2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Pretty damn far right.  

 

Both sides cheerlead their own for not working together.  That's one of the things Republicans seem to like about Gomer and hate about McConnell....right?  

 

No it's not I cheer for standing up for whats right and make sense and against things that aren't.  I cheer for doing things that work not caring at all what sounds like help.  I cheer for benefiting all or as close to all as possible.  Never do I think oh gosh we might not win a future election if the other side plays politics with this or we end up being wrong, I don't think the country can afford us thinking that way. 

 

In my opinion the Republican party in action has moved to the left since 1994.  In rhetoric they may very well have moved to the right, and on some issues where the public has moved all the way to the left the majority of Republicans haven't moved much in that direction, but they sure didn't move to the right.  Do you really think there weren't Republicans like Michele Bachmann or name your favorite Republican "Villain" 20 or 30 years ago?  Back then the media just had overwhelming power to frame the issues and presented the the more moderates as the face and thus the outer edge of the Republican party.  

[Craig Arko]

Everything politics aside; this gives me some enthusiasm for the future of America.

 

So many times, it's the smart people who are not politicians who can lead us out of a hole.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/22/460668595/watch-spacex-celebrates-a-spectacular-accomplishment

[stringer bell]

 

The problem is that nearly every small movement is in the same direction right now......less help for the needy, more subsidies for the wealthy (see the most recent spending package). We can't increase funding to help veterans, but we can supply more tax cuts and direct money to businesses that Congressmen invest in......and it happens year after year. I stand by my earlier posts, there will be violence and a near revolution in our children's lifetime.

I'll double down on that Mike. If you are under 50, I think revolution talk will occur in your lifetime. You can see the anger in Trump's crowds and also in those advocating for the poor and underprivileged. Wealth disparity is a thing and it's getting worse, not better. I think any Republican elected would exacerbate the problem, but both of the last Democratic presidents have done nothing to counter the trend.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

and it happens year after year. I stand by my earlier posts, there will be violence and a near revolution in our children's lifetime.

 

If things continue to become worse off no question about that.  We can disagree on the fix, but if the focus isn't about the fix we have a major problem.  All we can do is try even if we expect failure.  I can't see how Democrats ideas will fix this problem and I'm guessing Democrats feel the same way about Republicans.  How we get around that problem I don't know.  

 

By the way how bad can it be all the economic #'s look fine, why do both Republicans and Democrats both agree we are heading for a revolution?  Ah, what difference does it make.

[drjim]

 

The problem is that nearly every small movement is in the same direction right now......less help for the needy, more subsidies for the wealthy (see the most recent spending package). We can't increase funding to help veterans, but we can supply more tax cuts and direct money to businesses that Congressmen invest in......and it happens year after year. I stand by my earlier posts, there will be violence and a near revolution in our children's lifetime.

 

I'm curious what you mean by violence and near revolution.

 

I generally have the opinion that our country, due to relatively competent state and (especially) local governance can survive dysfunctional federal governance. I don't see the space for near revolution*.

 

This is especially true because despite the rhetoric, basically every social indicator is trending in the right direction, and our country has the natural escape hatch of elections every 4 years.

 

*The one exception I would grant is following a catastrophic war. I think it is quite possible that we could elect a President/Congress that would lead us to a ill-advised war, but I don't see Revolution coming from primarily domestic concerns.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No it's not I cheer for standing up for whats right and make sense and against things that aren't.  I cheer for doing things that work not caring at all what sounds like help.  I cheer for benefiting all or as close to all as possible.  Never do I think oh gosh we might not win a future election if the other side plays politics with this or we end up being wrong, I don't think the country can afford us thinking that way. 

 

In my opinion the Republican party in action has moved to the left since 1994.  In rhetoric they may very well have moved to the right, and on some issues where the public has moved all the way to the left the majority of Republicans haven't moved much in that direction, but they sure didn't move to the right.  Do you really think there weren't Republicans like Michele Bachmann or name your favorite Republican "Villain" 20 or 30 years ago?  Back then the media just had overwhelming power to frame the issues and presented the the more moderates as the face and thus the outer edge of the Republican party.  

 

I can't agree with this. As a former paid staffer on a GOP presidential campaign, intern on the Hill for a liberal Republican, district leader for the party, and someone that was asked by then Speaker Pawlenty to run for office....I think I know what the party used to be like. It isn't like that anymore. It is much further right. The whole country is much further right. It isn't even close, really.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If things continue to become worse off no question about that.  We can disagree on the fix, but if the focus isn't about the fix we have a major problem.  All we can do is try even if we expect failure.  I can't see how Democrats ideas will fix this problem and I'm guessing Democrats feel the same way about Republicans.  How we get around that problem I don't know.  

 

By the way how bad can it be all the economic #'s look fine, why do both Republicans and Democrats both agree we are heading for a revolution?  Ah, what difference does it make.

 

It is an interesting thing......the anger seems to be rising, the fear seems to be rising, all while overall, life really is better for those of us in the US overall.

 

But, the history is clear on one thing....when the disparity between the ruling class and the rest of the world gets too big, there is violence. Whether it is actual revolution, or not, I don't know. But, you can see it in Black Lives Matter. You can see it in the right wing arming itself. You can see it in the rhetoric on the right (and probably on the left, but those people aren't running for POTUS). It might not be a full scale revolution, but something like the riots of the union creation years will happen. Horribly, I think we may see assassinations of the super wealthy also.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

 Wealth disparity is a thing and it's getting worse, not better. 

 

True, but that alone is not a problem.  We could solve that overnight by making everyone worse off.  I want to focus on the actual problem and we don't do that by focusing on something that doesn't need to be fixed.  I'd prefer the wealthy gain 50% (buying power) and the poor gain 3% then the wealthy gaining 1% and the poor gaining 2% I sure hope no reasonable person would disagree with that.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

It is an interesting thing......the anger seems to be rising, the fear seems to be rising, all while overall, life really is better for those of us in the US overall.

 

But, the history is clear on one thing....when the disparity between the ruling class and the rest of the world gets too big, there is violence. Whether it is actual revolution, or not, I don't know. But, you can see it in Black Lives Matter. You can see it in the right wing arming itself. You can see it in the rhetoric on the right (and probably on the left, but those people aren't running for POTUS). 

 

You don't think Bernie and his crowd don't represent that in some ways?  Maybe it's to a lesser degree then Black lives matter and occupy Wall Street, but it appears to exist.  I do think the people who still think political candidates can be the solution aren't going to be the problem.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No it's not I cheer for standing up for whats right and make sense and against things that aren't.  I cheer for doing things that work not caring at all what sounds like help.  I cheer for benefiting all or as close to all as possible.  Never do I think oh gosh we might not win a future election if the other side plays politics with this or we end up being wrong, I don't think the country can afford us thinking that way. 

 

In my opinion the Republican party in action has moved to the left since 1994.  In rhetoric they may very well have moved to the right, and on some issues where the public has moved all the way to the left the majority of Republicans haven't moved much in that direction, but they sure didn't move to the right.  Do you really think there weren't Republicans like Michele Bachmann or name your favorite Republican "Villain" 20 or 30 years ago?  Back then the media just had overwhelming power to frame the issues and presented the the more moderates as the face and thus the outer edge of the Republican party.  

 

Your first paragraph is a distinction without a difference.  For you what is "right" is likely not a compromise.  That's the rhetoric we hear leveled against McConnell now.  Cruz is celebrated for being uncompromising about what his side thinks is right.  That's a huge part of the problem.

 

To your second point, the Republican party has done a poor job keeping financial balances leveled.  That is  major change.  But that change is almost entirely invested in the military, a stance they are continuing to double and triple down on.  Only Paul refuses to engage in that same stance.  

 

As for how they are framed - they're doing that to themselves.  Their rhetoric is framing nicely regardless of the media.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You don't think Bernie and his crowd don't represent that in some ways?  Maybe it's to a lesser degree then Black lives matter and occupy Wall Street, but it appears to exist.  I do think the people who still think political candidates can be the solution aren't going to be the problem.

 

You think Sanders' rhetoric is about violence and intolerance? I think it is about taxing the heck out of rich people (and other stuff), but not about violence.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You don't think Bernie and his crowd don't represent that in some ways?  Maybe it's to a lesser degree then Black lives matter and occupy Wall Street, but it appears to exist.  I do think the people who still think political candidates can be the solution aren't going to be the problem.

 

I think Bernie is tapping into the 18-35 generation which has been been decimated by decision by the left and the right over the last 50 years.  I don't agree with the politics and solutions offered by Sanders for those feelings, but as a member of that generation - I sure as hell empathize.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think the problem I have is that when something has gotten done, I personally would have rather had a stalemate. I cannot point to any legislation over the last several decades where I thought it was much needed and a good idea. When things get done, the people get screwed and the only ones benefiting are those folks lining their pockets.

This is just for me, so maybe it's no boon for you, but having healthcare for the first time in ten years certainly made a difference in my life.  The student loan reform didn't hurt either (though much more is needed in that regard).  I think it's probably an unfair measure to judge a government's action by how it directly benefits you, especially if you sit on the right side of wealth disparity. 

 

There's much that needs to get done that the private sector can't or won't do, from infrastructure to energy to poverty to crime.   The notion that nothing needs to be done is pretty baseless.

[PseudoSABR]

 

True, but that alone is not a problem.  We could solve that overnight by making everyone worse off.  I want to focus on the actual problem and we don't do that by focusing on something that doesn't need to be fixed.  I'd prefer the wealthy gain 50% (buying power) and the poor gain 3% then the wealthy gaining 1% and the poor gaining 2% I sure hope no reasonable person would disagree with that.

The problem is that the wealthy use too little of their buying power.  You give a dollar to a poor man, that dollar goes back into the economy.   You give a dollar to a rich man, he holds on to that dollar and only spends if he can make more than a dollar as a result.   We need to get out of the mindset of guaranteeing a return on invest for the wealthy, and get the money into people's hands who need no incentive or guarantee to spend.   

[mikecgrimes]

 

The problem is that the wealthy use too little of their buying power.  You give a dollar to a poor man, that dollar goes back into the economy.   You give a dollar to a rich man, he holds on to that dollar and only spends if he can make more than a dollar as a result.   We need to get out of the mindset of guaranteeing a return on invest for the wealthy, and get the money into people's hands who need no incentive or guarantee to spend.   

 

That typically is true, but again it's not a problem especially if the poor and middle class are better off.  We also can't overlook the need for investment within the economy. That money being available means everyone can strive for good ideas knowing the money to make things happen is out there.

[PseudoSABR]

 

That typically is true, but again it's not a problem especially if the poor and middle class are better off.  We also can't overlook the need for investment within the economy. That money being available means everyone can strive for good ideas knowing the money to make things happen is out there.

Well, if the private sector isn't making the poor and middle class better off, the government is the only entity that can step in.  Investment is important only in so far as it creates sustainable wealth for many.  (E.g. Opening a business does much more for the economy than buying stock does). Unfortunately, our investment model floods wealth to fewer people, not more.   Innovation is important, and so is capitalistic efficiency, but such pursuits will still have value even if we do a better job taking care of the poor and the middle class.  After all, spreading the wealth around, will still mean that there's much, much more at the top.

[TheLeviathan]

For me Obamacare cost me a significant amount in the quality of my healthcare.  As a teacher I still have great benefits, but they went from outrageously good to pretty good.

 

That may seem like a "boo hoo" statement, but when your profession is wildly underpaid and that is one of the few things that makes up for it, it hurts.

[PseudoSABR]

 

For me Obamacare cost me a significant amount in the quality of my healthcare.  As a teacher I still have great benefits, but they went from outrageously good to pretty good.

 

That may seem like a "boo hoo" statement, but when your profession is wildly underpaid and that is one of the few things that makes up for it, it hurts.

I get that.  Can we please divorce education from property taxes so that we can pay you more?  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I get that.  Can we please divorce education from property taxes so that we can pay you more?  

 

You got my vote on that, I've been cheerleading that for years.  Would do a world of good for black kids and other kids in poor environments.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'll double down on that Mike. If you are under 50, I think revolution talk will occur in your lifetime. You can see the anger in Trump's crowds and also in those advocating for the poor and underprivileged. Wealth disparity is a thing and it's getting worse, not better. I think any Republican elected would exacerbate the problem, but both of the last Democratic presidents have done nothing to counter the trend.

 

This is what scares me. I also think you are right. We will pick up guns and fight before we vote in 3rd parties. My fear is that the guns simply end up on party lines.

 

If a major party loses an election due to a 3rd party siphoning off 10-20 percent of the vote, things WILL change, and it won't require people's lives being lost.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This is just for me, so maybe it's no boon for you, but having healthcare for the first time in ten years certainly made a difference in my life.  The student loan reform didn't hurt either (though much more is needed in that regard).  I think it's probably an unfair measure to judge a government's action by how it directly benefits you, especially if you sit on the right side of wealth disparity. 

 

There's much that needs to get done that the private sector can't or won't do, from infrastructure to energy to poverty to crime.   The notion that nothing needs to be done is pretty baseless.

 

I'm not referring to me. I'm referring to the country as a whole. ACA did nothing but to subsidize an already broken health care system. I really don't have too much of a problem with the idea that everyone should be able to buy insurance. I have huge problems with the fact that it did nothing to fix our broken system. Costs will not go down. They will continue to rise, and now due to some wonderful lobbying, your tax dollars will get funneled directly into the hands of the people responsible for making these unsustainable rate increases.

 

As for student loans, again, nothing was fixed. All the risk has been transferred to the tax payers allowing colleges and universities to keep the gravy train going and continue raising prices for no other reason than that they can. College prices are still rising unsustainably and now the risk is in the tax payers hands. Just as in the medical field, the reasons for the unsustainable increases were never addressed despite the fact that they could have been, but that would eliminated the cash cow for a lot of very wealthy, connected individuals, and we all know that this would never be an option.

 

Perhaps I'm just naïve, but I expect my legislation to actually fix problems, not exacerbate them, and if it isn't going to actually move us towards a solution, then I would much rather there be a stalemate because the alternative only speeds up our bankruptcy.

 

Now that I think of it, perhaps we should all vote for Trump. The one thing he's done quite well in his life is recognize when a company is bankrupt (and hasten it's arrival in many ways) and usher it through it. With the exception of Rand Paul, everyone else will continue to insist nothing is wrong despite the fact that we are only a few years behind the European crisis that is about to boil over.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As for student loans, again, nothing was fixed. All the risk has been transferred to the tax payers allowing colleges and universities to keep the gravy train going and continue raising prices for no other reason than that they can. College prices are still rising unsustainably and now the risk is in the tax payers hands. Just as in the medical field, the reasons for the unsustainable increases were never addressed despite the fact that they could have been, but that would eliminated the cash cow for a lot of very wealthy, connected individuals, and we all know that this would never be an option.

 

Yeah, there seems to be either a fundamental misunderstanding on the left about what's wrong with student loans and college tuition.  Every solution offered is worthy of slapping your forehead.

 

Sanders being the worst of them all.  He's basically subsidizing one of the most exploitative corporate models in America today.

[DaveW]

I like what Oregon did.

(I don't have the exact number on me it its close to the following)

 

 

State will pay for your tuition (public university in state) and in return you have to give 10% of your income to them for your first 10-15 years out of college. The people that go on to be CEOs then subsidize the ones who become artists and such.

[glunn]

 

 

Now that I think of it, perhaps we should all vote for Trump. The one thing he's done quite well in his life is recognize when a company is bankrupt (and hasten it's arrival in many ways) and usher it through it. With the exception of Rand Paul, everyone else will continue to insist nothing is wrong despite the fact that we are only a few years behind the European crisis that is about to boil over.

 

Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out?

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I like what Oregon did.
(I don't have the exact number on me it its close to the following)


State will pay for your tuition (public university in state) and in return you have to give 10% of your income to them for your first 10-15 years out of college. The people that go on to be CEOs then subsidize the ones who become artists and such.

 

It's not a bad idea, but it still lets the colleges get away with WAY too much.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

This is what scares me. I also think you are right. We will pick up guns and fight before we vote in 3rd parties. My fear is that the guns simply end up on party lines.

 

If a major party loses an election due to a 3rd party siphoning off 10-20 percent of the vote, things WILL change, and it won't require people's lives being lost.

 

If it happens in a certain way sure, but third parties have performed well before and it hasn't mattered.    If third party support showed momentum from election to election it would be different, but the American voter gives up on third parties by the third cycle no matter what.

[DaveW]

It's not a bad idea, but it still lets the colleges get away with WAY too much.

no argument from me, at least it helps fix the student loan crisis. Step one of fixing the bigger problems IMO.

 

What are your thoughts to fix the system? (The college problem) I honestly don't have any ideas beyond what Oregon did.

 

Also I like Obama promoting free trade schools etc even if it costs tax dollars at least we are teaching people a truly valuable skill.

[TheLeviathan]

 

no argument from me, at least it helps fix the student loan crisis. Step one of fixing the bigger problems IMO.

What are your thoughts to fix the system? (The college problem) I honestly don't have any ideas beyond what Oregon did.

Also I like Obama promoting free trade schools etc even if it costs tax dollars at least we are teaching people a truly valuable skill.

 

I think we have to attack the source of the problem, starting with capping the amount of money public universities can charge/ask students to take out in debt.  I think it has to start there - take away the damn trough.  They are literally soaking 18 year olds to line the pockets of the university and fund non-stop rebuilding projects, expansion, etc.

 

Ideally, we need to completely redo student aid and make colleges less of a money making operation and back to a place of higher education.  But I don't see much hope for that.  We're some 40-50 years down the path of transforming the intent of college education here.  

 

The creation of the federal aid program we know has been nothing short of a total disaster.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not referring to me. I'm referring to the country as a whole. ACA did nothing but to subsidize an already broken health care system. I really don't have too much of a problem with the idea that everyone should be able to buy insurance. I have huge problems with the fact that it did nothing to fix our broken system. Costs will not go down. They will continue to rise, and now due to some wonderful lobbying, your tax dollars will get funneled directly into the hands of the people responsible for making these unsustainable rate increases.

No it didn't fix health care, but fixing healthcare, unfortunately wasn't politically viable.  When faced with one party who wanted to do nothing, liberals compromised (even though they would have preferred single-payer) to ensure that many more would have the opportunity to receive healthcare.  The human factor counts for something, even if the economic factor is left largely unresolved.  I'm not happy about the system we choose, but doing nothing was the only other option, so let's not kid ourselves.  

 

Student loans are a mess, but that loan forgiveness is a viable option matters, and so does getting rid middle-men banks as lenders.  Still the system has huge problems.  Again, doing nothing was the other viable option.  

 

In general, I do think it is ideal to expect your government to fix problems when one party doesn't believe in the problem (or will leave the problem to be fixed by the free market, which abdicates such responsibility).  Any compromise between those that resist doing anything and whatever plan is adopted to address the problem will be a half-measure (or subsidized-markets).  

 

At some point we need to figure out that the free market can't address specific aspects of human civilization, and rather than resisting government regulation, let's make it smart and efficient.    Waiting for the perfect solution to come along is akin to rubber stamping the status quo, and doing nothing.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

No it didn't fix health care, but fixing healthcare, unfortunately wasn't politically viable.  When faced with one party who wanted to do nothing, liberals compromised 

 

So instead of getting zero Republican votes getting what they "wanted" they compromised to get zero Republican votes getting something they didn't want?  It kind of sounds like Republicans weren't the problem.