World Politics

[redtreviso]

"""Bush destroyed the economy and damaged international relations with his illegal war in Iraq, creating anti-Muslim hysteria here.

It was hard to imagine a turnaround from the hundreds of thousand of jobs being lost monthly when President Obama took office in January 2009, but the economy is back to creating jobs. Still, that doesn't stop Republicans from yelling that Obama is making things worse.

The economic recovery was facilitated by President Obama's policies.

Supporting President Obama is easy. Understanding legitimate criticism and frustration is easy too, but there is no case to be made to abandon him. Such a case would require ignoring everything he has accomplished and is trying to do.

Republicans would make him out to be the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

Look back at all the failed policies of the past, including deregulation, that brought the country to this point, look back at the last five Presidents (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush) and their contributions to the decline, though none is more responsible than the second President Bush.

Every former President had/has their supporters. President Obama has his.

He earns that support for his efforts to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, for winding down the Iraq war, for enacting health care and Wall Street reforms and selecting Elizabeth Warren to set up the CFPB, for making it clear that regulations are designed to protect Americans, and much more.

He earns that support, not contempt, for trying to remedy the failures of Bush and the past.


""""

from DU

 

[rhubroma]

Why is that? What specific policy do you think she would support contrary to Obama that would make things all rosy? What has Obama done? Raise taxes? No. New ball busting regulation? No. Bomb arabs? Yes. Bush status quo? Yes, and then some. He's doing the same things and more than Bush did and the stock market is up 5k. Scott, WTF is exactly your problem with Obama? Do you even know?

And, why do you think H Clinton would support something different? Remember she was the head cheerleader for *gasp* healthcare reform in 1993. She is the queen of triangulation, and Obama is a willing student. They are the same person other than genitalia and skin color, but of course genitalia is rock to skin color's scizzors in your game. Is tha why she would be better?

As for rubard upthread calling me "deluded" because I am tired of being fed BS then sobeit. Dems keep getting taken advantage of because of people like red and rubarb; at the end of the day no matter how much the dems shyt on them "Dems are better than the alternative" and red/rubarb march on like good little soldiers to the voting booth and save us from the Palin invastion. You guys are tools, and the dem leadership knows it lol.

In reality except for fringe issues that nobody really cares about (gay marriage, etc) Dems do zero in terms of what they confess to believe in with foreign or domestic policy. Look at Feinstein/Obama, raising all that hell about the Patriot act when Bush was in office, now a line toeing defender now that Obama is in office. Gitmo, oh the horror, but it is ok now that Obama is in office. No touching SS....but its tax has been cut and will never come back. Let Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, no way. Hey, let's bomb Libya with freedom missiles! It's all good, I've got red and rubarb's vote lol.

The majority in the US are party loyal rubes like red that bend over for the soap with Dems every couple of years, and "independents" that cannot open their eyes and just sway back and forth between two lobbyist w***ing parties expecting something to change. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. I will keep being deluded rubarb, you guys can keep being insane.

We feel hatred only when we're in the wrong and because we're in the wrong. You've gotten into the habit of thinking - and saying! - that Rhubroma is revolting, that Red is equally revolting, and stupid with it, that Scott is a weakling and a pathetic fool, that they're all idiots. You use this way of thinking as a weapon; this is basically contemptible, but it's probably the only way to assuage a bad conscience. We could just as well rail at you and pillory you for the same malevolence that you've discerned in us all this time. We very soon get used to hating and condemning people without ever asking ourselves if this hatred and condemnation is in any way justified.

In any case I'm quite familiar with your type of "anti-political" position, which is, in many ways, quite justified. However, no political tragedy, not even the worst one, can excuse us from confronting reality, nor does it justify us in yielding to an access of sentimentality and more or less giving up, out of selfishness.

 

[redtreviso]

Chris E.. There is a difference..

"If the bloodbath must come, then let's get on with it!"-- Ronald Reagan

flew in on Enron's gulfstream..

 

[patricknd]

You are really becoming quite accomplished with the use of iatalics. It really adds panache to your posts.

thanks. you're use of bold has been quite effective as well.

and fyi

obama
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)


clinton
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

 

[Anonymous]

thanks. you're use of bold has been quite effective as well.

and fyi

obama
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)


clinton
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

I'm of the opinion that a maior difference exists between BO and Hillary. Had Hillary ascended to the Oval Office, she would understand that she would not get reelected with high unemployment and a staggering economy. She would be intently focused on keeping her behind on air force one. Plus, I don't think the partisanship would be quite so high.

On econmic grounds, I don't see a practical side to Obama.

 

[patricknd]

I'm of the opinion that a maior difference exists between BO and Hillary. Had Hillary ascended to the Oval Office, she would understand that she would not get reelected with high unemployment and a staggering economy. She would be intently focused on keeping her behind on air force one. Plus, I don't think the partisanship would be quite so high.

On econmic grounds, I don't see a practical side to Obama.

unfortunately, you can't go by voting records very much because they're all such party robots, so it's hard to know if they're toeing the line or voting they're beliefs. it's really just a judgement call, or opinion as you said.

 

[redtreviso]

I'm of the opinion that a maior difference exists between BO and Hillary. Had Hillary ascended to the Oval Office, she would understand that she would not get reelected with high unemployment and a staggering economy. She would be intently focused on keeping her behind on air force one. Plus, I don't think the partisanship would be quite so high.

On econmic grounds, I don't see a practical side to Obama.

If Hilary was president your kind would be anti-women on everything instead of just being racists. Oh wait.. your kind is doing that too.

 

[patricknd]

If Hilary was president your kind would be anti-women on everything instead of just being racists. Oh wait.. your kind is doing that too.

your kind? you mean people from california?

 

[Anonymous]

unfortunately, you can't go by voting records very much because they're all such party robots, so it's hard to know if they're toeing the line or voting they're beliefs. it's really just a judgement call, or opinion as you said.

True, but the democratic primaries provided some clues and gave some ability for those paying attention to discern differences that later became the basis of this opinion.

Too much?

 

[Anonymous]

If Hilary was president your kind would be anti-women on everything instead of just being racists. Oh wait.. your kind is doing that too.

Palin's a dude? Geeebus...

Maybe we are just anti-leftist? Herman Cain is black, BTW.

 

[redtreviso]

your kind? you mean people from california?

no.,,, conservatives.. or people that call themselves that..

 

[redtreviso]

Palin's a dude? Geeebus...

Maybe we are just anti-leftist? Herman Cain is black, BTW.

That's funny..she's supposedly anti feminist as is Bachmann.. What better choice could they do? Anti black black person.. oh wait.. an ANTI GAY GAY PERSON..lol.. No shortage of those in YOUR republican party.

http://youtu.be/SsQtE5tI0jg

 

[patricknd]

True, but the democratic primaries provided some clues and gave some ability for those paying attention to discern differences that later became the basis of this opinion.

Too much?

flawless delivery.

 

[redtreviso]

flawless delivery.

He's just awesome..maybe you two could have beers together.

 

[rhubroma]

I'm of the opinion that a maior difference exists between BO and Hillary. Had Hillary ascended to the Oval Office, she would understand that she would not get reelected with high unemployment and a staggering economy. She would be intently focused on keeping her behind on air force one. Plus, I don't think the partisanship would be quite so high.

On econmic grounds, I don't see a practical side to Obama.

Our politicians give a damn about their careers and getting reelected, that's all, for whom the only thing that really matters are the polls. Everything else is a calculated bet. Farsightedness means nothing to them.

Unless it means going to war in the interests of the economy and to maintain our leadership abroad. It is telling and grotesque that issues over health care have caused more of a stir, and ire, more partisanship, than those that came up over going to war in Iraq, both among the political establishment as with the people. The number of democrats then, including Hillary, who had no compunction about providing their support for the bellicose neo-con agenda in Mesopotamia, compared to the absolute hostility of republicans today against any type of health care system that democratically provides for all citizens irrespective of wealth, demonstrates how depraved and rapacious the country has become.

But what I didn't understand, because you didn't explain it, was how Hillary would have lowered unemployment and given vitality to a staggering economy? That is how would less partisanship have resulted in more positive results in terms of these goals? And finally, how would going into a pact with the republicans provided an escape route from the social and economic woes (in terms of high unemployment and a failing, debt burdened citizenry) that their fanatical embrace of a liberal and deregulated financial market capitalism had caused in the first place?

 

[redtreviso]

But what I didn't understand, because you didn't explain it, was how Hillary would have lowered unemployment and given vitality to a staggering economy? That is how would less partisanship have resulted in more positive results in terms of these goals? And finally, how would going into a pact with the republicans provided an escape route from the social and economic woes (in terms of high unemployment and a failing, debt burdened citizenry) that their fanatical embrace of a liberal and deregulated financial market capitalism had caused in the first place?

Republicans are doing everything they can right now to suppress the economy and thus have a better chance in 2012.. Their regulation oppressed supporters on wall street will help any way they can.

 

[rhubroma]

Republicans are doing everything they can right now to suppress the economy and thus have a better chance in 2012.. Their regulation oppressed supporters on wall street will help any way they can.

Which brings us back to point one from the opposition point of view.

 

[patricknd]

He's just awesome..maybe you two could have beers together.

you will be joining us, won't you? come on, you know you'd love it.

 

[redtreviso]

Which brings us back to point one from the opposition point of view.

Once in power the republicans' main concern is weakening potential voting blocks that will not go their way.. Teachers, auto workers, public workers.
Best to take any potential mass opposition down to Wall mart worker level.

 

[redtreviso]

you will be joining us, won't you? come on, you know you'd love it.

I don't like beer.,. The smell reminds me of Mardi Gras.. spilled beer mixed with horse manure and urine , stirred up by streetsweeper..

 

[patricknd]

I don't like beer.,. The smell reminds me of Mardi Gras.. spilled beer mixed with horse manure and urine , stirred up by streetsweeper..

you're obviously not drinking the right beer.

are you having 20 mph winds up there every damn day this year like us?

 

[redtreviso]

you're obviously not drinking the right beer.

are you having 20 mph winds up there every damn day this year like us?

Pretty normal here.. It was calm yesterday evening when I rode though.

 

[patricknd]

Pretty normal here.. It was calm yesterday evening when I rode though.

i think i'm noticing it more because it's so dry it's like getting sandblasted. the tradeoff is i only have to mow twice a month instead of evry 4-5 days

 

[rhubroma]

Once in power the republicans' main concern is weakening potential voting blocks that will not go their way.. Teachers, auto workers, public workers.
Best to take any potential mass opposition down to Wall mart worker level.

You can't leave the huntsmen alone when the hunting season is on.

 

[Cobblestones]

Let's deconstruct.



Tax revenue may be far above projections but way below the level of income required for local and state govts to even stem the deficit spending. Don't get too excited. In Cali, the tax revenue is 2.3 billion above projections but we have a 20 something billion hole.



This is the smart thing to do. The only reason it's happening now instead of two years ago is federal stimulus. In what world does it make sense for public workers who depend on tax receipts for their income to force the federal govt to borrow money from foreign entities and/or print money to sustain jobs that then continue to deplete the treasury as public money pays their salaries? That is just backwards. The only thing the govt should be doing is trimming labor to the point of affordability, just like what happens in the private world. This idea that public service jobs are somehow sacrosanct just contributes to the overall problem. It's essentially a game of kick the can.



Most people might disagree but that does not make them right. Take your example of invested monies... where did the money originate from for you to invest? Either from your labor or the labor of someone else (in the event you either inherited the money or stole it). Taxes are the taking of labor any way you slice it.



Finally, there is a reason the tax code is not and likely will never be simplified. It will remove a big portion of central power from Washington DC. The political class won't stand for that.

This is where we disagree. In a time of recession, the government should not exacerbate the crisis by shedding public jobs as well. Au contraire, it should try an anticyclical, Keynesian approach.

Here's where you're completely wrong. Government is no business and shouldn't be run as a business. Government doesn't produce, doesn't sell products, doesn't make profits, and can set its own revenues, even print money.

Government, as an actor in the economy can either smooth out economic cycles or make them worse. Following your ideas will make things worse. Your ideas will actually deplete the treasury much faster because of lack of revenue in a rapidly contracting economy. And moving public employees from jobs to welfare just isn't effective use of resources. Every economic model supports my points. There's no economic model which supports your ideas. Only at the most superficial regard, without the grasp of any consequences, does lay offs of public workers during a recession make sense.

And your definition of tax as 'confiscating labor' is so tortured that it only makes sense within some weird economic theory where you have to bend your definitions far beyond the breaking point to make them conform to whatever ideology you might adhere to.

By the way, while researching Wisconsin's tax revenue for 2010, I found that the number for Cali is more like +$6B (although it doesn't say to which projection it compares to). These tax revenues above projection are real income from 2010 numbers. It shows that the economy is in fact picking up more than expected. You don't want to kill that upswing by putting lot of public workers out of their jobs.