US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Locked
User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Ian » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:16 am

Warren Dew wrote:I would like to see it come up again around the time the senate is debating the budget this fall.

Entitlements really need to be cut, and holding the debt limit hostage is really the only way that will be done.
I wouldn't mind seeing serious deficit talks come up again this fall with budget negotiations. That'd be OK. No later than that, and not attached to debt ceiling talks. Keep them seperate.

Entitlements do need to be cut. But I totally disagree about holding the debt limit hostage (quite a metaphor that keeps coming up, by the way!) as a means to do it. The potential for the hostage (the US economy) being badly hurt is too great.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51352
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Tero » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:41 am

What is the mystery about budgets and elections? As well as debt.

Republicans lower taxes, democrats raise taxes. No mystery. It will happen in 2013, whichever is is charge.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:17 am

Ian wrote:Entitlements do need to be cut. But I totally disagree about holding the debt limit hostage (quite a metaphor that keeps coming up, by the way!) as a means to do it. The potential for the hostage (the US economy) being badly hurt is too great.
The hostage is not the U.S. economy. The hostage is the other guy's pork barrel spending.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Robert_S » Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:10 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:Entitlements do need to be cut. But I totally disagree about holding the debt limit hostage (quite a metaphor that keeps coming up, by the way!) as a means to do it. The potential for the hostage (the US economy) being badly hurt is too great.
The hostage is not the U.S. economy. The hostage is the other guy's pork barrel spending.
Stop trolling.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:24 pm

Who are you saying is trolling, me or Ian? The idea that it's the "U. S. economy", rather than merely government spending, that would be drastically affected by leaving the debt limit where it is, is the one that's mistaken. The U.S. can service its debt, pay direct entitlements, and pay military salaries without an increase in the debt limit. Stopping all other discretionary spending and delaying some payments to states would get expenditures within receipts.

A few weeks of that would be far from a disaster, and might even have the salutory effect of forcing the administration and senate to recognize that excessive federal spending - much of it pork, as I said - is a real problem.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:43 pm

The Dow started tanking right when he started talking at about 1:45pm..... http://www.cnbc.com/id/44058141 Tanked 634 point son the day.

Image

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:47 pm

Ian wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:I would like to see it come up again around the time the senate is debating the budget this fall.

Entitlements really need to be cut, and holding the debt limit hostage is really the only way that will be done.
I wouldn't mind seeing serious deficit talks come up again this fall with budget negotiations. That'd be OK. No later than that, and not attached to debt ceiling talks. Keep them seperate.

Entitlements do need to be cut. But I totally disagree about holding the debt limit hostage (quite a metaphor that keeps coming up, by the way!) as a means to do it. The potential for the hostage (the US economy) being badly hurt is too great.
It's the debt that hurts the economy, if it's too high in relation to GDP. Some debt is o.k. But, we have runaway debt. And, raising the debt ceiling is a solution to zero problems, other than that if you don't raise the debt ceiling the gov't needs to make due with 14 trillion dollars of debt, or what is it now? 16 trillion limit? Spend less next year than this year, and they won't have a problem.

Why even have a debt ceiling, if it's just automatically raised, like a credit limit? At some point, you gotta stop charging it on the card.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:00 pm

Warren Dew wrote:I would like to see it come up again around the time the senate is debating the budget this fall.

Entitlements really need to be cut, and holding the debt limit hostage is really the only way that will be done.
Just cut shit that isn't necessary. Go right down the line:

Like - cut the $2.5 million in tax credits that go to Nissan Leaf purchasers - and cut out the $140 million being paid to a European company to get them to relocate to Tennessee. Fuck that. $140 million?

Here's a half-billion dollar savings: replacing the $1 bill with a coin would save taxpayers $522.2 million per year.

That should be a fucking no-brainer. If that saves 1/2 a billion fucking dollars - then make the fucking switch! This is why government sucks ass and is excellent at wasting money. That decision should take two fucking seconds. Get rid of the bill, and make only the fucking coin. 1/2 a billion saved. Image

Oh - and here's another one - the fucking ethanol subsidy boondoggle! That costs us $6 billion a year - that's how much money taxpayers lose on the federal ethanol subsidy programs - according to the Congressional Budget office.

There I fucking saved almost $7 billion in five minutes. Now let's cut every other stupid program like that, and see if we can save 1,000 billion dollars. That'd be 1/15th of the federal debt saved. Not a bad chunk.

Y U No Image Cut spending?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:07 pm

A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low. This dovetails with a record low for Congress’ approval rating, which stands at a paltry 6 per cent, while 46 per cent of Americans think most members of Congress are corrupt, with just 29% believing otherwise.
http://www.infowars.com/pollster-americ ... lutionary/

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:00 am

Not that my politics normally cross the main stream, but I'm leaning towards Ron Paul.
He actually offers real change and actually has the balls to see it through.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:38 pm

Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote: This is not remotely debateable.
Of course it is debatable - just SAYING compromise doesn't mean you're compromising - please - what "compromise" has been offered by the Democrats?
Have a look at what's being offered up by Reid. It doesn't include a dime in tax increases.
Reid’s proposal included provisions that “deem” budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and 2013....but Senate Democrats have not yet produced a 2012 budget proposal, much less one for 2013. Within those "deemed" budget resolutions would be tax increases.
Ian wrote: Does that sound like a hardline Democratic plan?
Dishonestly bootstrapping tax increases in disguise? Absolutely.
Ian wrote:
It's a plan designed to garner support from conservatives, so it'll be easier to pass and mold into a final compromised package. And that's well to the right of what polling says the public wants to see. Heck, I've heard from Tea Party types who've said they'd sign Reid's bill as it is, so long as a Balanced Budget Amendment is added (which would pretty much kill it for Democrats, and I also think a BBA is a well-intentioned but ultimately terrible idea).
I'm not sure who you're referring to, nor do I generally associate "smart" with "tea party," so saying that some "tea party types" are in favor of something tells me nothing other than some jackalope thinks something he knows nothing about is a good idea.
Ian wrote:
Yes, the GOP is the party less willing to compromise.
They are both playing their political games. Neither is more or less willing to compromise. They compromise when they have to, and if they don't have to, they flip the other side the bird.
Ian wrote: Hell, the far right is priding themselves on this.
Right - the far right. Just like the far left, who lambaste any moderate Democrat for deigning to compromise.
Ian wrote: Why else did the House vote come tonight and not yesterday? Because Boehner couldn't get the teabaggers in line. He had to add a BBA to his PR stunt package before sending it to the floor, thus making the package even less attractive to Democrats. Have we been reading stories about how Obama is having such a hard time getting his party to cooperate, about Pelosi telling her people to get their asses in line? Not so much.
So? I'm not championing the Republicans here. They are playing bullshit games, and pretending to be in favor of cutting spending when they aren't really.
Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote: Not all of the GOP of course, but the 60 or so Tea Party lunatics (whom I consider half a step down from domestic terrorists at this point) make it awfully hard for the rest of the party to act rationally. The Democrats are worried about the general election, as they should - but the Republicans are worried more about the primaries. If 2010 proved anything, it's that established politicians can be driven out by totally unqualified nobodies wio happen to have opinions to the right of the guy trying to get re-elected.

Beyond the parties and the primaries process, nobody gets off scot-free from blame for all the partisanship. Much of the media ought to be ashamed of themselves. Many ordinary people as well.

Some other opinions on how miserably dysfunctional this Congress really is:
https://www.peoplesunited.com/portal/site/peoples/
I agree with most of what you wrote in these last 2 paragraphs - but I didn't read the peoplesunited link.
I got it from Foreign Policy magazine. I didn't notice the switched link. Try this instead:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... /super_bad
Worst. Congress. Ever.
Whenever someone uses the phrase "worst ever" I shut down and stop listening. It's stupid.
Ian wrote:
Another note on how the partisanship got to be as bad as it is,
It's been as bad or worse in the past. We often perceive things as "getting worse" and that things were better, cleaner and more harmonious in the past, but generally speaking, people have always thought that, and things have always been about the same, within a standard deviation either way, as the tide ebbs and flows.
Ian wrote:
and you might like to hear this one: We're still living in a Republican Era. Even when the Dems had the House between the 2006 and 2010 midterms, it was largely because a wave of Blue Dog Democrats arrived in '06 and '08.
Whatever. I hear such nonsense constantly from Democrats and for as long as I can remember. Nothing is ever the fault of Democrats, they've played no part in the economic woes of the country, and are always second fiddle to Republicans, despite having owned the Congress for the better part of the last 80-90 years, by far. You'd think they never had a President in the White House despite having had a Democrat in the White House for 10 1/2 out the last 20 years, and 22 1/2 out of the last 51 years.

Now, the big thing is to blame that the teabaggers. That's the problem. It's as if the Democrats view themselves as powerless.
Ian wrote:
And there weren't too many primary challenges from the far left, with ultra-liberals replacing establishment Dems prior to victory in the general elections.
Establishment democrat does not equal Republican, at least not anymore than establishment Republican equals Democrat.
Ian wrote:
The same cannot be said of the GOP in the 2010 primaries; how many long-serving Republicans were primaried (that's become a verb in common useage in DC) by far-right ideologues, many of them with no experience or understanding of the federal government at all. Shit, look at Senator Bob Bennet from Utah - one of the most right-wing guys around, who was successfully primaried from his right. And in November, the Blue Dogs were the Dems who took the heaviest losses. So now we've got a Congress that looks like a valley in terms of ideological opinions, representing a country that still looks more like a hill. But the Congressional valley is steeper on the Republican side.
That should be a help to the Democrats, because it's like splitting the Republican Party, a la 1992.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Ian » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:52 pm

It will be a help to the Democrats in 2012, yes. I have little doubt of this: next year Obama won't beat the GOP candidate anywhere near as much as the GOP will beat themselves. But my point in that paragraph was that, in the meantime, the current makeup of Congress just makes actually getting anything accomplished that much harder.

But how can the electoral process be tweaked so that we get back towards seeing a bell-curve-looking Congress, one that better reflects the public? I'm open to ideas.
:think:

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Ian wrote:It will be a help to the Democrats in 2012, yes. I have little doubt of this: next year Obama won't beat the GOP candidate anywhere near as much as the GOP will beat themselves. But my point in that paragraph was that, in the meantime, the current makeup of Congress just makes actually getting anything accomplished that much harder.
Sometimes it's a good thing when one side or the other has a hard time getting something accomplished - generally, those times are when they are trying to get stuff accomplished that one disagrees with.
Ian wrote:
But how can the electoral process be tweaked so that we get back towards seeing a bell-curve-looking Congress, one that better reflects the public? I'm open to ideas.
:think:
I don't think you've established that the Congress (a) doesn't accurately reflect the public, or (b) that it was ever a whole lot better a reflection of the public than it is now.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Ian » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:51 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote: But how can the electoral process be tweaked so that we get back towards seeing a bell-curve-looking Congress, one that better reflects the public? I'm open to ideas.
:think:
I don't think you've established that the Congress (a) doesn't accurately reflect the public, or (b) that it was ever a whole lot better a reflection of the public than it is now.
Ugh. Must I really establish what should be perfectly obvious? That's going to take some doing, posting polls vs voting records and stated positions on various issues and so forth. Maybe I'll bother sometime, though I don't think you really believe that this Congress is an accurate representation of the public; I think you're just disagreeing with me because that's what you do with posts. That's fine, but I'm not going to undertake the amount of work necessary to establish this fact today.

Have no doubt whatsoever - the political center is terribly underrepresented in Congress right now, and as you like to point out (via discussing the importance of Independents), that's where most of the public resides.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:35 pm

Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote: But how can the electoral process be tweaked so that we get back towards seeing a bell-curve-looking Congress, one that better reflects the public? I'm open to ideas.
:think:
I don't think you've established that the Congress (a) doesn't accurately reflect the public, or (b) that it was ever a whole lot better a reflection of the public than it is now.
Ugh. Must I really establish what should be perfectly obvious?
Things that you believe are perfectly obvious ought to be the easiest things to establish.
Ian wrote: That's going to take some doing,
Then it can't be that obvious, if it takes so much "doing" to establish it.
Ian wrote:
posting polls vs voting records and stated positions on various issues and so forth.
Since there are polls that conflict with each other, I doubt you can conclusively establish an obvious lack of accurate reflection of the public via polls. But, by all means, cite your polls.

The voters decide the elections, and if the voters support tea partiers, then aren't their opinions reflected to that extent? Since the Democrats have 3-4 times as many seats in the house as tea partiers, then how is there not an accurate reflection in the house?
Ian wrote:
Maybe I'll bother sometime, though I don't think you really believe that this Congress is an accurate representation of the public;
Why not? What would be an accurate reflection? Who would hold what number seats?
Ian wrote:
I think you're just disagreeing with me because that's what you do with posts.
No. I'm disagreeing with you because you've made an assertion without evidence.
Ian wrote: That's fine, but I'm not going to undertake the amount of work necessary to establish this fact today.
Fair enough, but don't call something that takes that much effort to prove, "obvious."
Ian wrote:
Have no doubt whatsoever - the political center is terribly underrepresented in Congress right now,
Do you at least acknowledge the possibility that you are defining the political "center" to be different than the actual "center" of the American political spectrum? I think you are buying into the latest Democrat talking point: That something is askew in the system such that the majority (them) is not being represented.
Ian wrote:
and as you like to point out (via discussing the importance of Independents), that's where most of the public resides.
Conservatives are the largest single ideological group - http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx 40% self-identify as "conservative" and 35% as "moderate - 21% to identify as "liberal." Tell me, again, how it is "obvious" that this Congress does not represent that spectrum? The Senate has 51 Democrats, 2 Independents and 47 Republicans. The House has 192 Democrats and 240 Republicans. How, exactly, would you need that to shift in order for it to be an accurate reflection? 60 Democrats in the Senate and 250 Democrats in the House?

No, Ian - your insulting comment about me "just disagreeing" and it being so "obvious" that what you say is true that it ought not to be even seriously questioned amount to you just covering your ears and eyes to the possibility that the center of the American voting public may well not be where you would like it to be.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests