Comrade Anklebiter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TheWhiteknife wrote:This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.Speaking of the TSA.
Reversing Bush's stance against allowing them to organize and bargain collectively is one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments. They later joined the AFGE (apologies for linking the Daily Caller).
My god.
Obama came right out of the gate endorsing that mass teacher firing in Rhode Island (or Mass, I don't remember where). He oversaw the ripping up of years of UAW language as a precondition for the auto bailouts. He dropped the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of making an appearance in Wisconsin, he hung out with David Cote while Honeywell was trying (did?) to bust its unions and sends its jobs overseas. The Affordable Care Act has a provision aiming to gut hard-won, union health-care plans. Right at this moment, his boy, Rahm Emanuel, is facing off against the Chicago Teachers Union.
But he let the f&!%ing TSA organize?!?
[Sighs]
Kryzbyn |
The facts:
The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.
Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.
While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.
And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.
Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.
thejeff |
A Man In Black wrote:TheWhiteknife wrote:This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.Speaking of the TSA.
Reversing Bush's stance against allowing them to organize and bargain collectively is one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments. They later joined the AFGE (apologies for linking the Daily Caller).
My god.
Obama came right out of the gate endorsing that mass teacher firing in Rhode Island (or Mass, I don't remember where). He oversaw the ripping up of years of UAW language as a precondition for the auto bailouts. He dropped the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of making an appearance in Wisconsin, he hung out with David Cote while Honeywell was trying (did?) to bust its unions and sends its jobs overseas. The Affordable Care Act has a provision aiming to gut hard-won, union health-care plans. Right at this moment, his boy, Rahm Emanuel, is facing off against the Chicago Teachers Union.
But he let the f*+$ing TSA organize?!?
[Sighs]
He did say "one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments".
thejeff |
CNN wrote:The facts:
The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.
Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.
While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.
And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.
Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.
All truth, but not quite fair. It's a little rough to blame Obama for jobs being lost in the first months of his administration. It certainly wasn't his policies that were causing the recession. Job losses slowed after the stimulus passed and hiring started, albeit slowly, by the end of the year. How many of those losses should Obama be responsible for? Economies don't turn on a dime.
And it's hard for the "cut bloated government" party to complain about the loss of public sector jobs. I'll complain about. I think the government should have been hiring, not cutting. But you certainly can't argue that Romney plans to reverse that trend.
I've said here before, without the public sector losses, pushed by "austerity" minded Republicans with plenty of Democrats eager to ditch the "big government" label, unemployment numbers and thus the economy would look much better. We'd be hovering above 7%, not 8%.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait until we get the next republican in office and see what happens.
Will it be inflation-adjusted government spending falling for the first time since Richard Nixon?
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
meatrace wrote:Do you really think democrats are any better?So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
YES.
Show me one time democrats haven't been willing to compromise on something. They have the spines of jellyfish.
Irontruth |
meatrace wrote:Do you really think democrats are any better?So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
You do realize that for years and years, the private insurance mandate was a republican idea.
Obama's stimulus package changed before it was passed. They reduced spending and included tax cuts. That is the exact definition of compromise. You can argue that it wasn't enough, etc... but it's still the EXACT definition of compromise.
Obama's cap and trade is essentially the same law that Bush Sr. signed into law back in 1990, which also got 'aye' votes from Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich. The 1990 bill applied to sulfur dioxide, which helped reduce the problem of acid rain in this country.
Tiny Coffee Golem |
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:I thought the correct punchline to that joke was "Not enough sand"Sharoth wrote:How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.What do you call 20 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
A good start.
That too.
It's a joke. I don't believe it's a right/wrong situation.
BigNorseWolf |
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:I thought the correct punchline to that joke was "Not enough sand"Sharoth wrote:How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.What do you call 20 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
A good start.
The best view of a politicians feet ever.
Guy Humual |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more:
What do you have when you have a thousand politicians at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
How many politicians does it take to shingle a roof? Depends on how thinly you slice them.
What's black and brown and looks good on a politician? A doberman.
What's the difference between a politician and a trampoline? People take their shoes off to jump on the trampoline.
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead politician on the side of the road? There's screech marks in front of the skunk.
In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.
Tiny Coffee Golem |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more:
What do you have when you have a thousand politicians at the bottom of the sea? A good start.How many politicians does it take to shingle a roof? Depends on how thinly you slice them.
What's black and brown and looks good on a politician? A doberman.
What's the difference between a politician and a trampoline? People take their shoes off to jump on the trampoline.
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead politician on the side of the road? There's screech marks in front of the skunk.
In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.
I tend to agree with this. I admit that i am totally disgusted with the american political system and something needs to change. It'll have to be a majoral cultural shift, but I really dont know what or how.
Kirth Gersen |
Learn to read. 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.
And 90% of such figures are completely made up. Here are some more important statistics that are sure to contribute to the discussion (I won't bother to link any sources, because these are all common knowledge):
Remember, "it's not news, it's entertainment!" So 'news' channels can cite whatever made-up numbers they want, even if they're outright fabrications.
Zerombr |
I'd just be a lot happier if lobbyists were removed from the equation. I don't know if term limits are the answer, but the moment congressmen start accepting outside money, heck even money for their campaign, whatever possible neutrality they've had is lost, unless of course they don't expect to have more than one term in office.
We need to rise above huge corporate donations, private interests, lobbyists, corporate loopholes, greed, and personal want. Congress is a job of service, and should not be considered a career.
I am not sure what to say about the Presidency itself outside of the fact I think we should refer to our current President as such, Pres. Obama, not Mr. Obama. I think it says a lot about a person's character when they don't use proper honoriffics.
Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for reading.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
thejeff |
I'd just be a lot happier if lobbyists were removed from the equation. I don't know if term limits are the answer, but the moment congressmen start accepting outside money, heck even money for their campaign, whatever possible neutrality they've had is lost, unless of course they don't expect to have more than one term in office.
We need to rise above huge corporate donations, private interests, lobbyists, corporate loopholes, greed, and personal want. Congress is a job of service, and should not be considered a career.
Term limits aren't a solution. They'd just make the revolving door spin faster. You'd still need to suck up the corporate donations to get elected the first time. You'd still need them to run for another office. And if you weren't doing that, they'd be promising you a cushy job when you left.
I've tossed around the idea of unlimited, but not consecutive, terms. That would fix the problem of fund-raising and campaigning while you're supposed to be running the country. It wouldn't address the revolving door problem.
It's all moot without a Constitutional amendment though and if we were taking that route I'd rather aim it at campaign contributions and spending directly rather than at term limits.
meatrace |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.
It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.
bugleyman |
...In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.
There are two kinds of politicians: The unsuccessful and the corrupt. Can corrupt politicians still try to do good? Sure, but that always comes after helping those to whom they are beholden. This will never change until we get the money out of politics (i.e. the opposite of Citizens United).
thejeff |
Guy Humual wrote:...In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.There are two kinds of politicians: The unsuccessful and the corrupt. Can corrupt politicians still try to do good? Sure, but that always comes after helping those to whom they are beholden. This will never change until we get the money out of politics (i.e. the opposite of Citizens United).
I think that goes too far. Sure, no one who's successful in politics is pure. They all compromise their ethics, they all sell out.
But just saying they're all corrupt loses the important difference between those who still try to do the right thing as long as that's compatible with staying in office and those who're really just out to loot what they can. Those who can't even follow Congress's loose ethics rules are a special breed.LazarX |
Guy Humual wrote:Anyone notice that the financially stable governments like Canada and Sweden are also the ones with the higher tax rates? And countries with 0% corporate tax like Ireland are financially unstable?You're cherry picking examples. Greece, Italy, and Spain have pretty high tax rates and are all on the verge of financial collapse.
The difference is efficency of their government, not the rate at which they tax.
Perhaps not scuttling the public sphere to give it all to your wealthy cronies might have something to do with it as well.
Guy Humual |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring.
Andrew R |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.
It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.
I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO instead of flooding the media with attack adds.
Kryzbyn |
]I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO AND HOW instead of flooding the media with attack adds.
I added that bit there. It's actually important.
EDIT: And "By making the hard decisions..." is not an acceptable response.
Guy Humual |
meatrace wrote:I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO instead of flooding the media with attack adds.How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.
It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.
That would be a good idea IMO. Maybe we could also make it against the law to tell falsehoods or use sound bites in political ads? Add a fine to any station that knowingly airs such ads. You have the right to free speech but you shouldn't have the right to lie to the public.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring.
I don't actually like this attitude. It sounds all very nice in theory and it would be nice if it worked like that.
But what if it is really one group not cooperating? If your highest priority is "working together", should you compromise more and more to get a deal while the other side holds fast? Always blaming both sides for the lack of cooperation spreads the blame equally and thus rewards the side that does the least.Maybe rather than "not pointing fingers", we should actually look at the data and find out if one side is more of a problem than the other and react to that?