Election Year Debate

[HeyYou]

I do believe it was Reagan that stated: "Deficits don't matter."

 

The dems like "tax and spend." The repubbies seem to like "borrow and spend." The commonality there? SPEND..... THAT is what needs to change. In this case, I think the line item veto would be a wonderful tool to control government spending. What I also find amusing is, when a republican was president, LIV was passed into law, shortly after elections, when a dem was in the whitehouse, it was suddenly unconstitutional. Amazing.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see this is a Liberal/Conservative battle. Government in general has become a self-perpetuation institution designed to make millionaires out of the folks that get elected, and THAT is all the folks in washington seem interested in protecting. Sure, they talk a good game, but, that's only during election cycles. Once elected, it's right back to the same old same old, and to hell with the american public. We haven't had government "FOR the PEOPLE" in decades.

[Papajack55]

Well now that you all want to talk about us a bit, let's do just that. See, in 2016 I'll be running for President but not in your normal standard way. While your clowns will be up there lying to you and everybody else, I'll be out here talking to people and asking what it is they really need. Jobs, lower gas prices, less dependency on foreign oil, build our economy up to a solidified economy so all of you can breathe easier.

 

I can answer quite a few questions all at the same time. Jobs, gas prices going down, less dependency on foreign oil all at the same time.

Right now, 88% of the U.S. oil wells are all capped off and not producing any oil, their just sitting there waiting. If my name is written in and if by a slim, slim, band-aid of a chance I got written in as President, I would uncap 75% of the capped oil wells, putting well over 4 million people to work, causing the price of gas to gradually lower,

(Not immediately or overnight) Now, our dependency on foreign oil is approximately 75% on oversees oil, and around 20-25% our own. We need to turn that around to 75% our own oil, and 20-25% foreign oil.

While all this is going on, our economy will have been started to solidify into a solid, un-shaky economy where people won't be afraid to spend a few bucks. As far as jobs are concerned, there will be more jobs coming out after people see price of gas dropping. But the oil companies will make sure there a cap on how much they can charge, like no more than 3.25 a gallon down to 1.99 a gallon. We'll also be installing more natural gas pumps throughout the U.S. for alternative fuel usage. It's cheaper, cleaner and more efficient and you get more mileage from it.

 

Also, if I were, and that is a big IF, President, the Gov't would be overhauled, not "changed." We don't need any more changes. Change is just a word used to try to get a vote with a smile. Anymore, you see a candidate smiling at you, he's smiling with that F.Y. smile. If you don't know what that means, it means he's saying exactly that to you, while he's waving his hand and forcing a smile. Look at Obama and where is he today?

 

Terms to Congress and Senate would be limited just like the precedent has already been set. BUT, you, We,The People, have to speak out. Your ideas will be needed. The ideas that are used will be compensated, although I won't lie about it, out of about 500,000 ideas, maybe 1 or 2 may be used. So an individual(s) will be comp'ed.

 

Now as far as the U.S. having a bad Foreign Policy, they, like any other country have made mistakes. Russia, China, especially China has made some huge mistakes.

But, if you wish to be talking about 'Republicans' or 'Democrats' or whatever other parties to your hearts desire, go ahead. There is one thing left for you all to hear:

 

All parties were good at one time or another, but no longer.Why, you ask?

Because their too busy fighting amongst themselves to care about the people that voted them in.

In the past 30 years I have witnessed many walk-outs of Congress and the Senate and wondered, "What would happen if they walked out and some country tried invading us?"

I think it may be a possibility if they didn't show up for the emergency meeting needed for the President, which they have done when Pres. Bush was in office. They also watched the markets crash, and still didn't show up, and Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker then, all this AFTER belittling him in public. Which any of the above is not in the speaker's job description.

 

So it is my saying that Democrats and Republicans are obsolete and outdated to date. They are no longer effective for this country.

All they are good for any longer, is for getting as much money in their private bank accounts at the expense of the taxpayers like you and I.

 

That will also stop, IF and a big IF, I am written in as President.

[HeyYou]

The trouble with a lot of those non-producing wells is.... not enough volume to make it worth while, or, too much trouble with environmentalists to make it worth while, or, a host of other valid reasons. Granted, a fair few of them are capped, just waiting for the price of oil to get high enough, to make them profitable. (which probably happened some time ago....) I think the main trouble is, the oil companies don't WANT the price of oil to go down.... it might cut in to their trend of posting record profits every quarter.

 

Putting folks back to work in just the oil industry isn't going to help the economy in the long term. We need to scrap the free trade agreements currently in place, and implement FAIR trade. We need to get rid of the tax incentives to corporations to move jobs overseas. We need to get our manufacturing right back here where it belongs.

 

We also need to do something about our dependence on vital resources that we can get right here at home, but, we don't, because the environmentalists make it impossible to do so. There MUST be a compromise reached, something other than the environmentalists "Not at All" approach. (rare earths mostly here.)

 

We need to STOP being the worlds police force. We can't afford it. Simple as that. You want american military intervention? Ok, be prepared to PAY for it.

 

We need to STOP nation building as well. We suck at it..... Going into an 'enemy' country, spending billions to blow the crap out of it, and then spending billions MORE to rebuild it is just stupid. That may have worked after WWII, but, not anymore. Look at Iraq, are the average Iraqis better off now, than when Saddam was in power? (whom WE put in power, I might add......)

 

Are the Afghani's any better off now? (yeah, one could argue the women are...... at least, in some areas......)

 

You simply cannot introduce democracy, at the point of a gun. It's blatantly obvious to me that our government suffers from the illusion that those folks want the same things as americans want, and sure, there is some overlap there, but, for the most part, nope. Not the case. They have been tribal cultures for centuries, we aren't going to change that overnight, or even in a couple decades, no matter how much ammo we expend.

Edited March 30, 2012 by HeyYou

[sukeban]

@Aurielius

 

I find myself agreeing with everything in your last post.

 

I do not particularly welcome economic sponsorship of our population by the state, but I would also point out--as HY luminously stated before me--that said sponsorship is hardly a Democratic phenomenon. There was some post of mine a ways back (responding to Arthmoor) illustrating the growth in federal debt that has taken place primarily under Republican presidents (especially under Reagan and W. Bush). Republicans, as HY said so well, only like to spend--but never to tax--which is, IMO, far worse than both taxing and spending. That ~7% of the federal budget dedicated to servicing the debt is the greatest abomination, in my eyes, of any of our national outlays. To be charitable to Republicans, I will say that both parties have contributed to it equally.

 

I would support a balanced budget in a heartbeat, provided that it were balanced correctly. That's obviously very subjective, but I would say that Mr. Ryan's budget plan is not the way to properly balance our budget, that it unrealistically panders to his Tea Party base whilst further enriching the most wealthy among us. Our nation doesn't need more income stratification, it needs less. The bottom must be brought up and the top must be brought down. Our income tax system (and inheritance tax) used to accomplish this, but it does no longer.

 

Now, I support some of Mr. Ryan's ideas. I support eliminating most tax deductions as well as reducing corporate taxes (20-25%). His proposals for Medicare are ambitious, and I would not necessarily reject them out-of-hand. I favor single-payer, of course, but any attempt to reign in the costs of Medicare should at least be given a legitimate hearing. What I don't support are draconian cuts to education and early childhood development. These things prepare the next generation for the future and are the most valuable investments that ANY nation can make, both in terms of morality as well as hard-nosed return on investment. Programs such as food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and job-training have been on the GOP hit-list for years and represent fiscal minnows (discretionary funding--18% of the federal budget) in a budgetary pond teeming with enormous salmon (defense, Medicare, social security, federal pensions--the other 76% of the budget). He appeals to those voters who think that the budget can be balanced by eliminating foreign aid and welfare, that somehow that will balance the budget. That is nonsense.

 

EDIT: With Budget Ideas---

 

A legitimately balanced budget trims from all portions of the budget, not just the easy political targets (discretionary). A balanced budget should contain revenue increases as well as spending cuts, say in a ratio of 1:2. It should trim the most from those programs that we realize the smallest return on investment from (defense, Medicare) as a nation. It should not touch education or early childhood development--really, it should add to those budgets (things like subsidies for childcare and/or improving school nutrition) to prepare our nation for the future.

 

It could heavily reduce or eliminate all tax breaks whilst reducing the marginal tax rates paid by the middle and lower classes in compensation. The highest normal tax bracket could be raised to 40% along with a 50% inheritance tax to curb the formation of a new hereditary aristocracy. The capital gains tax could be raised to 25%, largely for the same reason. We could create a new "supermax" tax bracket for 10 million+ earners, subject to a 70% tax.* Go ahead and cut the federal workforce by 10% like Simpson-Bowles recommends, just make sure that you don't just eliminate the EPA and then call it a day. Raise the retirement age for Social Security to 70, phased in over twenty years.

 

*This isn't really to raise revenue, but to combat excessive concentrations of wealth capable of undermining our democracy.

 

But most of all--Mandate a budget surplus of 10% of the federal budget, in effect until we have completely paid off the nation's debt. Then pass a balanced budget amendment that stipulates no more than a 5% GDP deficit during peacetime (still "peacetime" if covered by the War Powers Act--only becomes "wartime" after a Congressional Declaration of War) and when the economy is not in a recession or depression.

 

In any case, that's my plan.

Edited March 31, 2012 by sukeban

[Aurielius]

@sukeban

I have to admit that though I thought I had a fix on your political ideology your recent post in Heath Care has me slightly puzzled. Since you have asked myself and others to define their political center of gravity, I request the same of you.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Aurielius

[sukeban]

Gladly Aurielius.

 

Truth be told, I am somewhat at a loss as to where to start.

 

Certainly, I don't define myself as either a Democrat or a Republican. Neither would I think of myself as either a conservative or a liberal, though I would still find myself more instinctually drawn toward the liberal camp. That said, there are many aspects of contemporary liberalism that thoroughly annoy me--things like militant environmentalists, anti-science zealots, hippies, and identity politicians. I am very much pro-civil rights (like you), but I very much despair when I see the issue being used casually (calling everything racist) or inappropriately (I am not supportive of affirmative action). I am an agnostic. I do not care what religion another individual practices so long as he does not try and export it to me or attempt to foist it onto the country by way of public policy. Consequently, I have little time for the modern Republican party. I believe in freedom of speech, Voltaire's quote, all that jazz.

 

So I would be a civil libertarian. Live and let live.

 

On economic matters, things might get a little bit less cut-and-dry. I am more or less sympathetic toward larger government, but I want it to be a pragmatic government. Perhaps I would call myself a pragmatic liberal or an unsentimental liberal. Government should provide services, but it doesn't need to know your life's history, your special circumstances, why your need is greater than all the others. 'Cause that just gets you that scene from Atlas Shrugged, wherein the failing motor town's residents all beggar-thy-neighbor for larger shares of the city's already dwindling rations. I believe that bad things happen to good people, and that when that happens we should cover for them. But I don't brook no moral hazard jive covering for the end result of bad life decisions made by people who should and do know better.

 

I, like you, don't want a "nanny state" wherein all of life's necessities are covered. People do need to take responsibility for themselves to a certain (the larger, the better) extent. But I believe in things like public schools and universities, and, if it were actually possible, I would believe in a nationalized healthcare service as well. I believe in welfare and the social safety net, of giving people a hand up when they have fallen on hard times.

 

But, unlike most other liberals that I am friends with (and many coworkers...), I am also aware that these things have limits. As such, I am more of a deficit hawk than a genuine fiscal conservative. I am fine with larger government if and only if we are willing to actually pay for it. Which we are totally not doing presently. I am absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent not okay with the "We got ours, sucka" mentality that the last thirty years of politicians (and their electorate) have taken toward the debt and toward future generations. And I am downright hostile to the implied reasoning behind this, which is "Oh man, taxes are such a drag... just get me to retirement so that this isn't my problem anymore." Aka, "We got ours, sucka." Good luck picking up the pieces.

 

This means that I am both a deficit hawk as well as a youth partisan. I want a sustainable future. For me. For my kids (I don't actually have kids). And for their kids. I don't want to go out the way that these last two (three if you count the Korean War generation) generations have gone out, i.e. kicking the can down the road to their kids. I am pretty well resolved that it will have to be my generation that turns this country around, that is, if this country is to be turned around. I am cautiously optimistic that this will happen, as we are happily largely unburdened by the useless and distracting culture war debates of yesteryear. The culture wars are, IMO, what doomed the Boomer generation, what paralyzed the political process and what cast the machinery of government into the hands of those most conniving among them, those who were only too happy to see those with the same economic interests bicker over trivia rather than notice the tectonic transfers of wealth (into their pockets) that were taking place simultaneously.

 

Which brings me to my last economic subway stop. I believe in capitalism, but what we have today is not capitalism. As such, I don't really respect the rich nor do I really believe that many of them have actually earned the wealth that they have presently appropriated for themselves. I am fine with Bill Gates being fabulously wealthy. Ditto for Steve Jobs. I respect them as entrepreneurs, as great minds, and as businessmen. They have actually done things. They are producers. They have employed many people and sell worthwhile products. They have advanced our society and improved our quality of life. However, I have nothing but contempt for a gold or oil speculator on the NYMEX. These people are the opposite of producers. They are extracting wealth from our society and using it to enrich themselves, providing nothing of value in return. They are not responding to market demand nor filling a market niche; rather, they are manipulating markets for their own benefit by capitalizing on their privileged positions and connections at the center of it all. That is not capitalism. That is robbery. These people are the James Taggarts of the world, operating under their own version of the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog ordinance. That is our government.

 

I also believe in democracy, meritocracy, and markets, all of which are under attack through the accumulation of insane quantities of wealth by private citizens and corporations.

 

Anyway, that's probably long enough. You know my foreign policy stance. Feel free to ask if I left anything out.

Edited April 1, 2012 by sukeban

[grannywils]

I have just read Sukeban's most eloquent and profound post above, and I would like to take some time before I respond (also have a blister which makes typing a chore). :D

 

But, in addition I just now saw HY's above post for the first time, and I just want to reiterate my nomination for HeyYou for president!!!!! Go Get 'em HY!!!!! :thumbsup:

[Aurielius]

post withdrawn... Edited April 4, 2012 by Aurielius

[Aurielius]

Curious development, it is evident the that Obama is worried by possible negative ruling on his legislation and is now trying to denigrate the Supreme Court for partisan political capital, the politics of desperation.

 

HOUSTON — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an “unelected” court.

 

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

 

( Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press ) - President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks at The Associated Press luncheon during the ASNE Convention, Tuesday, April 3, 2012, in Washington.

 

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama’s comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

“I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I’m sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress,” Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

 

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn’t believe the high court would take the “unprecedented” step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.

“I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases,” Smith said.

 

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

“The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements,” Smith said.

- Washington Post 4/04/12

Edited April 4, 2012 by Aurielius

[sukeban]

@Aurielius

 

Sure, Obama is preemptively doing damage-control in the (likely) event that he loses the ruling. If the centerpiece of a future Romney Administration were on the verge of being struck down by a liberal court, I would highly suspect that he would be doing the same. Conservatives have vocally complained for years about "judicial activism" on the part of the Supremes and--they were probably right. In at least some cases, that is. However, given that the tables have now been turned in their favor (able to win contentious rulings using their 5-4 majority), it is unlikely that we will be graced with any Republican claims of activism on the part of the present court, even if it were to take place. I would parse this and say that principled conservatives =/= Republicans, in most cases; I am speaking of the Republican party apparatchniks, most of their politicians, and their talking heads.

 

Do I believe that such a ruling in this instance would constitute judicial overreach--no. So I think that Obama is just playing at political games and formulating spin. He is trying to rile up his base in an election year, giving them "red meat" for the ballot box by raising the specter of continued negative Supreme Court rulings if Republicans are allowed to appoint even more (young) justices.

 

I also would state that I (sadly) believe that the Supreme Court has become just another of our party organs, wearing the same jerseys as the Democrats and Republicans even when they are nominally supposed to be above the fray. On the "Big Deal" issues of the political day (decisions with concrete and impactful ramifications for the parties), I would color myself highly surprised if this did not continue to be the case. Republicans will continue to "win" on rulings when it is in their political interest, and--if this state of affairs is ever reversed--I believe that Democrats would "win" with a majority of their own. Obviously that is not healthy. Obviously that is not what the Framers desired. Yet there it is.

 

In any case, I do not really see the Supreme Court as anything high or esteemed these days, they are all merely "team players" wearing special clothes. This, in my eyes, greatly undermines their legitimacy and authority, weakening perhaps our most important branch of government at a time when the executive (beginning probably with Nixon) has accumulated far too much power.

Edited April 4, 2012 by sukeban