Printable View
It seems to me that we have lost the ability to compromise. In the past the Democrats and Republicans were able to trade increases in taxes for decreases in spending.
And I would hope that we could all agree that military spending needs to be trimmed.
A friend and I were discussing this earlier this week. We were discussing what was required for the last time we could remember both parties working together, which was during Clinton's administration when the Republicans had the Contract With America. There was some drastic disgust with what Republicans had done in Clinton's first couple of years, which was very similar to what has been done in Obama's administration to block anything he has brought up. The difference is that we seem to be moving more toward those extremes rather than like in 1994 when we moved toward the middle to work together, regardless of party, to get things done that truly helped the entire nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by glunn
Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentlebenOkay, this is driving me nuts:Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer
there = a place "Tommy ran over there."
their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."
they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."
Thanks.
Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentlebenThis is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerMeanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentlebenThis is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.
Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.
Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?
God this naive socialism is frustrating. Do you not pay attention to Europe? You realize that most policies being implemented are in the hopes of a future economic rebound to mask the real issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
The "we" I refer to is any thinking American. If I walk up to my house expecting it to have a secure foundation, the last thing I want is the foundation repair guy to hand me a lollipop and tell me that "yeah, things will be fine!" I'd much prefer he tell me: "No...your **** is cracked. You need to do something" We can disagree about the how, but you god damn well better appreciate the effort to not hide the real problems. Otherwise what you get is a system in which the lollipop pushers become the norm because that is the way you get elected.
No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.Quote:
We should encourage people to be individually responsible, but not be so naive to believe that everyone is able to do so. Stop being so cheap; that's your problem.
And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.
Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.
On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.
Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an (R) next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.
Never claimed to be an expert, but you want people to pay attention to what you say, take the 0.001 seconds it takes to ensure you're not ALWAYS using the wrong version. I'd also take the math and economics, and have done so, but I tend to enjoy people listening to what I say when I utilize that expertise.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerSweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentleben
You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
We all agree that people need to take personal responsibility. But it's lazy and glib to insist on them to just magically acquire it. Pig is spot on that we need welfare programs to actually WORK and succeed at job placement, but that costs money and takes planning and talented people, we can't expect further and further scaled down programs to manage that. Again, people are being cheap. There might be a short term loss in bolstering welfare-to-job programs (say paired with public works projects), but you'd effectively change worthless citizens into contributors.
(For the record Ryan voted for TARP and both Wars.)
Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.
Are you being serious? Because I can show you some liberal/progressive ideas, so you can better spot them in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima RatioYou sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp
My new liberal ideas: an army of pick pocketers on Wall Street, and squatting training sessions at community theaters and how to live off student loans into your fifties!
Hahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
Nate Silver sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPJ
Funny. You know me so well. I've voted for about twice as many Republicans as I have Democrats over the past 15 years. I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate (would have voted for Obama but my absentee ballot was screwed up and I never received it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima RatioYou sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp
The problem, as I said earlier, is that the Republican Party stopped representing the bulk of my viewpoints (I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years). Where I used to hold my nose over social issues and stamp that GOP candidate on my ballot because of economic issues, I can no longer do so in good conscience. The GOP has taken the last ten years and completely disenfranchised me as a voter. They started a completely unnecessary war. They continue to launch ridiculous campaigns against women's rights. They have let the religious nutjobs take over the party and destroy any goodwill I had for the party as a whole. They stopped even pretending to be fiscally responsible. I take it you missed the part where I advocated "tearing apart the education system"... Yeah, that's a really "liberal" idea, what with the teacher's union being a staunch Democratic support network for the past 30 years and all.
Once upon a time, I was able to laugh at Democrats as being naive, doey-eyed hippies whose feet were floating in the clouds while the GOP was full of grounded pragmatists. Slowly, the Democrats have become the pragmatists (somewhat, anyway) while the GOP has launched into the stratosphere promoting non-sensical arguments that cannot be settled with one another. On the one hand, you have a GOP that wants "personal responsibility" and for people to get off the government dole. On the other hand, you have a GOP that is trying to prevent women from getting free/cheap birth control and/or have abortions to prevent unwanted children. Hell, I think the government should give away birth control. Why? Because it's the cheap thing to do. You could feed an entire county of women birth control for five years for the cost of raising one kid on the government dole. You can't force poor people to stop having children but you can gain some of the effect by giving them a bounty of options on how not to breed. Problem marginalized with a few truckloads of pills... That's pragmatism at its finest. But that will never happen because the influx of religious zealotry has completely destroyed the pragmatic GOP that I once supported.
So, go ahead and call me a Liberal. I don't really care because I know it's not true (not that it's an insult anyway). I've remained mostly the same. It's the GOP that moved away from me, not the other way around. I'm still looking for rational, well-balanced solutions to problems. I'd love to vote for a GOP candidate (Huntsman, anyone?) but the GOP stopped nominating people I could stomach quite some time ago and when they do nominate someone I can stand (I don't actually think Romney is that bad), that candidate has to backtrack on any "liberal" ideas they have so heavily and strongly support ridiculous religious rhetoric in its place that you have no idea who you're voting for anymore.
At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnarthorCharitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerMeanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentlebenThis is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.
As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.
Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABRHow do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
If you go by current polling the 70% figure is reasonable. Of course a pollster has a tough time figuring out turnout so a 3 or 4% swing from polls is not all that uncommon. I'd say Obama is in the lead but the wind is at Romneys back.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABRNate Silver sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPJ
This is so myopic. There aren't jobs for low-skilled people to work. Compare the number of job listings in the want-ads, to the actual unemployment numbers. I see nothing but middle aged adults working fast food jobs these days (here in Michigan, at least). It's a myth that there's jobs available, and even if there were why isn't there a social program bridging the gap?Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerAssuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABRHow do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
The free market is not producing enough jobs for low-skilled people, that's the problem. This is what happens when a country loses it's industrious sector. I am open to ideas about how to fix that problem, but I don't buy for a second that lower taxes is part of the solution. It's our labor that's too expensive, not our taxes.
No one chooses to live in the streets. Don't be an idiot. No one chooses that life; people might make poor choices leading to such a life, but they didn't choose it. Let's help people make better choices; it's cowardly to just cut and run.