All you are offering are platitudes not based on economic facts. Grandiose statements of bearing sacrifice now to protect our future are nice and all, but the reality is that austerity hurts us now and it hurts us later by merely deepening and lengthening the depression.
It is not a choice between stimulus and austerity where each produce the same result on the same timeframe. It is a choice between stimulus to boost the economy and get back on the right track sooner and austerity which sends us backwards into recession for a much longer period of time. Austerity during a depression is bad in the short term and it is bad in the long term. Stimulus is good in the short term, and once we get out of the recession we can start talking about austerity.
The stimulus plan, if it "failed," is like putting a Band-Aid over an arterial wound and then concluding that bandages in general don't work. Obama's not perfect but this is the wrong thing to criticize him for.
I think it's more analogous to that process where you take a part of someone's thigh to reconstruct their face after a horrible injury, except that in this case, the surgeon took the part removed from the thigh and decided to waste large chunks of it frivolously, and what remained was not enough to reconstruct the face. And now he wants to get more from the other thigh. And he's wondering why many do not want him to be the surgeon this time around.
I plan to write in Huntsman on my ballot. He was the only person running for President this year with executive experience, diplomatic experience and good record to run on. I could not care less about Obama or Romney. No matter who wins I'm still gonna get ****ed in the ass.
Am I to believe that an Angel of Serenity (a 7 drop mediocre reanimation target) is going to have the SAME value as a Hallowed Fountain? 15 bucks each? Sorry, not going to happen. Not now, not ever.
6 bucks for a Sphinx's Revelation? The value will tank by at least 50% as most of the spells of it's nature (post-Stroke).
In 3 months, say January 1st, it will be interesting to see how much you overpaid.
2. He's also running on being a successful governor, but he's running away from anything related to Massachusetts at a speed that would make Usain Bolt blush.
Could some one educate a foreigner here. What has Romney done as governor of Massachusetts that's so bad he needs to divorce himself from it. Is it just that he appears to have proposed a health care plan similar to Obama's which he is now castigating, or is there more lurking in that particular closet.
How do you convince someone to support cuts if its their lifeline? You can't just suck it up if losing care/government support will leave you completely destitute or dead.
Agreed you can't so front line services are off the table.
If cuts were so easy, then politicians would have done it already.
The easy ones are the ones the politicians would never propose no matter where they are. Cutting some of the jobs for the Boys and the unneccessary red tape that exists. This would probably kill 2 birds with 1 stone by reducing the direct expense on the government paying the people and companies, individuals won't need to spend so much time wading through it all.
Just think about killing the US Postal Service. It is hemorrhaging money. If we do we lose a basic function in our society and tons of jobs... but it would save us billions.
Is the USPS just likely to wither and die anyway, as we go to a more digital existence and email/social media instead of sending letters, so the only thing left is parcels and legal documents most of which are sent out privately.
That's an easy one. What else would you cut? How could explain the cuts?
If we want to cut our debt I would do three things:
1. Cut military spending. But... this would cut jobs.
Depends on how you do it. Not to sure what the procurement situation is like in the US but over here any major new project both civilian and military never comes in on time or on budget. If it is anything like we have over here greater oversight/ better bargaining at the front end might be able to reduce costs with out the expense of any jobs.
2. Up taxes. Never popular.
Depends on how honest you are when proposing them and the scale of the increase. Granted it is unlikely but you could do it.
3. Improve the US economy. How is the question here. (Personally, I would focus funds into infrastructure and technology)
Add how to do you fund it to the questions as well. Granted I accept that large scale public works have improved economic conditions Nazi Germany being a good example along with the Hoover Dam over there but for infrastructure projects you need to find people willing to work on them. And if you look at technology it seems that the really useful stuff you could be working on is very controversial, stem cell research etc. So I can easily see large swathes of the country being unhappy if the State is sponsoring research into it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
If you live in a country where betting on the election is legal I'd put a huge amount of money on Obama. Short of some huge scandal or disaster in the next few months Romney has no chance of beating Obama in terms of likability.
And some of y'all need to bear in mind that presidents don't control the economy.
China, Europe, cultural trends, the pace of technology and natural disasters can and do have major effects on how America works.
Also bear in mind that the current Congress doesn't do **** and there isn't much the president can do about that either.
Again its going to turn out an election of who will hurt the people or the country less, not who actually is good for the position. I think Obama has shown he is lacking in a leader role, and Mitt is just plain...plain. Niether really have a true plan to turn anything around, they are just pointing out the bad parts of each other in hopes people find enough bad in the other candidate to vote for them.
Could some one educate a foreigner here. What has Romney done as governor of Massachusetts that's so bad he needs to divorce himself from it. Is it just that he appears to have proposed a health care plan similar to Obama's which he is now castigating, or is there more lurking in that particular closet.
It's pretty much just the healthcare thing. In order to win this year, one of the things the Republicans need to do is convince people that Obamacare was a poorly thought out and/or implemented plan, or that it is ultimately bad for them.
The problem is that the republican candidate implemented a similar plan in Mass.
I'm not aware of anything else that is really notable on the Mass. end.
It's pretty much just the healthcare thing. In order to win this year, one of the things the Republicans need to do is convince people that Obamacare was a poorly thought out and/or implemented plan, or that it is ultimately bad for them.
The problem is that the republican candidate implemented a similar plan in Mass.
I'm not aware of anything else that is really notable on the Mass. end.
So arguably similar to what McCain did last time where he attempted to portray himself as the more experienced candidate then promptly put forward someone with even less experience as his Vice President apparently against the good advice of the rest of the party.
Is there any particular reason why these people appear to have a fascination with metaphorically shooting them selves in the foot like that?
It does appear that no one actually wins a presidential election, they just lose it less badly than the other guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Just think about killing the US Postal Service. It is hemorrhaging money. If we do we lose a basic function in our society and tons of jobs... but it would save us billions.
Not really,
The Postal service is actually quite profitable. The financial issues its dealing with are false. The USPS has been mandated to pre-fund its pension plan by a 75 year margin, something that nobody else (public or private) does.
This election, like the last and the one before that I find myself wishing I could vote based on the economy, foreign policy, ect, but I can't. I can't favor economic views over humanist views and self-justify the reasons. Particularly when I don't have confidence that either candiate has a good economic plan.
I also can't ignore that Obama took over one of the worst economies ever while being at odds with a republican dominated congress. I don't know with any certainty that the economy is Obama's fault.
Regardless, until the Republican drop their association with the religious right, I will never be able to vote for any of them. I don't want religion in my life or in my legislature and that leaves me with one choice, the Democrats. It's more about what I consider basic human rights and freedom from religion at this point, unfortunately.
Edit: I'm not saying I would never vote for religious person. I would. I'm not discriminating on candidates on religious grounds. The problem I see with the religious right is that they want to institute policies in this country that are tied to the bible, for no other reason than the ideas are in the bible, and I can't support that (gay marriage, family planning, creationist mumbo-jumbo, religion in schools, ect ect).
Edit: Oh, someone asked about the negative campaign adds and why are so prevalent: It's because they work. They affect swing voters, so that's why they use them. That's the only reason they use them (or any other tactic).
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I also can't ignore that Obama took over one of the worst economies ever while being at odds with a republican dominated congress. I don't know with any certainty that the economy is Obama's fault.
While I agree that we can't know with certainty whos fault it is (thats kind of how economics work, unfortunately), how can you say that Obama took over one of the worst economies while being at odds witha republican dominated congress?
He had a super majority! It was as far from republican dominated as it could possibly get. It became republican dominated when he (succesfully) forced through an unpopular law using that super majority.
In other words, the republican domination of congress was a direct result of his administrations actions.
This is because in order to turn things around you would have to massively redistribute power in society and neither they nor their backers want to do that. Behold liberal democracy in its full. You are allowed by the authorities to vote for any option that doesn't actually help.
I disagree, it could be done without a huge shift in power. All it would take is someone with the balls to stand up to the defense spending and want to start investing back into this country instead of worrying about everyone else.
So arguably similar to what McCain did last time where he attempted to portray himself as the more experienced candidate then promptly put forward someone with even less experience as his Vice President apparently against the good advice of the rest of the party.
McCain has solid conservative credentials in the US. Romney's problem is that he's a moderate in a party that does not embrace moderation. He's basically the Republican John Kerry. Boring. The good news is that Ronald Reagan is retroactively a Democrat, which is funny.
Is there any particular reason why these people appear to have a fascination with metaphorically shooting them selves in the foot like that?
They really like guns. Accidents happen.
It does appear that no one actually wins a presidential election, they just lose it less badly than the other guy.
The really interesting part is that most of the problems people have are with Congress, not the Presidency. Obama, as far as things he does have control over, has done a decent job.
While I agree that we can't know with certainty whos fault it is (thats kind of how economics work, unfortunately), how can you say that Obama took over one of the worst economies while being at odds witha republican dominated congress?
He had a super majority! It was as far from republican dominated as it could possibly get. It became republican dominated when he (succesfully) forced through an unpopular law using that super majority.
In other words, the republican domination of congress was a direct result of his administrations actions.
The steam for that, the Tea Party movement, started what... 47 days after he took office? Or was it 17? I don't remember. I know Colbert had one of the earliest Tea Party founders on his show and she was... completely unable to explain why they suddenly became interested in reforming washington via fiscal responsibility immediately after they lost an election. Ehh.
And I think its a pretty safe bet that the law was only unpopular in certain parts of the country because of the blatant misrepresentations, and outright lies, that were peddled about it by the right wing.
Government takeover of health care, death panels and more. Fox and the Republicans spent months upon months demonizing this thing. This thing that was a compromise from what Obama could have actually rammed through without going to them in the first place because, you know, super majority. Except he didn't. Obama has tried to do the whole compromise thing and is dealing with people who care less about running the country and more about winning the next election and damn the consequences. More tax breaks for billionairs!
McCain has solid conservative credentials in the US.
Granted and agree a McCain presidency would have been interesting but over here are at least his big problem was his age coupled with his choice of running mate. He was 72 back in 2008 and due to the health issues he has due to his front line service if he was elected it had the distinct possibility of someone incredibly green in charge of one of the worlds greatest military machines. For a lot of people outside your borders looking in and I am sure a number of US citizens that was a terrifying prospect.
Romney's problem is that he's a moderate in a party that does not embrace moderation.He's basically the Republican John Kerry. Boring.
Don't you mean a society that has been trained not to like political moderation here? Not just the party.
The good news is that Ronald Reagan is retroactively a Democrat, which is funny.
Erhm how he is dead isnt he?
They really like guns. Accidents happen.
Thanks for making me laugh I guess that there is not going to be a better explanation.
The really interesting part is that most of the problems people have are with Congress, not the Presidency. Obama, as far as things he does have control over, has done a decent job.
Fair enough, over here the senate/ house of representatives is only mentioned in passing if some UK body is visiting. Much the same as our House of Commons, House of Lords is only briefly mentioned with much of the attention on the Prime Minister stateside.
Is there any way of easing the rift that there appears to be between the Executive and legislative branches of government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Don't you mean a society that has been trained not to like political moderation here? Not just the party.
Very, very true. With the way the primary system works in many states our politicians are moving further towards the ends of the political spectrum because that is the only way they'll survive the primary. Case in point: Jon Huntsman. The man's so close to the middle he should be named Malcolm. His chance of winning any primary is nil unless he decides to pander to the far right. It's sad.
Edit: Oh, someone asked about the negative campaign adds and why are so prevalent: It's because they work. They affect swing voters, so that's why they use them. That's the only reason they use them (or any other tactic).
I agree with you that negative campaign ads are effective for what a campaign is trying to achieve. What i want to ask is why?
The reason that i think that negative campaign ads are used over policy promotion ads centers around making a claim.
Any ad that explains what a candidate would do to some large sector of society is more useful to the voter than any ad focusing on "why that guy is not your guy." The problem with a policy ad is that the campaign has to make a claim "this is what will fix this." After that claim is made the campaign must either defend the claim or abandon the claim. Since there are no quick fixes for things like the economy, education, or foreign policy any claim will involve trade offs. Your opponent can focus on the negative trade offs. At this point the debate is a cost benefit analysis and each voter will determine their own analysis of the cost and the benefits.
Negative ads also make claims but they make claims that must be answered by both campaigns. For example the whole "Mitt didn't pay taxes claim" made by Harry Reid. Even though Reid has no evidence Mitt still has to respond and his response is judged by everyone that hears it. The Obama campaign can glibly claim that they do not endorse Reid's statements and distance themselves.
So even though people do not like negative ads and policy ads are better for voters we will be stuck with negative ads as long as voters demand answers to empty charges of misconduct.
Also negative ads cost a lot less to make. It cost Reid nothing to put his claim out there. To male an informed policy decision takes research and money.
Elvish Crack Piper-I love fairy tales as much as the next guy but the tea party movement has its roots in the 1990s and unlike the occupy wallstreet movement wasn't funded by the super rich (see Soros).
Elvish Crack Piper-I love fairy tales as much as the next guy but the tea party movement has its roots in the 1990s and unlike the occupy wallstreet movement wasn't funded by the super rich (see Soros).
Just the super-duper rich. The Tea Party wasn't grass roots for long; Fox News quickly stepped in and began promoting Tea Party rallies on air.
And I wouldn't identify the tax day protests from the 1990s as the Tea Party. They certainly were the beginnings of what coalesced into the Tea Party, but what we know as the Tea Party today really came about soon after Obama was inaugurated. The tax day protests of the '90s focused strictly on taxes; the Tea Party today began with anger over government spending and quickly added standard conservative messages.
Seriously Nis you want to compare the small amounts of money the Koch brothers gave to some organizations the left lumps in with the tea party to the mountains of money Soros gave to Adbusters via the Tides foundation that made Occupy Wallstreet actually occur.
As for Fox News giving them support SO WHAT! Most news networks were absurdly supportive of Occupy Wallstreet.
Other stations reporting on Occupy as News with positive and negatives is not the same as the glowing image that FoxNews tried to give TEA.
You've got some serious blinders on if you think they're remotely similar.
Not to mention with the Soros thing that was THREE PARTS removed from their donation (i.e. even less connected than Chik-Fil-A to the Ugandan stuff which was only two parts removed) - and directly denied vs. directly supported in word and action.
how can you say that Obama took over one of the worst economies while being at odds witha republican dominated congress?
He had a super majority! It was as far from republican dominated as it could possibly get.
This is one of the biggest myths of the past 4 years.
He had a supermajority for four months. And part of that time, the Congress was in winter recess. And when they were passing the stimulus (and desperately wanted to pass it as soon as possible since the economy was in free fall), they did not have a supermajority, and so had to water it down to satisfy the Republicans, even though most economists agree that it wasn't large enough, and that spending has a larger stimulative effect than tax cuts.
Quote from The Washington Independent, link above »
The irony is that if Democrats lose [Ted Kennedy's former] seat, they will have had a working 60-seat majority for all of four months — much of which was spent with the Senate in recess. They opened the Congress in January with 58 votes, counting the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), not counting Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), whose razor-thin victory was held up by lawsuits from former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). On April 28, 2009, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) switched to the Democratic Party, bringing the Democrats to 59 votes without Franken. When Franken was finally sworn in on into the Senate on July 7, 2009, the badly ailing Kennedy was unable to vote and break filibusters. Kennedy died on Aug.25, 2009, but it took Massachusetts Democrats — who run every aspect of their state government — a full month to pass legislation seating a replacement, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.). He took office on Sept. 24, 2009. Only then, and only depending on whether Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was well, did the Democrats have a supermajority.
Obviously, Scott Brown won that election, so they did lose Ted Kennedy's seat, and thus their supposedly "filibuster-proof majority."
And even then, the Republicans, despite not being in a parliamentary system, displayed basically the same level of party discipline. The GOP voted on party lines to fililbuster practically everything. For whatever reason, moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins almost never split from the party. The GOP must have something that makes them awfully afraid to step out of line.
During that four months it would only take peeling off one Democrat to stop legislation. And unlike the GOP, the Democrats don't behave like a parliamentary party. They are not as effective at whipping their members of Congress into voting all party-line, all the time. Which shouldn't even be considered a flaw - it should be considered more bizarre that the GOP does so, since the level of party discipline they've been displaying recently is unusual in Congressional history.
So, anyway, they had less than four months once you take out the recess time. It's a bit of a stretch to pretend that this short-lived and tenuous majority means the Democrats dominated the legislature and were able to pass everything they wanted to, or should have been able to.
So yes, the Republicans unprecedented-in-US-history obstructionism (the filibuster was used more times than in any previous Congress) I think is quite a relevant factor, even in Obama's first two years. "Obama has full control of the legislature!" they would snicker for most of that period, all the while knowing that they could filibuster whatever he was trying to accomplish.
Other stations reporting on Occupy as News with positive and negatives is not the same as the glowing image that FoxNews tried to give TEA.
You've got some serious blinders on if you think they're remotely similar.
Not to mention with the Soros thing that was THREE PARTS removed from their donation (i.e. even less connected than Chik-Fil-A to the Ugandan stuff which was only two parts removed) - and directly denied vs. directly supported in word and action.
That each side has its own entirely different set of facts on many issues is one of the worst facets of the current political climate in America. Facts are not (or rather, should not be) up for debate, yet each side (one more so than the other, in my opinion), day after day, peddles it's own false version of reality regarding various issues, and continues to peddle the garbage regardless of the amount of evidence against it, preferring to stick fingers in ears and shout louder, as if that somehow can turn a falsehood into truth.
You have to love the irony of the right wing accusing a leftist movement of being funded by rich people, though. Golden.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Granted and agree a McCain presidency would have been interesting but over here are at least his big problem was his age coupled with his choice of running mate. He was 72 back in 2008 and due to the health issues he has due to his front line service if he was elected it had the distinct possibility of someone incredibly green in charge of one of the worlds greatest military machines. For a lot of people outside your borders looking in and I am sure a number of US citizens that was a terrifying prospect.
Palin's an idiot *** political animal. She was pretty much a disaster as governor and running mate.
Don't you mean a society that has been trained not to like political moderation here? Not just the party.
An important distinction, but I believe it is less a matter of political excess than willful blindness brought about prosperity and pain.
Erhm how he is dead isnt he?
The point is that fundamental changes in the GOP have shuffled them away from people they used to look up to.
Thanks for making me laugh I guess that there is not going to be a better explanation.
They're not shooting themselves in the foot - they're forced to go VERY far right in order to keep their seats/represent their district. If this makes them unappealing to moderates, it doesn't matter if the state isn't contested by the other party. They'll win anyway, and the primary is the real election.
Fair enough, over here the senate/ house of representatives is only mentioned in passing if some UK body is visiting. Much the same as our House of Commons, House of Lords is only briefly mentioned with much of the attention on the Prime Minister stateside.
The House and Senate wield the majority the political power in the US government. The President acts as the face of the nation and does the following:
Manages foreign policy via the state department
uses the bully pulpit of the high office to help shepherd legislative acts
commander in chief of armed forces
directs various executive agencies
sees to the execution of laws
Comparatively, Congress can:
Pass laws
House of Representatives has the power of the purse
While the Presidency manages most of the day to day functions of the government, Congress determines what those functions are.
Is there any way of easing the rift that there appears to be between the Executive and legislative branches of government.
Yes, get the Legislative branch to do its job and either pass bills or vote them down. The US's problems right now occur because the difference between legislators isn't simply a matter of degrees, but inherent philosophical differences about the purpose of government.
Out of curiosity, what do you make of this article?
I think it's more analogous to that process where you take a part of someone's thigh to reconstruct their face after a horrible injury, except that in this case, the surgeon took the part removed from the thigh and decided to waste large chunks of it frivolously, and what remained was not enough to reconstruct the face. And now he wants to get more from the other thigh. And he's wondering why many do not want him to be the surgeon this time around.
Could some one educate a foreigner here. What has Romney done as governor of Massachusetts that's so bad he needs to divorce himself from it. Is it just that he appears to have proposed a health care plan similar to Obama's which he is now castigating, or is there more lurking in that particular closet.
Agreed you can't so front line services are off the table.
The easy ones are the ones the politicians would never propose no matter where they are. Cutting some of the jobs for the Boys and the unneccessary red tape that exists. This would probably kill 2 birds with 1 stone by reducing the direct expense on the government paying the people and companies, individuals won't need to spend so much time wading through it all.
Is the USPS just likely to wither and die anyway, as we go to a more digital existence and email/social media instead of sending letters, so the only thing left is parcels and legal documents most of which are sent out privately.
Depends on how you do it. Not to sure what the procurement situation is like in the US but over here any major new project both civilian and military never comes in on time or on budget. If it is anything like we have over here greater oversight/ better bargaining at the front end might be able to reduce costs with out the expense of any jobs.
Depends on how honest you are when proposing them and the scale of the increase. Granted it is unlikely but you could do it.
Add how to do you fund it to the questions as well. Granted I accept that large scale public works have improved economic conditions Nazi Germany being a good example along with the Hoover Dam over there but for infrastructure projects you need to find people willing to work on them. And if you look at technology it seems that the really useful stuff you could be working on is very controversial, stem cell research etc. So I can easily see large swathes of the country being unhappy if the State is sponsoring research into it.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
And some of y'all need to bear in mind that presidents don't control the economy.
China, Europe, cultural trends, the pace of technology and natural disasters can and do have major effects on how America works.
Also bear in mind that the current Congress doesn't do **** and there isn't much the president can do about that either.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
It's pretty much just the healthcare thing. In order to win this year, one of the things the Republicans need to do is convince people that Obamacare was a poorly thought out and/or implemented plan, or that it is ultimately bad for them.
The problem is that the republican candidate implemented a similar plan in Mass.
I'm not aware of anything else that is really notable on the Mass. end.
So arguably similar to what McCain did last time where he attempted to portray himself as the more experienced candidate then promptly put forward someone with even less experience as his Vice President apparently against the good advice of the rest of the party.
Is there any particular reason why these people appear to have a fascination with metaphorically shooting them selves in the foot like that?
It does appear that no one actually wins a presidential election, they just lose it less badly than the other guy.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Not really,
The Postal service is actually quite profitable. The financial issues its dealing with are false. The USPS has been mandated to pre-fund its pension plan by a 75 year margin, something that nobody else (public or private) does.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155702/how_phantom_accounting_is_destroying_the_post_office
One of the biggest surpluses in the USPS history got turned into a massive deficit for rather shady reasons.
I also can't ignore that Obama took over one of the worst economies ever while being at odds with a republican dominated congress. I don't know with any certainty that the economy is Obama's fault.
Regardless, until the Republican drop their association with the religious right, I will never be able to vote for any of them. I don't want religion in my life or in my legislature and that leaves me with one choice, the Democrats. It's more about what I consider basic human rights and freedom from religion at this point, unfortunately.
Edit: I'm not saying I would never vote for religious person. I would. I'm not discriminating on candidates on religious grounds. The problem I see with the religious right is that they want to institute policies in this country that are tied to the bible, for no other reason than the ideas are in the bible, and I can't support that (gay marriage, family planning, creationist mumbo-jumbo, religion in schools, ect ect).
Edit: Oh, someone asked about the negative campaign adds and why are so prevalent: It's because they work. They affect swing voters, so that's why they use them. That's the only reason they use them (or any other tactic).
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
While I agree that we can't know with certainty whos fault it is (thats kind of how economics work, unfortunately), how can you say that Obama took over one of the worst economies while being at odds witha republican dominated congress?
He had a super majority! It was as far from republican dominated as it could possibly get. It became republican dominated when he (succesfully) forced through an unpopular law using that super majority.
In other words, the republican domination of congress was a direct result of his administrations actions.
I disagree, it could be done without a huge shift in power. All it would take is someone with the balls to stand up to the defense spending and want to start investing back into this country instead of worrying about everyone else.
McCain has solid conservative credentials in the US. Romney's problem is that he's a moderate in a party that does not embrace moderation. He's basically the Republican John Kerry. Boring. The good news is that Ronald Reagan is retroactively a Democrat, which is funny.
They really like guns. Accidents happen.
The really interesting part is that most of the problems people have are with Congress, not the Presidency. Obama, as far as things he does have control over, has done a decent job.
The steam for that, the Tea Party movement, started what... 47 days after he took office? Or was it 17? I don't remember. I know Colbert had one of the earliest Tea Party founders on his show and she was... completely unable to explain why they suddenly became interested in reforming washington via fiscal responsibility immediately after they lost an election. Ehh.
And I think its a pretty safe bet that the law was only unpopular in certain parts of the country because of the blatant misrepresentations, and outright lies, that were peddled about it by the right wing.
Government takeover of health care, death panels and more. Fox and the Republicans spent months upon months demonizing this thing. This thing that was a compromise from what Obama could have actually rammed through without going to them in the first place because, you know, super majority. Except he didn't. Obama has tried to do the whole compromise thing and is dealing with people who care less about running the country and more about winning the next election and damn the consequences. More tax breaks for billionairs!
Don't you mean a society that has been trained not to like political moderation here? Not just the party.
Erhm how he is dead isnt he?
Thanks for making me laugh I guess that there is not going to be a better explanation.
Fair enough, over here the senate/ house of representatives is only mentioned in passing if some UK body is visiting. Much the same as our House of Commons, House of Lords is only briefly mentioned with much of the attention on the Prime Minister stateside.
Is there any way of easing the rift that there appears to be between the Executive and legislative branches of government.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Very, very true. With the way the primary system works in many states our politicians are moving further towards the ends of the political spectrum because that is the only way they'll survive the primary. Case in point: Jon Huntsman. The man's so close to the middle he should be named Malcolm. His chance of winning any primary is nil unless he decides to pander to the far right. It's sad.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I agree with you that negative campaign ads are effective for what a campaign is trying to achieve. What i want to ask is why?
The reason that i think that negative campaign ads are used over policy promotion ads centers around making a claim.
Any ad that explains what a candidate would do to some large sector of society is more useful to the voter than any ad focusing on "why that guy is not your guy." The problem with a policy ad is that the campaign has to make a claim "this is what will fix this." After that claim is made the campaign must either defend the claim or abandon the claim. Since there are no quick fixes for things like the economy, education, or foreign policy any claim will involve trade offs. Your opponent can focus on the negative trade offs. At this point the debate is a cost benefit analysis and each voter will determine their own analysis of the cost and the benefits.
Negative ads also make claims but they make claims that must be answered by both campaigns. For example the whole "Mitt didn't pay taxes claim" made by Harry Reid. Even though Reid has no evidence Mitt still has to respond and his response is judged by everyone that hears it. The Obama campaign can glibly claim that they do not endorse Reid's statements and distance themselves.
So even though people do not like negative ads and policy ads are better for voters we will be stuck with negative ads as long as voters demand answers to empty charges of misconduct.
Also negative ads cost a lot less to make. It cost Reid nothing to put his claim out there. To male an informed policy decision takes research and money.
Just the super-duper rich. The Tea Party wasn't grass roots for long; Fox News quickly stepped in and began promoting Tea Party rallies on air.
And I wouldn't identify the tax day protests from the 1990s as the Tea Party. They certainly were the beginnings of what coalesced into the Tea Party, but what we know as the Tea Party today really came about soon after Obama was inaugurated. The tax day protests of the '90s focused strictly on taxes; the Tea Party today began with anger over government spending and quickly added standard conservative messages.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
As for Fox News giving them support SO WHAT! Most news networks were absurdly supportive of Occupy Wallstreet.
You've got some serious blinders on if you think they're remotely similar.
Not to mention with the Soros thing that was THREE PARTS removed from their donation (i.e. even less connected than Chik-Fil-A to the Ugandan stuff which was only two parts removed) - and directly denied vs. directly supported in word and action.
Link on Soros "issue": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049053/Occupy-Wall-Street-Billionaire-George-Soros-denies-funding-protesters.html
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
He had a supermajority for four months. And part of that time, the Congress was in winter recess. And when they were passing the stimulus (and desperately wanted to pass it as soon as possible since the economy was in free fall), they did not have a supermajority, and so had to water it down to satisfy the Republicans, even though most economists agree that it wasn't large enough, and that spending has a larger stimulative effect than tax cuts.
Obviously, Scott Brown won that election, so they did lose Ted Kennedy's seat, and thus their supposedly "filibuster-proof majority."
And even then, the Republicans, despite not being in a parliamentary system, displayed basically the same level of party discipline. The GOP voted on party lines to fililbuster practically everything. For whatever reason, moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins almost never split from the party. The GOP must have something that makes them awfully afraid to step out of line.
During that four months it would only take peeling off one Democrat to stop legislation. And unlike the GOP, the Democrats don't behave like a parliamentary party. They are not as effective at whipping their members of Congress into voting all party-line, all the time. Which shouldn't even be considered a flaw - it should be considered more bizarre that the GOP does so, since the level of party discipline they've been displaying recently is unusual in Congressional history.
So, anyway, they had less than four months once you take out the recess time. It's a bit of a stretch to pretend that this short-lived and tenuous majority means the Democrats dominated the legislature and were able to pass everything they wanted to, or should have been able to.
So yes, the Republicans unprecedented-in-US-history obstructionism (the filibuster was used more times than in any previous Congress) I think is quite a relevant factor, even in Obama's first two years. "Obama has full control of the legislature!" they would snicker for most of that period, all the while knowing that they could filibuster whatever he was trying to accomplish.
That each side has its own entirely different set of facts on many issues is one of the worst facets of the current political climate in America. Facts are not (or rather, should not be) up for debate, yet each side (one more so than the other, in my opinion), day after day, peddles it's own false version of reality regarding various issues, and continues to peddle the garbage regardless of the amount of evidence against it, preferring to stick fingers in ears and shout louder, as if that somehow can turn a falsehood into truth.
Here's another link regarding the Soros nonsense. Somehow, a Soros organization giving $3.5 million to a non-profit organization that issued grants to Adbusters amounting to $185,000 over a decade becomes "Soros gave mountains of money to Adbusters" and the Koch Brothers donating $1 million from their charities to Americans for Prosperity or donating $3.2 million to a group that then donated $7.7 million to Americans for Prosperity as well as providing the funds to launch the group in the middle of the decade becomes "small amounts of money the Koch brothers gave to some organizations the left lumps in with the tea party."
You have to love the irony of the right wing accusing a leftist movement of being funded by rich people, though. Golden.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Funny you should bring this up because I just happened to have already heard about Laffer's article along with the multiple eviscerations of it.
Palin's an idiot *** political animal. She was pretty much a disaster as governor and running mate.
An important distinction, but I believe it is less a matter of political excess than willful blindness brought about prosperity and pain.
The point is that fundamental changes in the GOP have shuffled them away from people they used to look up to.
They're not shooting themselves in the foot - they're forced to go VERY far right in order to keep their seats/represent their district. If this makes them unappealing to moderates, it doesn't matter if the state isn't contested by the other party. They'll win anyway, and the primary is the real election.
The House and Senate wield the majority the political power in the US government. The President acts as the face of the nation and does the following:
Manages foreign policy via the state department
uses the bully pulpit of the high office to help shepherd legislative acts
commander in chief of armed forces
directs various executive agencies
sees to the execution of laws
Comparatively, Congress can:
Pass laws
House of Representatives has the power of the purse
While the Presidency manages most of the day to day functions of the government, Congress determines what those functions are.
Yes, get the Legislative branch to do its job and either pass bills or vote them down. The US's problems right now occur because the difference between legislators isn't simply a matter of degrees, but inherent philosophical differences about the purpose of government.