World Politics

[Anonymous]

I think we'd all benefit from stepping back a bit, taking a long, hard, careful look at both parties. I would bet that most people would realize that neither party represents the interests of the people, but rather the interest of a select few who bankroll their political ambitions.

I voted for Obama, and frankly, I'm thoroughly disappointed in him so far. His remarkable aptitude for campaigning has failed to translate into any sort of ability to govern. Granted, he's not the failure Bush was or McCain/Palin would have been but that's like saying things aren't bad in the US because we have a higher standard of living than Rwanda.

I agree Moose...the guy has been a failure on so many ways...I never expected much more...but to hear the repug guys out here grinding sausage and crowing is just too much...their party is one of total sellout and has been since reagan...kill unions, kill fair wages, adjust taxes for the rich...the same game again and again...oh yeah, and play the simple minds via "ethics"...

 

[Anonymous]

notice how these guys cant defend bush on the medicare bill...but they want you to think it is about medicare spending...when the real problem is government spending and not allowing government negotiation for that budget which is what the do do with the Vet. Admin. to get a cheapeer drug rate...and then repug fans are quiet...Bush could and should have put limits on what medicare is paying for drugs and why that costs so much (guess why, because they would not put a limit on it or agree to negotiate for the prices for the same drugs)...but Bush and his repug buddies were bought out by the drug industry...so the pharma companies would get paid whatever THEY wanted...it was a gift to pharma at the expence of the taxpayer....one last point: the folks in the military have "socialist" health care....think about it...

 

[Anonymous]

Scott...so what was your problem with the medicare prescription plan under Bush? I have a problem with it as well..the problem was this: that the government could not negotiate prices for durgs...THAT is why is was a ***** giveaway to bush's buddies...he and your repugs fought for that...to pay them full price...rather, a dem would have negotiated...like with those commie VA folks ect ect...but your boys upheld their corporate reach arounds...got to give where it is given, Yes?

It was an unaffordable entitlement. Period, end of story. Sold to the pubilic with a $400 billion price tag and ended up costing $700 billion by the time it was implemented. It's a broken record with government. It doesn't matter what big govt tries to do (with darn few exceptions), it's done poorly but expensively.

 

[Anonymous]

It was an unaffordable entitlement. Period, end of story. Sold to the pubilic with a $400 billion price tag and ended up costing $700 billion by the time it was implemented. It's a broken record with government. It doesn't matter what big govt tries to do (with darn few exceptions), it's done poorly but expensively.

there is a problem with that scott...your buddies in the repugs INSURED we had to pay more to their pharma corporate buddies...so WE are paying for that...about ten times more than what is costs for the same drugs via the VA...another government organization...now just why do you think your guys did that for us? Of course, just out of their good nature of course...ie scott, they could have negotiated but the put it into LAW, that we could not...it was a gift thanks to your friends...just for those phama corps who put them into office...THAT is why is cost so much...

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't read past that point. They are not my party. I have only said it in about 5 threads that you have responded to.

I don't know if Scott is a republican or not, and even if he is, I don't expect anyone who is a member of either party to defend every single thing their party does. But intellectual dishonesty seems to come with those who are ideologically aligned with the left. You embarrass yourselves when you carry their water blindly.

Your lust for political power and control blinds you to your own good senses.

Really? That is a province of the left? You must not listen to anyone but Ron Paul as a conservative, because intellectual dishonesty is a hallmark of most ever other conservative liberal in office...as can be said about almost every liberal politician. I will say that on balance, the usage of patriotic propaganda and fear is much more prevalent on the right side of the isle, but that is just my opinion. The politics of fear is disturbing to me, as is the politics of religious morality, especially as practiced by Fundamentalist types. They have much more in common with the Taliban than they do the founders of our nation, but try telling them that.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I agree Moose...the guy has been a failure on so many ways...I never expected much more...but to hear the repug guys out here grinding sausage and crowing is just too much...their party is one of total sellout and has been since reagan...kill unions, kill fair wages, adjust taxes for the rich...the same game again and again...oh yeah, and play the simple minds via "ethics"...

I think you have to ignore any crowing from the republican side with respect to what's going on, especially since that party presided over the years that ultimately led to the debacle we now face. But, let's keep in mind that the Democratic party is not blameless in this, as it was Clinton who signed the Gramm-Rudman act that repealed Glass-Steagall (among other failures). Moreover, any party that considers an intellectual lightweight like Palin a contender for its nomination merits only fits of laughter interspersed with tears of pity.

I agree that the Republican party has become the enemy of intellectualism by casting intellectuals as the enemy of the common man. Which, of course, is utter bunk, as intellectuals have long been champions of the common man, while corporate interests have slowly (well, more rapidly in recent times) chipped away at the well-being of the individual.

However, the Democratic Party has shown little aptitude for governing as of late. Campaign promises have come and gone like so much dust in the wind.
Remember, these are the same people who voted for the Iraq war funding and refused to stand up at a critical time. And yes, I do believe that, had Obama been in the Senate at the time, he would have done the exact same thing and voted for the funding. No question in my mind about that.

I have nothing but contempt for both parties at this point in time, but we get the government we deserve. I have to say that my degree of contempt for the republican party has risen to the point of utter disgust. They are truly the party of mendacity. I guess as a tribute to Salinger, who passed away this week, the republicans are the quintessential "phonies".

 

[Hugh Januss]

It was an unaffordable entitlement. Period, end of story. Sold to the pubilic with a $400 billion price tag and ended up costing $700 billion by the time it was implemented. It's a broken record with government. It doesn't matter what big govt tries to do (with darn few exceptions), it's done poorly but expensively.

Bullshit. It was done badly and expensively because it was in the best interests of a large group of Bush backers. Just another example of republican corporate wellfare.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

It was an unaffordable entitlement. Period, end of story. Sold to the pubilic with a $400 billion price tag and ended up costing $700 billion by the time it was implemented. It's a broken record with government. It doesn't matter what big govt tries to do (with darn few exceptions), it's done poorly but expensively.

Hold on a second. First, it wasn't "big government" who created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. In fact, "big government" implemented regulations such as Glass-Steagall, to ensure such disasters do not happen. It took decades of chipping away at this act before "free market" interests prevailed and dragged this country into financial turmoil.

And, yes, we are the only industrialized nation without cradle-to-grave health care for its citizens. We're the only one that ties health care outcomes to provider profitability.

 

[Anonymous]

It was an unaffordable entitlement. Period, end of story. Sold to the pubilic with a $400 billion price tag and ended up costing $700 billion by the time it was implemented. It's a broken record with government. It doesn't matter what big govt tries to do (with darn few exceptions), it's done poorly but expensively.

Where is there ever a discussion of fiscal restraint in the implementation of government contracts. There sure are a lot of businesses run by really conservative people that do the government work, and gouge the crap out of them all the time. They whine and whine about their taxes, but charge exorbitant prices for goods and services because they can get away with it (yes I realize that is true of any business that does government work). They know that, because the Republicans (primarily) will underfund any government undertaking (except killing people), knowing full well that the inefficiency caused by insufficient funding will cause the very problems they point out. They aren't stupid. And then they do things like forbid the government from negotiating drug prices with the people they consulted in making a program like the prescription drug bill, and then point out how badly it works? Maybe at some of their fund raising dinners, they might mention that if businesses want lower taxes, they might stop reaming the government every time the get the chance to sell it toilet paper...but then again, conservatives don't want to hear about fiscal restraint on anything they do not benefit from...go figure.

But for sure, the applause you hear from the right over the Supreme Courts decision to allow direct funding for campaign commercials advocating and/or denouncing political candidates is just a great thing. Hmm...I wonder who has more to gain from that. I can promise you it is not the individual voter, and is a direct attack on liberty and justice for actual individual voting citizens. Funny, I don't remember hearing the tea baggers crying about that this past weekend. They just want to talk about taxes. Kind of selfish people if you think about it.

 

[Anonymous]

I think we'd all benefit from stepping back a bit, taking a long, hard, careful look at both parties. I would bet that most people would realize that neither party represents the interests of the people, but rather the interest of a select few who bankroll their political ambitions.
I voted for Obama, and frankly, I'm thoroughly disappointed in him so far. His remarkable aptitude for campaigning has failed to translate into any sort of ability to govern. Granted, he's not the failure Bush was or McCain/Palin would have been but that's like saying things aren't bad in the US because we have a higher standard of living than Rwanda.

Bingo, there is now a winnner.

Why smart people think that elected politicians who likely have very little expertise at whatever issue is at hand, who demonstrate a real willingness to be corrupted and who serve no one if not themselves first are to be willingly entrusted with major decisions that infringe your ability to purse life, liberty and happiness is completely lost on me.

I don't trust govt at least as much as the leaders of major corporations. The biggest difference is something usually gets done about corporate malfeasance. Meanwhile, political corruption marches on.

The US govt is in the hole at least $14 Trillion guaranteed by the US taxpayer.

Look how we demonize upside-down corporations that are guaranteed by the US taxpayer, yet somehow, if it's govt., then it's cool.

Pretty freaking ironic. Rant over.

 

[Anonymous]

Bullshit. It was done badly and expensively because it was in the best interests of a large group of Bush backers. Just another example of republican corporate wellfare.

Exactly. They built it to be inefficient so that businesses could gouge the government, and then they could turn around and beat their chests about "fiscal responsibility" and "inefficient government." Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

 

[Anonymous]

Bullshit. It was done badly and expensively because it was in the best interests of a large group of Bush backers. Just another example of republican corporate wellfare.

I don't give a crap about the motivations. Elected officials are as corruptable as any corporate ceo.

For every corporate welfare buyout there is one for big labor (or name your special interest). Curious as to why Gettlefinger and the boys pushed GM into bankruptcy? They had Obama and Treasury in their back pocket. Hmmm, they are now a stake holder in GM. How convienient.

 

[Anonymous]

Bingo, there is now a winnner.

Why smart people think that elected politicians who likely have very little expertise at whatever issue is at hand, who demonstrate a real willingness to be corrupted and who serve no one if not themselves first are to be willingly entrusted with major decisions that infringe your ability to purse life, liberty and happiness is completely lost on me.

I don't trust govt at least as much as the leaders of major corporations. The biggest difference is something usually gets done about corporate malfeasance. Meanwhile, political corruption marches on.

The US govt is in the hole at least $14 Trillion guaranteed by the US taxpayer.

Look how we demonize upside-down corporations that are guaranteed by the US taxpayer, yet somehow, if it's govt., then it's cool.

Pretty freaking ironic. Rant over.

All I can say is read de Tocqueville. (Newt always likes to quote him...only, I am not sure he actually fully understands the guys take on our political philosophy...come to think of it, I don't think many Americans comprehend what he talked about. Heck, most don't even know who he is or why he is important.)

Democracy is set up to be inefficient for a reason.

And I am not sure of the examples of corporate malfeasance being punished to wit you refer, but seems to me they get rewarded with privatization of their profits, and socialization of their losses, and that most of them fund conservative politicians more fervently than liberal ones.

 

[Anonymous]

Where is there ever a discussion of fiscal restraint in the implementation of government contracts. There sure are a lot of businesses run by really conservative people that do the government work, and gouge the crap out of them all the time. They whine and whine about their taxes, but charge exorbitant prices for goods and services because they can get away with it (yes I realize that is true of any business that does government work). They know that, because the Republicans (primarily) will underfund any government undertaking (except killing people), knowing full well that the inefficiency caused by insufficient funding will cause the very problems they point out. They aren't stupid. And then they do things like forbid the government from negotiating drug prices with the people they consulted in making a program like the prescription drug bill, and then point out how badly it works? Maybe at some of their fund raising dinners, they might mention that if businesses want lower taxes, they might stop reaming the government every time the get the chance to sell it toilet paper...but then again, conservatives don't want to hear about fiscal restraint on anything they do not benefit from...go figure.

But for sure, the applause you hear from the right over the Supreme Courts decision to allow direct funding for campaign commercials advocating and/or denouncing political candidates is just a great thing. Hmm...I wonder who has more to gain from that. I can promise you it is not the individual voter, and is a direct attack on liberty and justice for actual individual voting citizens. Funny, I don't remember hearing the tea baggers crying about that this past weekend. They just want to talk about taxes. Kind of selfish people if you think about it.

Well now our circular argument has made another lap. I'm not a big fan of corruption no matter if it's public, private, conservative or liberal.

 

[Anonymous]

All I can say is read de Tocqueville. (Newt always likes to quote him...only, I am not sure he actually fully understands the guys take on our political philosophy...come to think of it, I don't think many Americans comprehend what he talked about. Heck, most don't even know who he is or why he is important.)

Democracy is set up to be inefficient for a reason.

And I am not sure of the examples of corporate malfeasance being punished to wit you refer, but seems to me they get rewarded with privatization of their profits, and socialization of their losses, and that most of them fund conservative politicians more fervently than liberal ones.

I promise you if my business fails or loses money the losses will not be socialized. And the same is true for millions of small business' across this country.

Compare and contrast known corporate corruption to known political corruption. I think you'll see quite a difference.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't give a crap about the motivations. Elected officials are as corruptable as any corporate ceo.

And the policies of the Republican party help to minimize this how? Fighting for and applauding greater corporate influence in elections accomplishes this how? Talking about fiscal restraint and bringing home and getting your photo taken with a big check in your hand changes this how? Never seriously addressing corporate price gouging on government contracts (when your party is the one that moved toward more privatization of governmental services) accomplishes this how?

Its funny, the forces behind conservative political campaigns suck at the teats of government more voraciously than any other little piggy, yet their only concern is that THEIR tax rate is too high?

 

[Anonymous]

I promise you if my business fails or loses money the losses will not be socialized. And the same is true for millions of small business' across this country.

Compare and contrast known corporate corruption to known political corruption. I think you'll see quite a difference.

And you are precisely who major corporations rely on to vote in candidates who are in their pockets who will get their losses privatized, and will gouge the government for every penny we give them. All they have to do is say the word "taxes" and you guys drool at the mouth like the dinner bell just rang. Did you ever consider that there are much deeper issues to think about, and that those issues are much more fundamental to our liberty than the shallow concentration on only that money is taken from you? It is why politicians like Palin drive me nuts. She dumbs down the debate to a few (three it seems) buzzwords or phrases, and people eat it up. You believe it is not calculated propaganda by people in the Republican party who do know what the real game is, to allow someone like her to gain the national stage?

 

[Bala Verde]

Anyone seen Food Inc? If you are the slightest bit interested in food (eating, cooking), it's highly recommendable. Great documentary on the (US) food 'industry' and the myth of deregulation.

The less government....
- the more high fructose corn syrup you'll find in you pork chop.
- the more e-coli in your burger paddy contains
- the more growth hormones you'll see in your over sized chicken breast.

I also didn't know that 'Citizens United v FEC' was already preceded by certain state laws that prohibit people from publicly criticizing (in word and/or images) the beef/chicken/pork industry. Apparently Oprah was sued by the beef boys cartel because she allegedly showed her distaste for burgers on air... Farcical

and a funny take on the first amendment.

Is there a too-big-to-fail food industry looming on the horizon? How long will it take before Tyson, Cargill, Swift, National Beef and Smithfield need a hormonal injection to preserve their capacity to feed super sized American mouths.

It almost looks like the miserable practice of USSR kolkhozy and sovkhozy has found a niche in a US society. Similar mechanisms seem at play when 'good-old-boys in the know' are protected by the legal system and supported by the state(s)(politicians) through subsidies and propaganda. Oh and did I mention the use of 'slave labor' - now not performed by poor Soviets - but illegal immigrants from Latin America.

Uncle Sam displays characteristics of Mother Russia. 95% are equally poor, but some are more equal than others...

 

[Anonymous]

Well now our circular argument has made another lap. I'm not a big fan of corruption no matter if it's public, private, conservative or liberal.

Then why do you support Republican candidates? If that is your major issue, I can assure you that conservative political thought is primarily responsible for the two being in bed together in the manner that garners bail-outs and corrupt agreements for government contracts. At least with Democrats, we only get the political kind. With Republicans, the two are married and an unholy little mongrel of a fiscal policy is born.

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone seen Food Inc? If you are the slightest bit interested in food (eating, cooking), it's highly recommendable. Great documentary on the (US) food 'industry' and the myth of deregulation.

The less government....
- the more high fructose corn syrup you'll find in you pork chop.
- the more e-coli in your burger paddy contains
- the more growth hormones you'll see in your over sized chicken breast.

I also didn't know that 'Citizens United v FEC' was already preceded by certain state laws that prohibit people from publicly criticizing (in word and/or images) the beef/chicken/pork industry. Apparently Oprah was sued by the beef boys cartel because she allegedly showed her distaste for burgers on air... Farcical

and a funny take on the first amendment.

Is there a too-big-to-fail food industry looming on the horizon? How long will it take before Tyson, Cargill, Swift, National Beef and Smithfield need a hormonal injection to preserve their capacity to feed super sized American mouths.

It almost looks like the miserable practice of USSR kolkhozy and sovkhozy has found a niche in a US society. Similar mechanisms seem at play when 'good-old-boys in the know' are protected by the legal system and supported by the state(s)(politicians) through subsidies and propaganda. Oh and did I mention the use of 'slave labor' - now not performed by poor Soviets - but illegal immigrants from Latin America.

Uncle Sam displays characteristics of Mother Russia. 95% are equally poor, but some are more equal than others...

Yes I watched it, and every conservative in the country who says they are for small businesses should watch how their Supreme Court justices allowed Monsanto to effectively kill the small farm industry for corn farmers (and pretty soon soy bean farmers). Ole Justice Thomas (the former Monsanto lawyer) wrote the freaking opinion. Your government corruption at work...only I think they call it "Strict Constructionist" ideas...

Ironic that most of these same justices see a problem with the free speech of small farmers, but no problem with applying free speech to a corporation that is only treated like an individual because of court reporters sentence added to the header for a Supreme Court decision that did not give corporations that right in any way, yet has been used as precedent based on that very sentence...funnier still is that same COURT REPORTER (notice that I didn't use the words Supreme Court Justice) who write in that sentence was a former lawyer for the railroad industry and.....wait for it..................the case involved a railroad company!

Every time I hear a conservative utter the words "Strict Constructionist" I want to puke.

 

[Anonymous]

And the policies of the Republican party help to minimize this how? Fighting for and applauding greater corporate influence in elections accomplishes this how? Talking about fiscal restraint and bringing home and getting your photo taken with a big check in your hand changes this how? Never seriously addressing corporate price gouging on government contracts (when your party is the one that moved toward more privatization of governmental services) accomplishes this how?

Its funny, the forces behind conservative political campaigns suck at the teats of government more voraciously than any other little piggy, yet their only concern is that THEIR tax rate is too high?

I don't consider myself a republican, although the platform of smaller govt is the correct path IMO. Republicans don't excel at this.

I consider freedom of speech to be freedom of speech. Sorry if that's provides an inconienience for you. If corporations are forced to pay taxes then they should have representation.

There's no political will on either side to follow existing law in so many areas. Again, if you think this is contained to just one party then you are incredibly naive.

Geez, corporations attempting to influence the political landscape for an advantage and politicians getting greased only happens with one political party. Who knew?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't consider myself a republican, although the platform of smaller govt is the correct path IMO. Republicans don't excel at this.

I consider freedom of speech to be freedom of speech. Sorry if that's provides an inconienience for you. If corporations are forced to pay taxes then they should have representation.

There's no political will on either side to follow existing law in so many areas. Again, if you think this is contained to just one party then you are incredibly naive.

Geez, corporations attempting to influence the political landscape for an advantage and politicians getting greased only happens with one political party. Who knew?

Firstly, corporations are treated as individual voters in terms of elections only because of a flawed interpretation of a sentence added to the header of a Supreme Court decision. They don't vote, and therefore should not have a corporate presence in the election process. The individual members that make up that corporation and can actually go in a booth and VOTE should have that right, but the corporation itself. Nope. But the problem there is that individually, the CEO's are not that big of a block of voters, so they rely on their corporate "free speech" rights. Again, your interpretation of the facts of that case are a bit off. I would suggest a bit more investigation on the subject before saying they deserve the same rights as a voter. Again, the individuals in every company have those rights, the corporation should not be able to double down.

Secondly, if you believe that the Democrats are more responsible for the corruption enacted on behalf of corporate influences, then maybe you also need to investigate who gets the lion's share of corporate money for elections. You are duped into doing their bidding based on one or two issues: Taxes, or abortion. Which ever they need to parade in front of you to get the job done. Funny that you guys are so easily swayed by a small minority of the issues.

Hint, naivety is not something I am accused of often, and generally only by people who themselves might consider their embodiment of said trait.

 

[Anonymous]

Then why do you support Republican candidates? If that is your major issue, I can assure you that conservative political thought is primarily responsible for the two being in bed together in the manner that garners bail-outs and corrupt agreements for government contracts. At least with Democrats, we only get the political kind. With Republicans, the two are married and an unholy little mongrel of a fiscal policy is born.

Because repubs are generally for limited govt. moreso than your side.

 

[Anonymous]

Firstly, corporations are treated as individual voters in terms of elections only because of a flawed interpretation of a sentence added to the header of a Supreme Court decision. They don't vote, and therefore should not have a corporate presence in the election process. The individual members that make up that corporation and can actually go in a booth and VOTE should have that right, but the corporation itself. Nope. But the problem there is that individually, the CEO's are not that big of a block of voters, so they rely on their corporate "free speech" rights. Again, your interpretation of the facts of that case are a bit off. I would suggest a bit more investigation on the subject before saying they deserve the same rights as a voter. Again, the individuals in every company have those rights, the corporation should not be able to double down.

Secondly, if you believe that the Democrats are more responsible for the corruption enacted on behalf of corporate influences, then maybe you also need to investigate who gets the lion's share of corporate money for elections. You are duped into doing their bidding based on one or two issues: Taxes, or abortion. Which ever they need to parade in front of you to get the job done. Funny that you guys are so easily swayed by a small minority of the issues.

Hint, naivety is not something I am accused of often, and generally only by people who themselves might consider their embodiment of said trait.

There's many things that shouln't happen. Unions should not be able to compel a member for dues and then contribute to a political party/candidate the member disagrees with. Life's full of shitty conflicts.

I'm not necessarily disagreeeing with corporate vote argument but I will defer to the sitting Supremes vs a new law student if that's ok. Maybe Corporations should get no govt benefits/incentives/contracts and pay no tax and have no ability to contribute to a campaign. Problem solved.

 

[Anonymous]

Because repubs are generally for limited govt. moreso than your side.

Limited in the sense that they allow more corporate corruption to creep into the system, yes. Under-regulation has never proven to be a very good policy for the betterment of society. It is why I continue to point to the fact that we have a mixed economic system. We tried the limited government thingie in the 1800's and there is a reason we began to allow the government to regulate the economic system and force corporations to give workers rights, etc., and it wasn't because things were just so good that they thought they would make it just a little bit better for everyone.

As you have said before, we are not that far off many times in fiscal policy. We just disagree on the degree to which it is necessary. I would go even further and suggest that I vary my belief on the amount of government influence based on current economic conditions, and am therefore more realistic in my approach. To suggest that one guiding philosophy should be applied to times of boom and bust makes no sense. The history of the 20th century suggests that increased spending in times of economic crisis is the path to follow considering that there are no examples of a major industrialized nation doing differently. I don't think that is because unwavering fiscal restraint works and they just don't want to implement it. Maintaining a standard of living is not only important to the individual, but also important to the economy as a whole. By becoming a greater economic influence in difficult times, we avoid greater erosion of wealth, and thereby sustain a greater standard of living for the greatest number, and all of the purchasing power that comes along with it for all. (yes, it is more complex than that, but this is a forum and not a doctoral thesis)

Again, CATO and American Enterprise can suggest that is the wrong course all they want...problem is that they have no real world example to point to as a counter to that assertion. There really is a reason for that, and it isn't because their theory works and nobody will listen.