Election Year Debate

[SubjectProphet]

It seems every president this year will still kill America off. Hopefully we'll survive another 4 years.

 

I won't worry though, we'll hold on.

[Flintlockecole]

 

This is a long documentary but do watch it all . Because it highlights a good point for this debate which is : Does your vote really count?

Heh, I don't need to watch 2 hours of liberal lies and propaganda to answer this either: No. It doesn't really count. Mainly because I live in California and hell would have to freeze over before the people in this state would wise up and elect a conservative.

This has piqued my curiosity. Since both liberals and conservatives spew out lies and propaganda en masse, where does the truth lie? Does it lie in between the two towers of garbage they shove down peoples throats to get votes or does the truth lie in a mass grave alongside common sense and credibility and anything else that's a redeeming quality amongst people and politicians alike. I don't vote not for the fact it's meaningless but for there is no man, woman or whatever willing to represent my view, for all have a fear of being killed from some nutjob who thinks everything is peaches and cream with how things work now regardless of whose in charge.

[Arthmoor]

Romney is as liberal as Obama.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but yes, his being a RINO puts him much closer to Obama than the other 3 still in the primary race.

 

Meaning he is conservative.

No idea on which planet this could even become close to true.

 

Not sure in what world wanting to starting a few wars, extending tax cuts, and passing a weak healthcare reform bill makes you a liberal.

Liberals start wars all the time, or continue to prosecute wars they inherited from previous administrations. Usually liberals end up botching them much the same way Obama has with his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush may not have been a hell of a lot better, but things have taken a huge turn for the worse since 2008.

 

Extending tax cuts was forced on him by Congress, which after the 2010 election is decidedly less liberal than it was after 2006.

 

Nationalizing health care though, that's as liberal as they come. Obamacare went WAY beyond any sane definition of "reform" and also included a completely hidden federal takeover of the entire student loan industry.

[sukeban]

@Arthmoor

 

Eh, I don't really want to go there either, but suffice it to say, Newt Gingrich talking about "The #1 Food-Stamp President," saying that he wants to "Give African-Americans jobs, not welfare," and speaking of Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview" don't strike you as "barely concealed racism..." I am not entirely sure whatever would. To be fair, he is the only candidate (in the Presidential race, at least) that really engages in this sort of inflammatory rhetoric, but he is still in there, still using the same poor strings of words.

 

But enough of that.

 

I don't really know how much of a debate it is should you choose to ignore any of the evidence that I might have to present. Without any sort of basis in empirical, quantifiable reality, words are just words, opinions and yet more opinions without any sort of outside referee or arbiter.

 

In other words, it can't go anywhere.

 

What I was saying in the other threads--what those graphs were intended for--is merely to ask the question, "Is this where you want our country to be headed," toward the second Gilded Age? Is it desirable that the rich have amassed more wealth as a class than at any other time in our nation's history... and that this trend shows absolutely no signs of abating. Is it okay that huge concentrations of capital are now subverting our government and democracy, and increasingly are doing their best to eliminate the meritocratic foundation of our society and economy? It is okay that most nations in Europe now have higher rates of social mobility than we do or that our Gini Coefficient (measure of wealth inequality) is now in the same tier as African pseudo-failed-states and Latin American banana republics? What does that say about us as a nation that we allow this trend to continue, year after year, as if in implicit agreement or as if out of a willful ignorance? The United States is rapidly becoming a caste society, a place where your station at birth determines your life outcome. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. The middle... gradually drifts into the column of the poor.

 

I don't want to re-type that entire post, but you see what I mean.

 

I would be curious as to your choice of candidate now, given that your first choice has left the field (was it Cain?).

 

Personally, I think that Santorum seems like a pretty nice guy. He is honest and authentic in ways that Romney and Newt certainly are not. He reminds me of Huckabee, whom I actually pretty well liked in 2008. You can tell when you watch both of them that they are speaking from the heart, not just reciting some lame applause lines that some focus group said might play well. But his infusion of religion into the public realm is for me... the ultimate deal-breaker. I do wonder though why religious economic populists (like Santorum and Huckabee) are not more assertive in the GOP. Why do they always allow the corporate Republicans to ride them to election before kicking them to the curb?

 

I also liked Huntsman and thought that many of his positions were quite reasonable. But then he suffered from the same "Gotta get more conservative" ailment that has so damaged Romney's credibility. I never really did like Perry much (George Bush III).

 

Anyway, forget about race, that wasn't what my post was about at all. I always like hearing different points of view and would be grateful to hear yours :)

Edited March 15, 2012 by sukeban

[Arthmoor]

Eh, I don't really want to go there either, but suffice it to say, Newt Gingrich talking about "The #1 Food-Stamp President," saying that he wants to "Give African-Americans jobs, not welfare," and speaking of Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview" don't strike you as "barely concealed racism..." I am not entirely sure whatever would. To be fair, he is the only candidate (in the Presidential race, at least) that really engages in this sort of inflammatory rhetoric, but he is still in there, still using the same poor strings of words.

There can't really be a debate on this until this kind of false racist crap is dropped from the discourse.

 

Everyone knows what Gingrich meant. More people are on food stamps under Obama than ever before. At the rate things are going under Obama's policies, that may well include myself before long. The state of the economy is so bad right now that millions of people have turned to welfare just to survive. Which isn't even being counted against the unemployment figures.

 

I don't know where you got the quote claiming Gingrich said he wants to give blacks jobs, not welfare, but I certainly don't recall having heard him say it. I've watched nearly all of the debates, and seen pretty much all of the press smear campaign against him, but that never came up as far as I could see.

 

Obama's father being Kenyan, and being one of the anti-colonialist types, the facts are the facts. Obama's world view was dramatically shaped by that influence. It has nothing to do with race. Being Kenyan is a nationality issue. Which should be no more insulting than my factually pointing out that I'm an American.

 

I don't really know how much of a debate it is should you choose to ignore any of the evidence that I might have to present. Without any sort of basis in empirical, quantifiable reality, words are just words, opinions and yet more opinions without any sort of outside referee or arbiter.

For every chart you can dig up, I could dig up one to match it. All of that crap is smokescreens meant to distract from real problems, or to try and obfuscate the facts that cause the symptoms those charts represent.

 

We are not heading for another Gilded Age. Every time I hear someone say that, it just makes me want to shut off the channel, or get off the forum, or just generally tune them out. It's a crock. Nothing more than a front for anti-capitalist view points than IMO have no place in America. That kind of thinking belongs in Russia.

 

I would be curious as to your choice of candidate now, given that your first choice has left the field (was it Cain?).

Yes, I was talking about Herman Cain. When he got pushed out by the media, I switched to Gingrich. Gingrich's ideas are similar enough to Cain that the two of them should have run together on the same ticket. Unbeatable IMO, but of course both of them had affairs. Which apparently is only bad if your a Republican, and is perfectly OK if you're a Democrat who went far beyond just having affairs. yes, I am still holding Clinton responsible for his reprehensible behavior in office and of his abusive treatment of his interns as governor of Arkansas. He should be rotting in prison right now for what he's done, but the left rallied to protect him from it. As it turns out, the whole Clinton thing was a defining moment in what shaped my current political beliefs.

 

I made the mistake of voting my conscience already once in my life. Ross Perot. Nice guy, good policies, no chance in hell of winning, but 1992 was the first election I was old enough to vote in and like most young people I thought my vote mattered and that Perot was the best choice. Had I known then what I know now about it all, I would have voted for Bush.

 

Santorum is a solid candidate. Conservative values across the board. Unfortunately his religious beliefs would make him a target for hate filled attacks from the leftist media in this country and as such he'd have almost zero chance of winning in the general election.

 

Huntsman is a fool. His naievity w/ re4gard to China disqualified him early on. Perry shot himself in the foot by saying he supported giving in-state benefits to illegals. Not something I want to hear from a border state governor, let alone a presidential candidate.

[marharth]

The reason affairs are worse with republicans is because they spew crap about family values all the time.

 

Obama is a democrat. Not a liberal. Just because his administration keeps the wars going does not mean that is remotely close to what liberals want. Obama is counting the same policies as Bush, it is clear he is not a liberal.

 

Why would congress "force" Obama to pass the tax cuts when he never really opposed them? The majority of the country wants higher taxes for the upper class, so no idea why that would help him in elections.

 

Passing a weak healthcare bill that benefits corporations is not liberal. It is corporatist and authoritarian. Having federal healthcare is fine with liberals. Having a federal healthcare system that forces people to bow down to healthcare companies is not.

 

Really it doesn't matter. Everyone running right now sucks, and the current person in office sucks. Unless there is some serious social and political change we are going nowhere.

Edited March 15, 2012 by marharth

[Arthmoor]

The reason affairs are worse with republicans is because they spew crap about family values all the time.

As did many of the Democrats during their primaries in 2008. Nothing new there. Bill Clinton didn't just stop with having affairs though. He sexually assaulted at least 5 women who have documentation to back that up, and he lied at trial, which is why he damn near got kicked out of office. Had the libs defending him voted the facts, he would have been the first president forcefully removed from office.

 

Obama is a democrat. Not a liberal.

Sorry, but in the Democratic party today, there's no difference between the two.

[marharth]

The reason affairs are worse with republicans is because they spew crap about family values all the time.

As did many of the Democrats during their primaries in 2008. Nothing new there. Bill Clinton didn't just stop with having affairs though. He sexually assaulted at least 5 women who have documentation to back that up, and he lied at trial, which is why he damn near got kicked out of office. Had the libs defending him voted the facts, he would have been the first president forcefully removed from office.

 

Obama is a democrat. Not a liberal.

Sorry, but in the Democratic party today, there's no difference between the two.

Yes there is a difference. Pretty much every democrat in office is a corrupt piece of crap. Saying every single democrat is a liberal is silly, and saying every liberal is a democrat is also silly.

 

I certainly don't hold the same views as Obama as you can clearly see.

Edited March 15, 2012 by marharth

[sukeban]

@Arthmoor

 

Agreed. Nothing more on race. Our views might differ on this, but nothing more needs to be said.

 

Economic issues are different though. I'm not arguing for socialism, quite the opposite, in fact. Rather, I am arguing for capitalism that works. Right now the US has caught a severe case of crony capitalism, a case that both the Democrats and the Republicans have helped contribute to. Our markets have been distorted by political intrigue and rent-seeking by companies and individuals, companies and individuals that use their wealth and influence to horn-in on government and muscle-out their competition.

 

Our tax code is one such example, so full of special-interest loopholes giving inbuilt advantages to large firms with lots of in-house tax lawyers and accountants. Not to mention the fact that most of those tax breaks and subsidies are carved out at the behest of industry lobbyists and do not reflect in any way, shape or form the realistic demands of the market (*cough* ethanol *cough*) for their products or services. Our tax code (all 28,000 pages of it...) is a blatant and shameful manifestation of market-distorting crony-capitalism run absolutely amok.

 

Both parties are guilty of this, too. The rural red states love them some farm subsidies, pumping tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance "profits" into our agricultural sector each year, propping up dubious boondoggles such as the aforementioned ethanol industry (Iowa corn lobby) as well as numerous biofuel and green energy schemes. Said assistance also allows American farms to "compete" successfully around the world, somehow managing to undercut foreign farmers even when said farmers are growing solely for the consumption of their home markets. That would be impossible were it not for the incredible taxpayer largesse relished upon the American agricultural industry and its powerful farm lobby, especially in the Midwestern and Southern states.

 

Then you have corporate welfare, aka rent-seeking. See the above-mentioned example of the Farm Bill and add to it most of the defense industry, aerospace industry, and current beneficiaries of our so-called "energy policy." The defense industry more or less speaks for itself. It has a captive market, generous taxpayer subsidies, and an entire political party essentially dedicated to its preservation and economic advancement, ensuring that its budget remains all but sacrosanct--through economic boom and bust. There isn't any inherent market or demand for its products either. In fact, its very existence seems more at home in the command-economy of the old USSR than it does in the supposedly "capitalist" United States of America. Sure, American defense companies make a tidy profit selling to our allies abroad, but that is only because their R&D budgets are subsidized by a constant stream of contracts demanded by our political parties and government.

 

Similar things might be said about the oil industry as it receives an average taxpayer rent of four billion dollars per-year, at the same time as it is the single most profitable industry of any yet existing on this Earth. Why are American taxpayers paying oil companies to do things that they would be doing anyway, with capital that they are already making year-after-year in record-breaking profits? Of course, there are also the Solyndras of the world as well. But really, isn't the more salient question this: "Why are we as taxpayers underwriting any private business ventures at all?" Isn't it up to the market to pick the winners and losers of our economy?

 

Which brings me to my final point, for now. Which is the rising inequality in the United States versus how these people made their money. Most Americans admire wealth and they admire success. I know that I do. I wish that we had more entrepreneurs of the caliber of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Gordon Moore. These people are the great producers and visionaries of our era, those that had the courage and conviction necessary to reach out and bring the future to we the people, not unlike Prometheus as he stole fire from Zeus and bestowed it upon the shivering Greeks. They're the folks that Ayn Rand would extol in her works, the heirs to the mantle of John Galt. They are the motors that propel the country (and mankind) forward, the producers who improve the lives of all.

 

Yet... for every Steve Jobs or John Galt in our economy, there is also a Bernie Madoff as well as a Kenneth Lay, for every Mark Zuckerberg there is a Raj Rajaratnam. Lurking elsewhere in Washington's Stygian moral abyss, skulk the facilitators of much of this corruption, the lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and Steve Richetti. And these are only the ones that catch the public's fickle eye. Delving deep--and into less explicitly illegal waters--there are the Goldman Sachs and the Banks of America, the ultimate rent-seekers bestriding the American coasts like the Colossus at Rhodes, secure in their station of being "Too-Big-to-Fail" and able to wager their incomprehensible fortunes on risky bets as if a drunk in the gilded halls of Monaco's Casino Royale. These guys, the corner office bankers at rent-seeking Wall Street firms, these individuals who so sabotaged our economy in 2008 yet paid absolutely no price in return, these are the guys that many Americans have a serious, serious problem with. Their entire industry (finance) is a medieval leach upon a dying patient, sucking out the last of his precious blood, while the stammering shamans speak of drawing out the humours.

 

Which is a long-winded and overly dramatic way of saying that our economic and social policies favor the entrenched rich at the same time as they more or less discriminate against everybody who actually has to get up and go to work for a living. Why is my income taxed at 25% while Mitt Romney (who has been on essentially a permanent campaign vacation for the last five years...) pays a rate of 12.5%? How is that okay? How does he have the gall to get up in front of an audience and say that he is a self-made man, when his father was the Governor of Michigan and he inherited both his father's millions as well as his entire Rolodex? That is precisely the definition of starting on third base and thinking you've hit a triple. It is fine to have rich people in our society, but does a CEO really need to make an average of 350 times what the average worker makes? Is his labor as a CEO really that valuable or has he just used his position of authority within the company to jack up his compensation whilst "cutting costs" everywhere else?

 

That is probably an apt metaphor for our entire country right now. I could literally go on indefinitely about this, speaking of Rawls and social contracts, but I suppose I've got to stop somewhere.

 

In any case, I would challenge you to come up with charts or data of your own proving some of your points. I promise you that I am not making mine on my computer, they are all using official government data. If you can find a chart that correlates positive social outcomes with extreme income stratification, I would gladly consider myself edified. As it is now, I am trying to use real-world examples, yet you essentially call them liberal lies and dismiss them out of hand.

 

Finally, we're not headed for a new Gilded Age, we're in one. Look at the graph.

Edited March 15, 2012 by sukeban

[dunmermaiden]

Have to admit I don't see how you guys can put down Obama or compare him to Bush....

 

1) Bush never responded with aid when disasters hit his citizens and so those poor sods had to cope for months sorting out their disaster hit homes.

 

- Obama has always responded fast with aid when disaster hits

 

- my opinion : If I lived in the lands of tornado's or hurricanes I sure as anything would be wanting Obama as pressy knowing that if I required aid I would get it promptly.

 

2) Bush bought his presidency

- Obama being a man of colour had to hard slog it and do it honestly facing adversity because he is a man of colour.

 

my opinion: He has more honor than Bush ever did.

 

Honestly I see Obama as a guy that is desparately doing all he can to try to make America a better place for all and his heathcare plans before than were watered down by the republicans would have been rather beneficial, it's like it would have had the homeless off the streets, crime would have gone down as a result of that and well having the homeless in jail where they get fed, bathed and nice roof over there heads and medical care is a lot better than what they have on the streets, so I see it as being a good thing. However the watered down version that the republicans would agree too is a load of codswollap.

 

And another thing he was battling the the republicans with the budget and doing his hardest to make them agree to reduce the costs of war and such and they were refusing to cooperate and well wouldn't agree and America near defaulted on the payment because of the stupidity of the republicans and well he agrees to help them with their stuff but when it comes down to them helping him with his agenda's it's like pulling teeth and hard for him.

 

I can't help but think it's because the republicans just are difficult for the sake of being difficult.

 

Seems to me people forget the good things Obama has tried to do for his average citizen.

 

People can moan all they want about *their* taxs being spent wastefully on humanaterium stuff he does to try to help but I bet on the same token I wonder if they would moan if they were hit with a disaster and needed help. Would they be happy with Bush type of pressy, or would they be glad for a pressy like Obama who doesn't muck around and sends help in a timely manner.

 

Honestly, peoples memorys are short and the whole dog eat dog mentality to not help ones fellow citizen is apalling and really People are more important than money.