World Politics

[ChrisE]

Obama will not be re-elected. You heard it here first.

Payrolls increased by just 18,000 in June, the Labor Department said in its monthly jobs report, released this morning. That's even fewer than May's anemic total, which in today's report was revised from 54,000 down to 25,000.

The overall unemployment figure ticked up slightly to 9.2 percent, from 9.1 percent. There are now 14.1 million Americans officially counted as unemployed. Millions more are out of work but don't show up in the numbers, after they'd grown discouraged and stopped looking for a job.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/june-swoon-economy-added-almost-no-jobs-last-125737430.html


In other news is Obama's golf handicap is falling and expected to be in the low teens by the time he's voted out of office.

So, who do you think will get elected?

 

[redtreviso]

Did they get "freedom fries" with that?????



------------------------------------
""The lawmaker responsible for crafting a Republican budget plan that would effectively kill Medicare isn't as frugal when it comes to his own money.

Rutgers associate business professor Susan Feinberg told Talking Points Memo that she was at a Washington, D.C. restaurant Tuesday when she saw Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) with a bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru at his table.

According to their wine list, the restaurant sells each bottle for $350.

Feinberg was even more shocked when a waiter delivered a second bottle to the table. """

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/08/paul-ryan-caught-buying-350-bottle-of-wine/

 

[redtreviso]

I bet our resident RWDB subscriber doesn't quote this..


""The Economist: Republicans are "economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical""""


""The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes.

...

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.""

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600

 

[Anonymous]

So, who do you think will get elected?

I don't know. Too early to tell. If the economy is on it's azz like it is right now anyone will beat him.

What do you think of Obama raising $75 Million in the second quarter? $25 Million per month....

Wouldn't those rich donors be doing society a better service by just sending that money to Timmy over at Treasury? Maybe for every dollar they give to BO they could send a dollar to Timmy.

Maybe BO could send half his donation money to Timmy. Shared sacrifice and all.


Hmmm... at $25 million per month it would take 733 years to pay off our deficit that we racked up in February (just the principal, not counting interest). At least it's a start.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yea, but I met a guy recently from Houston who lives in some private development and, rather than pay property tax, he pays a "membership fee."

YOU are either making it up or full of ****.

 

[redtreviso]

YOU are either making it up or full of ****.

Isn't that sentence kind of redunduentt?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was going to post a question. "Y'all still sucking on this politics thing?" but after reading the last page I got my own answer. Good luck with the upcoming election year asshats!

We will only elect who the media tells us to elect anyhow. No rub please go back to your tomato can in Rome or wherever it is that you reside and add some basil!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Isn't that sentence kind of redunduentt?

Yeah my Whisky Tango brain is stuck on the non sentence structure! LMAO

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't know. Too early to tell. If the economy is on it's azz like it is right now anyone will beat him.

I'm not so sure. He definitely screwed up any serious chance he had to make changes in the first year of his Presidency. What he did accomplish has to be considered a wash, at best. He's also caved into what liberal/progressives think is the worst of the GOP's demands, making himself look soft and timid. And he's had Bill Clinton indirectly criticize him and compare what he did regarding taxes to what Obama (and the GOP) has proposed, and most people, regardless of party, or knowledge level it seems, can understand the difference and agree with him.

Having said that, I have seen nothing, zip, nada on the GOP side that lends me to think anyone there can beat him. They are so devoid of original ideas. Most of them are rooted in the same Bush-like economic plans and I just don't think the middle/left of the country see that as any positive change, nor that people are so angry at Obama that they want to go through that hell again.

I should also note that probably the best GOP candidate to win the general election would be Huntsman, but I don't see him getting out of the primaries, as the tea party automatons that are so vocal, and showing up to pay for people like Bachman won't want him; though he is loaded with personal wealth. But the others? Romney? Flopper who will have to run against what he built his career on. Pawlenty has been a big disappointment with zero new ideas. Paul? Old. Giuliani? Old. Cain? Who? If Bachman, Palin, Santorum or Rick Perry get the nod it's quite possible it will bring out many sheeple to hold their nose and vote for Obama just to keep them from getting in office.

I'd say it's stupidly obvious now that we should have elected Hillary, but it goes beyond that. It seems like every election cycle I get more disappointed by the results, and the campaigns become more homogenized, and corrupted. It's an ugly, sick system filled with crooks who help pay their way. Some at the tip top benefit, and the rest of us are left with scraps.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not so sure. He definitely screwed up any serious chance he had to make changes in the first year of his Presidency. What he did accomplish has to be considered a wash, at best. He's also caved into what liberal/progressives think is the worst of the GOP's demands, making himself look soft and timid. And he's had Bill Clinton indirectly criticize him and compare what he did regarding taxes to what Obama (and the GOP) has proposed, and most people, regardless of party, or knowledge level it seems, can understand the difference and agree with him.

Having said that, I have seen nothing, zip, nada on the GOP side that lends me to think anyone there can beat him. They are so devoid of original ideas. Most of them are rooted in the same Bush-like economic plans and I just don't think the middle/left of the country see that as any positive change, nor that people are so angry at Obama that they want to go through that hell again.

I should also note that probably the best GOP candidate to win the general election would be Huntsman, but I don't see him getting out of the primaries, as the tea party automatons that are so vocal, and showing up to pay for people like Bachman won't want him; though he is loaded with personal wealth. But the others? Romney? Flopper who will have to run against what he built his career on. Pawlenty has been a big disappointment with zero new ideas. Paul? Old. Giuliani? Old. Cain? Who? If Bachman, Palin, Santorum or Rick Perry get the nod it's quite possible it will bring out many sheeple to hold their nose and vote for Obama just to keep them from getting in office.

I'd say it's stupidly obvious now that we should have elected Hillary, but it goes beyond that. It seems like every election cycle I get more disappointed by the results, and the campaigns become more homogenized, and corrupted. It's an ugly, sick system filled with crooks who help pay their way. Some at the tip top benefit, and the rest of us are left with scraps.

Assuming the GOP candidate has reasonable communication skills, which is a big assumption, Obama will get blistered in the debates. It will be 'in your face' economic data and it ain't pretty and the economy will not recover much in the next year or so. He will not be able to defend the stimulus on any level. He will not be able to defend Obamacare on any level. He will not be able to defend his economic policy on any level. He will not be able to defend adding 5 Trillion in debt on any level. He will be exposed as an academic theorist having no practical 'real world' experience and the press is not nearly as in love with him as they were in 2008. He's clearly lost the independents as well.

He's in trouble. The first time his opponent looks into the camera and asks the American public, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" will be the beginning of what might be a 4 or 5 point loss in the general. He has no record except a consistently high number on the misery index. And I don't think blaming Bush works anymore.

 

[redtreviso]

Assuming the GOP candidate has reasonable communication skills, which is a big assumption, Obama will get blistered in the debates. It will be 'in your face' economic data and it ain't pretty and the economy will not recover much in the next year or so. He will not be able to defend the stimulus on any level. He will not be able to defend Obamacare on any level. He will not be able to defend his economic policy on any level. He will not be able to defend adding 5 Trillion in debt on any level. He will be exposed as an academic theorist having no practical 'real world' experience and the press is not nearly as in love with him as they were in 2008. He's clearly lost the independents as well.

He's in trouble. The first time his opponent looks into the camera and asks the American public, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" will be the beginning of what might be a 4 or 5 point loss in the general. He has no record except a consistently high number on the misery index. And I don't think blaming Bush works anymore.

It should,, and you know it..

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Assuming....

But I don't see that. I don't see any GOP candidate standing up there and say "we need an economic policy very similar to what Bush did, and it will fix everything" and people nodding their heads in agreement.

I also don't see the "are you better off" working either. Because I don't think people see Obama as the impetus of the problem. Most people would feel it's about the same, and he has done little. But until someone can show that cutting taxes, continued war financing, while gutting programs people need to actually live on actually will work...

I also don't see people seeing anything from Obamacare one way or the other. It's this thing that hasn't affected them. But at the same time, people don't think cutting Medicare and Medicaid, while doing nothing is the answer either.

I still think the deficit/debt issue is too abstract for most people. It's a buzz term. The numbers are so high, they blend together into oblivion. People can't put together that $12 trillion debt equals their Medicare needing to be cut. People see a jobs or wages deficit first and foremost, and I don't see anyone on the GOP offering anything to stand on saying they'll change that. Unless people believe, as you seem to, that going back to policies of the Bush administration are going to be beneficial to them. Because that's pretty much what I see from every GOP candidate.

 

[rhubroma]

But I don't see that. I don't see any GOP candidate standing up there and say "we need an economic policy very similar to what Bush did, and it will fix everything" and people nodding their heads in agreement.

I also don't see the "are you better off" working either. Because I don't think people see Obama as the impetus of the problem. Most people would feel it's about the same, and he has done little. But until someone can show that cutting taxes, continued war financing, while gutting programs people need to actually live on actually will work...

I also don't see people seeing anything from Obamacare one way or the other. It's this thing that hasn't affected them. But at the same time, people don't think cutting Medicare and Medicaid, while doing nothing is the answer either.

I still think the deficit/debt issue is too abstract for most people. It's a buzz term. The numbers are so high, they blend together into oblivion. People can't put together that $12 trillion debt equals their Medicare needing to be cut. People see a jobs or wages deficit first and foremost, and I don't see anyone on the GOP offering anything to stand on saying they'll change that. Unless people believe, as you seem to, that going back to policies of the Bush administration are going to be beneficial to them. Because that's pretty much what I see from every GOP candidate.

The US needs to cut financing of its military machine by at least 20% and then raise taxes heaviest among the top 20% of its wage earners and corporate entities, while enacting a law forbidding the latter from closing shop and moving off-shore where the fiscal burden is lighter.

These are the folks (the military and the ultra-rich), who were especially egged on and abetted during the Bush years to increase spending while not contributing to the social well-being (a situation that was further exacerbated when Wall Street blew up and society was called in by government to bail out the banks with their taxes), which dug the disastrous whole the country finds itself in right now.

They should, therefore, be the ones who assume the brunt of the burden today and tomorrow.

 

[rhubroma]

YOU are either making it up or full of ****.

Nope, he worked in the oil business too. So kiss my a$$.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't know if I agree with the tax part of your statement, but defense could definitely be cut.

I was mostly just saying I don't see or hear anything out of anyone on the GOP's side that lends me to think people are going to run to them because Obama is that bad. The vast majority of their ideas are basically an extension of what Bush gave us, with bigger cuts to social services that many people rely on, and are pretty popular. Huntsman seems to be the most diplomatic and best possible choice for the general election, and I don't see him getting past about Super Tuesday, maybe.

The GOP would need to find someone like Jesse Ventura to take on Obama. But he won't associate himself with either party no matter what, so that's a no-go. I honestly don't know who else is out there that can rise above the creme of the crap and do it.

Meanwhile, this game of chicken with the debt ceiling is interesting. It seems to me that Obama is blinking almost every step of the way and he'll probably cave here too and flip flop on some of his campaign promises about maintaining Medicare and Social Security.

 

[patricknd]

Nope, he worked in the oil business too. So kiss my a$$.

rule #1 never trust anyone in the oil business

 

[redtreviso]

""Conservatives need pledges to assuage their distrust—of others and of themselves. They do not trust others to be truthful and faithful; and they don’t trust themselves to be truthful and faithful unless bound by some remote article to be so. And the politicians who sign these pledges need to be reminded what they must purport to believe even if they don’t ...""

http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-republican-pledge-fetish/

ps--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-xc24C8g

 

[rhubroma]

I don't know if I agree with the tax part of your statement, but defense could definitely be cut.

I was mostly just saying I don't see or hear anything out of anyone on the GOP's side that lends me to think people are going to run to them because Obama is that bad. The vast majority of their ideas are basically an extension of what Bush gave us, with bigger cuts to social services that many people rely on, and are pretty popular. Huntsman seems to be the most diplomatic and best possible choice for the general election, and I don't see him getting past about Super Tuesday, maybe.

The GOP would need to find someone like Jesse Ventura to take on Obama. But he won't associate himself with either party no matter what, so that's a no-go. I honestly don't know who else is out there that can rise above the creme of the crap and do it.

Meanwhile, this game of chicken with the debt ceiling is interesting. It seems to me that Obama is blinking almost every step of the way and he'll probably cave here too and flip flop on some of his campaign promises about maintaining Medicare and Social Security.

Why because they generate the big bucks at the same time?

What's making huge sums of money if social injustice exists?

America has about 80 million checks to write to people who mostly need the social services, but risks for the first time in its history defaulting on payments.

Saying that those checks shouldn't be written is a recipe for social disaster.

I have only suggested where the money should stop being spent and where it should be collected to avoid catastrophe.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nope, he worked in the oil business too. So kiss my a$$.

You are that stupid? I drink you're shake ...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

""Conservatives need pledges to assuage their distrust—of others and of themselves. They do not trust others to be truthful and faithful; and they don’t trust themselves to be truthful and faithful unless bound by some remote article to be so. And the politicians who sign these pledges need to be reminded what they must purport to believe even if they don’t ...""

http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-republican-pledge-fetish/

ps--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-xc24C8g

Oh my Goodness. YOU ARE A ASSHAT SIR. trying to get these guys to look like a bunch of dope smoking pledgers! I know your dope smoking type. Try to put down the bong or the pipe rube.

 

[redtreviso]

Oh my Goodness. YOU ARE A ASSHAT SIR. trying to get these guys to look like a bunch of dope smoking pledgers! I know your dope smoking type. Try to put down the bong or the pipe rube.

Those people need to smoke dope in the worst way.. and the world would be such a better place for EVERYONE ELSE..

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Those people need to smoke dope in the worst way.. and the world would be such a better place for EVERYONE ELSE..

That could be true Redtreviso! Maybe if they all hit the bong we will be much BUTTARD off.

 

[rhubroma]

You are that stupid? I drink you're shake ...

Dude, give up on it. The guy was reliable. He lives in a freakin housing development in the north of Houston, where instead of paying state taxes he pays a sort of "membership fee" (to use his words), which is then used to outsource such services as policing and public education from the state.

Either way the state gets paid, however it isn't technically through taxsation, which is ideologically a rather telling thing in the home of American oil.

Now I'd switch bottles yourself there fellow, because it's making you go ***.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

""Conservatives need pledges to assuage their distrust—of others and of themselves. They do not trust others to be truthful and faithful; and they don’t trust themselves to be truthful and faithful unless bound by some remote article to be so.

Except when it comes to economies, it's the opposite. It's the liberals who think people can't be trusted to be fair with their money, thus the need for government.

And that's the crux of a lot of the argument, isn't it? The conservatives think there should be as little of government as possible, some think no government, because people can be trusted enough to hash nearly everything out on their own in a fair and equitable enough manner and to stop that stops progress and growth. The liberals think that won't ever happen; enough people will be inherently greedy and ruthless that they'll prey on others and create a dystopic society of the predators and the oppressed, with nothing between, and the only solution is government overseeing it.

 

[redtreviso]

Except when it comes to economies, it's the opposite. It's the liberals who think people can't be trusted to be fair with their money, thus the need for government.

And that's the crux of a lot of the argument, isn't it? The conservatives think there should be as little of government as possible, some think no government, because people can be trusted enough to hash nearly everything out on their own in a fair and equitable enough manner and to stop that stops progress and growth. The liberals think that won't ever happen; enough people will be inherently greedy and ruthless that they'll prey on others and create a dystopic society of the predators and the oppressed, with nothing between, and the only solution is government overseeing it.

Liberals are right.. conservatives are wrong and prove it each time one is elected. People cannot be trusted much less a corporation as a person. Order is not going to be maintained by (stock symbol xyz)out of the goodness of its heart.