(I'm going to regret this) I genuinely have to laugh every time the President talks about how little he's spent. This argument that the rate of spending increase is the smallest of any President is laughable for two reasons. First, every budget he has submitted has been so out to lunch that even when the Democrats owned both houses, they wouldn't pass one. As a result, we've been on a CR since he's been in office so spending is always going to be the baseline plus inflation. Second, the baseline being used for the start of his term was overly inflated by the ridiculousness of the Bush administration's spendy ways. I know it's fun for Democrats to say "GARRAHHGGHH BUSH DID IT TOO!!" but you miss the point entirely when you do that. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. The facts are our debt is unmanagably high, our deficits are unsustainable, projected entitlement spending are driving our debt, and the President's only plan to address these problems is to raise taxes and blame the previous administration. You never know. That strategy just might work.
I apologize for that extremely generalized partisan rant. There are plenty of Democrats who understand economics. In a partisan, but more friendly light, I'll add: 'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' Just saying some things to balance out the numerous "lol at Republicans" comments.
Taxes should be raised, primarily on high earners. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...es-the-one-percent-pay-too-much-in-taxes.html
Employment is the biggest driver of tax revenue--increasing taxes on the rich will hardly make a dent so long as the number of people out of work remains high. Also the "rich" often includes people who operate business, where you spend that "rich" income on inventory, rent, employees, insurance, etc. The last to be paid is the business owner. Raising taxes on multimillonaires, only, might not hurt, but I doubt it would serve as much of a solution. And I've heard several prominent Republicans state that they support closing various tax loopholes in the interest of "fairness."
I really can't discuss anything anymore with anyone who calls themselves a Republican, or who would vote for Republicans. My opinion of any such person is so low that it can't be accurately described here. I probably won't post much here or wherever this thread is located. Obama will win the election, of course, but even that won't dissuade certain people of the foolishness of their ideas. I'll just wait around until November and Obama's re-election. It will be moderately safer then, if only because various people will be forced to look to 2016. By then, I hope that certain things will have changed. It's doubtful, though-- the strain of authoritarianism and racism that permeates the Republican Party has shown itself at various points in our history, always under a different name, even while it's powered by the same thing-- a fear of change, fear of "others" and the embrace of the status quo.
People who power groups like the tea party aren't driven by a love of money. I should pause to note the GOP's embrace of corporatism and big business, though. When student loan funding is cut and tax breaks for the rich and for businesses are allowed to remain, it is thoroughly criminal. The big banks should have been broken up without mercy, and big business should not be catered to nearly as much as they are now. Tax them properly, and if they attempt to leave the country, tax them for that too. The rich in this country often believe they are better than everyone else, even if they don't want to publicly say so. It is a rare few, like Warren Buffet, who know better and who understand how fortunate they are. I'm not sure how many people are aware that Pell Grants were cut recently, and for what? It saves nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yet tax breaks for the rich that could bring in a great deal of revenue if they went away remain. The priorities of this country are clearly centered around the rich and the fortunate, and beyond just that, are centered around them at the expense of the less fortunate. Please do not even attempt to refute anything I've said-- I will not read what you say and I will not invest a single bit of energy into thinking about it. You are wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not worth reasoning with.
Comments like those is what makes me hate both of the major political parties. You hear it from both sides and it is petty and disgusting. It's the reason we have so many problems in this country. People just straight up refuse to be civil and work with someone who doesn't share their political beliefs. KW, I agree with you on a lot of things but frankly, comments like those are what's wrong with this country. This Us vs. Them mentality has got to stop before there will be any positive change in the US.
No, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, and as I see it, nobody will address a glaringly obvious solution. Stop. Preemptive. War. We obviously don't have enough money to take care of ourselves at home or fight our own battles; we have no business fighting others' battles overseas. And war has driven more than one country to the point of bankruptcy. Ask Louis XIV. But since war is profitable for an organization that is a major source of lobbying and election campaign funding, my solution will never happen. Countdown 3...2...1...until I get accused of not supporting our troops. I support them. That's why I don't want them to risk their lives fighting anyone who has not attacked us.
It isn't that people don't agree with me or my beliefs. That's fine. It's what some people actively believe in and are for that is a problem. In many cases, people believe in what's essentially a fictional universe or alternate reality. These are the things that lead to negative effects in my life and in the lives of people I know. You cannot "work" with someone who lives in and subscribes to an alternate universe. Anyone who believes what I would consider nonsense (like Obama being primarily responsible for our current economic situation, or that Republican policies did not have catastrophic effects during the W presidency) cannot be worked with. Civility is impossible sometimes. I cannot be civil with people who believe in complete nonsense and who vote for politicians that harm me and people I care about.
Agree with 80% of this. But I assure you that the glaringly obvious solution is to fix all spending, not just spending on war. You could cut the military to zero and it wouldn't fix our problems. I take issue with the constant drumbeat to cut military spending while ignoring the spending that is growing much much faster than the rate of the economy.
It takes two to tango. What you are saying here is that no one can work with you, unless they already agree with you.
Really, KW? Really? If you're unable or unwilling to consider differing points-of-view, and you wish to make posts and then say "don't bother debating me," then perhaps you should take a break from the Senate, because that is hardly Senate-worthy behavior.
Oh oh, let me do it too! Don't even bother typing on this messageboard disagreeing with me as it will AVAIL YOU NAUGHT! HAHAHAHAHA! I mean really, one can either bow out or make a reply, but that's just kinda dumb.
The problem is, Kimball, it's the GOP which has set the stage, and the tone, for that particular viewpoint. The general public at large understands this, and attempts to tie Obama to the outcome of W's policies will only serve to energize those who are already not voting for him, while potentially mobilizing those who are, and the undecideds. Part of the problem here is the civil war within the GOP itself. I am almost feel sorry for the Republicans in a way; for all the Reagan-worship, it was his marriage of religious conservatives with the now-defunct Rockefeller wing of the party which resulted in this mess. They may win on this economy, but if Romney becomes President, his choices are going to be horrific: 1) Cater to the base, thereby guaranteeing a backlash against the Republicans by 2016 which may very well put a Democratic supermajority in power or 2) Move to the center, and still likely lose Congress in 2014 as irritated religious and Tea Party voters stay home. I see no reason to expect the historical reversion to the mean of the party in the WH losing seats in the first midterm after the Presidency turns over not to be in effect in 2014 (at least at this point). In a way, the hard push to the right may ultimately bring about the very things that conservatives fear: big government, limitations on religious interference in healthcare decisions, environmental regulations, etc. From health insurance to climate change, from education to women's rights, conservatives are on the offense with viewpoints that, if enacted, will rapidly alienate the majority of Americans. The GOP will own every single issue should they win outright in 2012, and if things aren't picture-perfect by the 2014 midterms, if the jobless rate isn't 4%, if health-care isn't cheap and affordable for everyone, if the Dow Jones isn't up at 20,000 and everyone's 401K's flush with cash, if the deficit isn't cut down to peanuts, the Republican party is going to get crucified. It will take two election cycles, but it will happen, and this time, they will learn from their mistakes and play hardball. I'm not advocating that outcome, because I think the lack of legitimacy each side has attempted to label the other with is very destructive to our democracy and our nation as a whole, but the Right has been far, far worse. Even with the ridiculing of Bush, no-one ever called him a closet (or open) Muslim or accused him of falsifying his birth certificate, which is a felony. Also, the GOP has blocked every attempt to work together and improve the economy and business environment in the US, in the hopes that it will help them unseat Obama. Mitch McConnell has made that abundantly clear, and this simply sets the tone for more of the same when the shoe's on the other foot-and it will be. The best thing for the Republicans would be to embrace moderate conservatism and return to Barry Goldwater's vision for the party-true limited government, and that includes the bedroom, as well as sexual orientation, dropping the anti-science mantra, and respecting states who passed laws enshrining freedoms that may not necessarily play out in other states. Could Barry Goldwater win the nomination today? As a pro-choice Republican, he would probably get blacklisted before he hit the door. Peace, V-03
Obama hasn't done a very good job as President overall it seems. He promised a geat deal and has delivered very little, debt and unemployment should have been his main priorities and both still seem to be unacceptably high. However, electing the Republicans is not really going to fix much of that. A party as unenlightened and with views as outdated as those the Republicans have should not be voted in by a civilised country. And for anyone who seems to think Obama & the Democrats' economic plan means they don't know what they're doing, it's worth noting that in this country our mostly Conservative government has tried a pretty opposite approach which hasn't worked either. They have cut spending, reduced taxes for higher earners and tried to get the private sector to move in an fill the holes left by cutting areas of the public sector. What has happened?.........none of that worked & so the country is now in a second recession.
My new signature. Did anyone catch Colbert Report last night? The man is on fire. "Ronmey 2102!" I'm not sure I've ever laughed so hard. "Mitt Romney won the Texas Republican primary last night, crossing the crucial 1,144-delegate threshold! Yes, what a story! He came from never being behind to clinch the Republican nomination! They said it could be done, and against no odds, he achieved the possible!"
Personally, I adore money. If you don't like yours I could take some off your hands for you ROMNEY 2102!!!!!!!! lol
Every time I read this thread, I'm reminded more and more of Lord of the Flies. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damned tragic.
