World Politics

[Semper Fidelis]

Don't post here often as seeminly there are two camps that are well entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing posted will change the mind or sway the other camp, so i read but don't post. I am very liberal socially. Hate attacks on voters rights and womens rights. Don't like we insert religion, Christian mainly, in our political system. I am protective of our water ways precious to our survival in the West.

I liked his speech tonight. He was not the professor in his delivery with long winded examples. He broke things down very simply for the 30 second phrases crew. (those independents who wanted to have a beer with Bush so they voted for him)

Like that he called out the no tax repubs on their non-action on payroll tax cut set to expire, yet dealt with bush cuts for wealthy already.

Like that he gave direct examples... you are either for this or for that pitting a middle class benefit against a wealthy advantage. They make good slogans for an election. I was stuck on one of the crumbling, overcrowded highways in my carpool coming home from work so only listened on radio, but had commentary in car as speech was broadcast, so can't recall every word. I think one of these examples was to close tax loopholes for wealthy so they pay more or you employ more teachers...

Wish mainstream media in the US would show the clip not shown on tv during the debate showing Perry getting in the face of Paul. He even made contact with the 70 something year old man...If you have to bully a 70 year old man, not sure you are balanced enough to be president.

Now on to my 2nd favorite sport football!!!

What speech you talking about?

 

[frenchfry]

...
Much of Europe is collapsing from the weight of promises made to the public under the guise of social conscious. Time and time again this fails. You hope, by failure of a system that has never worked (on a grand scale), that Europe will be led to discovery. Discovery of what? The 25th re-work of a socialist model that will ultimately fail (again)?
...

The debt problem in the US is relatively recent compared to much of Europe, which has been living beyond its means forever. There is no attempt at reducing the spending of a bloated government, and transfer payments to individuals have created a generation of which a large percentage is assisted and non productive. The French social security budget had a 30 billion euro deficit in 2010 and this will certainly grow in the future, this is on top of the general budget deficit. Each succeeding government adds more handouts that once given can never be taken away. Each measure is financed by an additional short term tax that never disappears. I fully believe in a social security safety net, but implementing a cycle of dependence is showing its limits.

Quite different from what I know of the US system, but destined for failure all the same.

So where does this leave us?

 

[rhubroma]

The debt problem in the US is relatively recent compared to much of Europe, which has been living beyond its means forever. There is no attempt at reducing the spending of a bloated government, and transfer payments to individuals have created a generation of which a large percentage is assisted and non productive. The French social security budget had a 30 billion euro deficit in 2010 and this will certainly grow in the future, this is on top of the general budget deficit. Each succeeding government adds more handouts that once given can never be taken away. Each measure is financed by an additional short term tax that never disappears. I fully believe in a social security safety net, but implementing a cycle of dependence is showing its limits.

Quite different from what I know of the US system, but destined for failure all the same.

So where does this leave us?

Europe’s' biggest problem, and I can't say this loudly enough, is that the rich don't pay their taxes. Unfortunately, if it were only the rich, a means for government to fight it would perhaps be more approachable, because the general masses would be so outraged and behind it that something would have to be done about it.

Given that there are so many evaders among the bourgeois middle class and independent workers too, they can't denounce what they are equally guilty of. The system would work fine if this problem were to be resolved.

The only people paying all their taxes are the permanently employed, either by the state or in the private sector, which means people like me as a teacher. So not only do I get paid a pittance, but everything I owe to the Italian state gets paid. Although when I get sick I have access to healthcare, a public transportation system that allows me to live without a car, which is a big savings, and several other amenities that allow me to live at least with a bit of dignity. Recently I read that in Italy 300,000 luxury cars worth over 100,000 euro each were sold, but only 200,000 Italians declared to the state earnings of over 300,000 or more per year. This is the real problem. Tax evasion.

Thus it isn't a question of ethics with a mixed social-capitalist system, but rather that the capitalist part works all to, or reasonably well, while the socialist part is mortally ill. Though this isn't a problem of principle, but practice.

One day Europe will resolve this, however, or else is destined to fail, because they will never subscribe to the barbary of the US system.

 

[rhubroma]

Well Rhub, we all have opinions. That I can't understand something is a bit of your arrogance showing.



Much of Europe is collapsing from the weight of promises made to the public under the guise of social conscious. Time and time again this fails. You hope, by failure of a system that has never worked (on a grand scale), that Europe will be led to discovery. Discovery of what? The 25th re-work of a socialist model that will ultimately fail (again)?

Poor Obama. Just a victim of circumstance. I guess none of the situation the US economy is in right this second has anything whatsoever to do with this president. It's entirely the fault of the last guy.

Priceless analysis.

I merely state what demands to be said, whereas you are arrogance personified.

Oh and uber-capitalist America isn't weighed down by gargantuan debt and isn't unsustainably stretched in its imperialist campaigns!?!? HA! Are people at least getting healthcare, education, retirement pensions, aside from just having to pay for Wall Street's excesses and finance the mastodon military apparatus?!? How many homeless are there on the streets of your state Scott?

No I merely think that your system is totally unsustainable, morally without principle and will one day become an historical relica a result. Whereas perhaps there will be 125 failed attempts at a social based model before arriving at one that works, but by dint of catastrophy or revolution that day will eventually come. It is the only system that has any chance of prevailing, along with a major modification of consumption, if human civilization has any long term future.

Right... while chalking it all up to incompetence alone, without admitting to what had come before makes your analysis a wonder of insightfulness.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, I don't think that speech is going to change much of anything. It certainly will not ensure his jobs bill passes.

Pretty much agree. He didn't really say much anything he hasn't before. He did show a little more passion I guess, and did as Rides Like a Girl said, chop things into 30 second phrases. And he seemed to subtlety be trying to show people the difference between rational Republicans and the Tea Party. But I just didn't hear anything that new in his ideas. Nor did it give me any indication that he was ready to really put his fists up and fight like so many of us know he has to.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really expect this proposal to be talked to death, most of the extremes will get all the attention in the media, and almost zero change between now and the next election.

 

[frenchfry]

Europe’s' biggest problem, and I can't say this loudly enough, is that the rich don't pay their taxes. Unfortunately, if it were only the rich, a means for government to fight it would perhaps be more approachable, because the general masses would be so outraged and behind it that something would have to be done about it.

Given that there are so many evaders among the bourgeois middle class and independent workers too, they can't denounce what they are equally guilty of. The system would work fine if this problem were to be resolved.

The only people paying all their taxes are the permanently employed, either by the state or in the private sector, which means people like me as a teacher. So not only do I get paid a pittance, but everything I owe to the Italian state gets paid. Although when I get sick I have access to healthcare, a public transportation system that allows me to live without a car, which is a big savings, and several other amenities that allow me to live at least with a bit of dignity. Recently I read that in Italy 300,000 luxury cars worth over 100,000 euro each were sold, but only 200,000 Italians declared to the state earnings of over 300,000 or more per year. This is the real problem. Tax evasion.

Thus it isn't a question of ethics with a mixed social-capitalist system, but rather that the capitalist part works all to, or reasonably well, while the socialist part is mortally ill. Though this isn't a problem of principle, but practice.

One day Europe will resolve this, however, or else is destined to fail, because they will never subscribe to the barbary of the US system.

To be honest I don't know if the rich French pay their fair share of taxes or not, and in any case most of them seem to have moved to Switzerland or Monaco. I do know that those with modest incomes pay no income taxes at all, although they are still heavily taxed through the TVA (value added tax) and gasoline taxes.

A big problem here is that you can make about the same from government handouts as working (if not more). This significantly reduces the incentive for working and ensures a high unemployment rate even when times are good. Thus the cycle of dependence, which once started is difficult to break.

We spent a few days in Italy this summer (val di Susa and Torino), wonderful country!

 

[rhubroma]

To be honest I don't know if the rich French pay their fair share of taxes or not, and in any case most of them seem to have moved to Switzerland or Monaco. I do know that those with modest incomes pay no income taxes at all, although they are still heavily taxed through the TVA (value added tax) and gasoline taxes.

A big problem here is that you can make about the same from government handouts as working (if not more). This significantly reduces the incentive for working and ensures a high unemployment rate even when times are good. Thus the cycle of dependence, which once started is difficult to break.

We spent a few days in Italy this summer (val di Susa and Torino), wonderful country!

Thus they don't pay their taxes. Sure they've "moved" there.

 

[patricknd]

To be honest I don't know if the rich French pay their fair share of taxes or not, and in any case most of them seem to have moved to Switzerland or Monaco. I do know that those with modest incomes pay no income taxes at all, although they are still heavily taxed through the TVA (value added tax) and gasoline taxes.

A big problem here is that you can make about the same from government handouts as working (if not more). This significantly reduces the incentive for working and ensures a high unemployment rate even when times are good. Thus the cycle of dependence, which once started is difficult to break.We spent a few days in Italy this summer (val di Susa and Torino), wonderful country!

sounds awfully republican to me. sic him red

 

[redtreviso]

Pretty much agree. He didn't really say much anything he hasn't before. He did show a little more passion I guess, and did as Rides Like a Girl said, chop things into 30 second phrases. And he seemed to subtlety be trying to show people the difference between rational Republicans and the Tea Party. But I just didn't hear anything that new in his ideas. Nor did it give me any indication that he was ready to really put his fists up and fight like so many of us know he has to.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really expect this proposal to be talked to death, most of the extremes will get all the attention in the media, and almost zero change between now and the next election.

I see which extreme has your attention..You sure you don't live in Houston?

 

[Amsterhammer]

who are the right wingers? Hey do me a favor and stay an expat. I do not need your stupid revolution.

I can not wait to vote for Perry and his guns!

What speech you talking about?

I can only presume that you think that these contributions to the discussion are cute, or that you are trolling. Either way, they make you look like a complete idiot. Just to reassure you, a herd of wild horses couldn't get me anywhere near Texas.

Say what you want about the intellectual dwarfs on stage, one of them will be our next President.

Doesn't that sad possibility perfectly confirm the total bankruptcy of the political process and the rampant dementia on the Republican side? And doesn't it clearly demonstrate why anyone who is not a right wing loonie will have no choice but to vote for Obama, if they bother to vote at all?

You are certainly not alone in that view. Nixon was criminal, that's well established. GWB evil? I suppose that only makes sense if you believe the worst theories regarding Iraq or perhaps if you believe other theories of 9/11 being an inside job.

I don't know what's in GWB's heart and I'll bet you don't either.

This brings us back to the difference in perceptions within the US and abroad. As Rhub and I have tried to explain (only to be accused of arrogance by you,) Europe by and large sees Dubya as an evil warmonger who should have been brought to justice. He is also viewed (by all parts of the political spectrum) as a moron who was visibly in the pocket of certain business interests. I don't have to know what was in his heart to be convinced that he was evil (and no, I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy believer). Anyone with eyes and a grain of common sense can also see that eight years of Dubya's corrupt, warmongering rule had infinitely more to do with the depth of the current economic crisis than two or three years of Obama's so far ineffective counter-measures.

Obama has not faced opposition much if any different then Clinton faced, Bush faced or Reagan faced. The left lost their mind from the minute GWB was sworn in after the 2000 election. The left lost their mind when Reagan was elected. I'm old enough to remember those those days. Tip O'Neil and the boys were pretty freaking hard on Reagan.

The right came pretty close to impeaching Clinton. Bush has been savaged by the left. So don't think that opposition to Obama is something new.

Obama's race has nothing to do with anything. His incompetence has a lot to do with everything.

Give me a break Scott, this is just utter bull**** revisionism. There is no 'left' in US politics. There is only a 'sane right', as opposed to the loony right. No President has faced the kind of vicious personal abuse that Obama has had to put up with from day one. No President has had to deal with organized opposition from a lunatic radical splinter group within the opposition party. His color may not be an issue for you, but it is embarrassingly disingenuous of you to pretend that race has nothing to do with it. The US still has plenty of racist bigots who are not ashamed to come out in public for their warped views. I do, however, have to agree that Obama's perceived and actual incompetence will be a major issue next year.

.....Belgium

What in the name of all that is holy has Belgium got to do with anything, apart from being a diversion on your part? If anything, Belgium demonstrates that a country can apparently carry on indefinitely without a legitimate, elected government as long as certain social safety nets remain in place. I have also never claimed that Europe is a paragon of anything, or that things here all work the way we might like them to. On the whole, by and large, in general, etc European states have systems of government that more accurately reflect the breadth and divergence of public opinion and that do not lead to moronic warmongers being elected.

Well, I don't think that speech is going to change much of anything. It certainly will not ensure his jobs bill passes.

Pretty much agree. He didn't really say much anything he hasn't before. He did show a little more passion I guess, and did as Rides Like a Girl said, chop things into 30 second phrases. And he seemed to subtlety be trying to show people the difference between rational Republicans and the Tea Party. But I just didn't hear anything that new in his ideas. Nor did it give me any indication that he was ready to really put his fists up and fight like so many of us know he has to.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really expect this proposal to be talked to death, most of the extremes will get all the attention in the media, and almost zero change between now and the next election.

Serious question to you both (or anyone else) - what did you expect him to say? What could he have said, and how could he have said it in order to gain your approval? The speech has received generally favorable reactions over here, fwiw.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Don't post here often as seeminly there are two camps that are well entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing posted will change the mind or sway the other camp, so i read but don't post. I am very liberal socially. Hate attacks on voters rights and womens rights. Don't like we insert religion, Christian mainly, in our political system. I am protective of our water ways precious to our survival in the West.

I liked his speech tonight. He was not the professor in his delivery with long winded examples. He broke things down very simply for the 30 second phrases crew. (those independents who wanted to have a beer with Bush so they voted for him)

Well, I don't think that speech is going to change much of anything. It certainly will not ensure his jobs bill passes.

Why does Congress need to give standing ovations after every sentence a speaker or Guest says? I remember when the AUs PM gave a speech to congress that they gave her 20 standing ovations. Some of them were even crying (I presume they were bored to tears with her sycophantic bull****). What a load of bull****. You're not in congress to ****ing clap. You are suppose to do your job whcih is govern the country.

 

[Anonymous]

Pretty much agree. He didn't really say much anything he hasn't before. He did show a little more passion I guess, and did as Rides Like a Girl said, chop things into 30 second phrases. And he seemed to subtlety be trying to show people the difference between rational Republicans and the Tea Party. But I just didn't hear anything that new in his ideas. Nor did it give me any indication that he was ready to really put his fists up and fight like so many of us know he has to.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really expect this proposal to be talked to death, most of the extremes will get all the attention in the media, and almost zero change between now and the next election.

Fantastic post. That was my impression exactly.

I didn't like the 30 second bits. I thought he should have spent more time on things like explaining more about how he is going to pay for it. He left too many questions open regarding the issues the people who oppose him want to hear. I know they would probably not be swayed anyway, but when you don't answer those questions at all, you allow the other side to then offer their opinion of those issues, and they will NEVER give you the benefit of the doubt. One conservative friend said 30 seconds after the speech said it would be paid for by printing more money.

I think by hammering on the phrase "pass this jobs bill now" he ensured it will die a slow and agonizing death. He cannot afford another beating like that right now.

From what I saw two nights ago, Mitt Romney will be our next president. What is interesting is that people on MSNBC are playing up Perry still (I believe because the Democrats would rather fight Perry than Romney), but talking with a couple of conservative friends, both said they were inclined towards Perry until watching that debate. Both said they were firmly in the Romney camp now. Perry was a bumbling idiot, and much too similar to another C student from Texas. Romney played much more of the middle ground the other night (he knew his audience), and if he keeps that up without making some hard shift right on social issues, should be able to win handily from what I see.

Obama has caved in entirely too much, and when someone who supported him as much as I did believes he is a weak leader, his chances are limited IMO. I will still likely vote for him because I believe the "cut, cap, and balance" idea is stupid in the midst of a severe recession, but it will be only out of principle that I do so. I cannot see him garnering much enthusiastic support. Maybe I will feel differently next year when they come here to have the convention. Being the only law school in town, we have some access to the events because of the connections of some of our professors, so I might actually get to go.

Regardless, I just cannot see the unemployment rate dropping too much in the next year for two reasons: 1. Our economy is simply not strong enough to foster that kind of hiring, and 2. Republicans have a vested interest in making sure people stay unemployed because that wins elections for the opposition to the people in power. They will do everything they can to ensure our economy stays in the crapper--and they don't have to do too much to ensure that. Keynsian economics is the only thing that will affect things quickly enough for positive employment numbers, and that isn't going to happen.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I didn't like the 30 second bits.

Hey, this is sound bite country. The average listener is not very bright, how else should he reinforce the essence of the message?

I think by hammering on the phrase "pass this jobs bill now" he ensured it will die a slow and agonizing death. He cannot afford another beating like that right now.

What, he should have said, 'take your time guys, we're in no rush'?

Obama has caved in entirely too much, and when someone who supported him as much as I did believes he is a weak leader, his chances are limited IMO. I will still likely vote for him because I believe the "cut, cap, and balance" idea is stupid in the midst of a severe recession, but it will be only out of principle that I do so. I cannot see him garnering much enthusiastic support.

Can only agree with this. I may let myself be persuaded to vote again if it looks like it's going to be very close, otherwise I will once again not bother. Obama was only the second candidate I ever voted for because he was only the second man I ever felt positively enough about. I have always refused to vote out of purely negative reasons, choosing the lesser of two evils. The only other candidate I ever voted for was a long time ago.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, this is sound bite country. The average listener is not very bright, how else should he reinforce the essence of the message?




What, he should have said, 'take your time guys, we're in no rush'?



Can only agree with this. I may let myself be persuaded to vote again if it looks like it's going to be very close, otherwise I will once again not bother. Obama was only the second candidate I ever voted for because he was only the second man I ever felt positively enough about. I have always refused to vote out of purely negative reasons, choosing the lesser of two evils. The only other candidate I ever voted for was a long time ago.

Obama seems to believe that putting forth an idea that will be voted down by your opposition is his best play right now. The problem there is for a LEADER who has sustained several losses, losing another one and blaming it on your opposition is a p!ss poor strategy and only makes you look even less like a LEADER.

His only real option evaporated long ago, and that would have been to stick to Keynsian economic philosophy fervently, and hammer again and again about why it is a superior idea to cutting taxes and spending in times of recession. The problem is that he caved on that idea almost immediately. He watered down his stimulus, he watered down his health care bill, he watered down his options in the debt ceiling debate, he has ceded more ground than Germany did in 1945. If people know what your actual ideas are, and all you do is present the watered down ideas of your opposition, why would people not just let your opposition do the leading? Why would people who want more conservative reform want that from a liberal? Obama could have convinced some of those people that conservative reform is insane right now (it is), but he didn't. He just convinced us that he didn't have the strength to put his native ideas in place.

Bad politics. He will just be seen as weaker once he loses this battle.

 

[Anonymous]

Doesn't that sad possibility perfectly confirm the total bankruptcy of the political process and the rampant dementia on the Republican side? And doesn't it clearly demonstrate why anyone who is not a right wing loonie will have no choice but to vote for Obama, if they bother to vote at all?



This brings us back to the difference in perceptions within the US and abroad. As Rhub and I have tried to explain (only to be accused of arrogance by you,) Europe by and large sees Dubya as an evil warmonger who should have been brought to justice. He is also viewed (by all parts of the political spectrum) as a moron who was visibly in the pocket of certain business interests. I don't have to know what was in his heart to be convinced that he was evil (and no, I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy believer). Anyone with eyes and a grain of common sense can also see that eight years of Dubya's corrupt, warmongering rule had infinitely more to do with the depth of the current economic crisis than two or three years of Obama's so far ineffective counter-measures.



Give me a break Scott, this is just utter bull**** revisionism. There is no 'left' in US politics. There is only a 'sane right', as opposed to the loony right. No President has faced the kind of vicious personal abuse that Obama has had to put up with from day one. No President has had to deal with organized opposition from a lunatic radical splinter group within the opposition party. His color may not be an issue for you, but it is embarrassingly disingenuous of you to pretend that race has nothing to do with it. The US still has plenty of racist bigots who are not ashamed to come out in public for their warped views. I do, however, have to agree that Obama's perceived and actual incompetence will be a major issue next year.




What in the name of all that is holy has Belgium got to do with anything, apart from being a diversion on your part? If anything, Belgium demonstrates that a country can apparently carry on indefinitely without a legitimate, elected government as long as certain social safety nets remain in place. I have also never claimed that Europe is a paragon of anything, or that things here all work the way we might like them to. On the whole, by and large, in general, etc European states have systems of government that more accurately reflect the breadth and divergence of public opinion and that do not lead to moronic warmongers being elected.

Doesn't that sad possibility perfectly confirm the total bankruptcy of the political process and the rampant dementia on the Republican side?

No. The "intelluctual dwarf" comment was somone else's, not mine. It's fashionable to label everyone on the right as something less than bright. It's what you guys do. You are so arrogant in your political belief structure that anyone who disagrees with you and the "rest of the world" can not possibly be sane. You and Rhubroma are cut from the same cloth.

As Rhub and I have tried to explain (only to be accused of arrogance by you,) Europe by and large sees Dubya as an evil warmonger who should have been brought to justice. He is also viewed (by all parts of the political spectrum) as a moron who was visibly in the pocket of certain business interests.

I have no doubt you believe this hook, line and sinker. 100%. I also have no doubt your circle of influence believes as you do. Birds of a feather.

Anyone with eyes and a grain of common sense can also see that eight years of Dubya's corrupt, warmongering rule had infinitely more to do with the depth of the current economic crisis than two or three years of Obama's so far ineffective counter-measures.

W left a huge hole. No doubt.

Give me a break Scott, this is just utter bull**** revisionism. There is no 'left' in US politics. There is only a 'sane right', as opposed to the loony right. No President has faced the kind of vicious personal abuse that Obama has had to put up with from day one.

Look, you can pretend Clinton had an easy go if you would like. Obama has not seen even a little bit of the vitriol Clinton received. Bush, particularly in his second term was and continues to be excoriated by his opposition. As was Reagan.

You clearly have not been paying attention (until recently, perhaps) if you think opposition from the minority party is something new. The debt debate was a tough go for Obama because the adults in the room finally stood up and said "17 Trillion in debt is too much". Get over it.

What in the name of all that is holy has Belgium got to do with anything, apart from being a diversion on your part? If anything, Belgium demonstrates that a country can apparently carry on indefinitely without a legitimate, elected government as long as certain social safety nets remain in place.

I'm going to let you slide here as you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

Fantastic post. That was my impression exactly.

I didn't like the 30 second bits. I thought he should have spent more time on things like explaining more about how he is going to pay for it. He left too many questions open regarding the issues the people who oppose him want to hear. I know they would probably not be swayed anyway, but when you don't answer those questions at all, you allow the other side to then offer their opinion of those issues, and they will NEVER give you the benefit of the doubt. One conservative friend said 30 seconds after the speech said it would be paid for by printing more money.

I think by hammering on the phrase "pass this jobs bill now" he ensured it will die a slow and agonizing death. He cannot afford another beating like that right now.

From what I saw two nights ago, Mitt Romney will be our next president. What is interesting is that people on MSNBC are playing up Perry still (I believe because the Democrats would rather fight Perry than Romney), but talking with a couple of conservative friends, both said they were inclined towards Perry until watching that debate. Both said they were firmly in the Romney camp now. Perry was a bumbling idiot, and much too similar to another C student from Texas. Romney played much more of the middle ground the other night (he knew his audience), and if he keeps that up without making some hard shift right on social issues, should be able to win handily from what I see.

Obama has caved in entirely too much, and when someone who supported him as much as I did believes he is a weak leader, his chances are limited IMO. I will still likely vote for him because I believe the "cut, cap, and balance" idea is stupid in the midst of a severe recession, but it will be only out of principle that I do so. I cannot see him garnering much enthusiastic support. Maybe I will feel differently next year when they come here to have the convention. Being the only law school in town, we have some access to the events because of the connections of some of our professors, so I might actually get to go.

Regardless, I just cannot see the unemployment rate dropping too much in the next year for two reasons: 1. Our economy is simply not strong enough to foster that kind of hiring, and 2. Republicans have a vested interest in making sure people stay unemployed because that wins elections for the opposition to the people in power. They will do everything they can to ensure our economy stays in the crapper--and they don't have to do too much to ensure that. Keynsian economics is the only thing that will affect things quickly enough for positive employment numbers, and that isn't going to happen.

I thought the speech was pretty good. I think there is much more pressure on the republicans than you may think there is.

Here's how this bill passes - Obama lays out a plan to all lawmakers showing where the bill is paid for in the short term, NOT OVER 10 YEARS. That is the same as saying the cuts/revenue increases WILL NEVER HAPPEN. This idea where we spend now and cut later is what kills this proposal.

If Obama can do this, and do a good job of taking this plan directly to the people then I think there would be so much pressure to pass this that it might get done.

They will do everything they can to ensure our economy stays in the crapper--and they don't have to do too much to ensure that.

Let me ask you this, do you think if Obama was willing to pass elements of this bill such as the increase in payroll tax cuts that Republicans would do anything other than pass that portion immediately?

 

[rhubroma]

Pretty much agree. He didn't really say much anything he hasn't before. He did show a little more passion I guess, and did as Rides Like a Girl said, chop things into 30 second phrases. And he seemed to subtlety be trying to show people the difference between rational Republicans and the Tea Party. But I just didn't hear anything that new in his ideas. Nor did it give me any indication that he was ready to really put his fists up and fight like so many of us know he has to.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really expect this proposal to be talked to death, most of the extremes will get all the attention in the media, and almost zero change between now and the next election.

Of course there will be zero change before the next election. The political class is a cast, which is only interested in reelection and in each maintaining his own status quo.

Change is bad, because change means disrupting the status quo and incurring the wrath of one's enemies and the media, which today is owned by business and thus hostile toward anything that goes against the interests of business. Better to talk in terms of a future course, of what should and might be done when the opportunities present themselves, rather than actually do something, let alone doing something that actually brings about change. At least until the second term, but not really.

I was recently told about how Nick Hornby, english writer of vast success and earnings, that when Tony Blair became the prime minister he remained surprised that his taxes would not be increased by one penny, while the social services would be cut. Hornby thereby deduced that Blair wasn't on the left, or at least not on the left as it was until then understood. I can therefore only deduce that our government is certainly, robustly, happily rightwing.

 

[Anonymous]

I merely state what demands to be said, whereas you are arrogance personified.

Oh and uber-capitalist America isn't weighed down by gargantuan debt and isn't unsustainably stretched in its imperialist campaigns!?!? HA! Are people at least getting healthcare, education, retirement pensions, aside from just having to pay for Wall Street's excesses and finance the mastodon military apparatus?!? How many homeless are there on the streets of your state Scott?

No I merely think that your system is totally unsustainable, morally without principle and will one day become an historical relica a result. Whereas perhaps there will be 125 failed attempts at a social based model before arriving at one that works, but by dint of catastrophy or revolution that day will eventually come. It is the only system that has any chance of prevailing, along with a major modification of consumption, if human civilization has any long term future.

Right... while chalking it all up to incompetence alone, without admitting to what had come before makes your analysis a wonder of insightfulness.

Oh and uber-capitalist America isn't weighed down by gargantuan debt and isn't unsustainably stretched in its imperialist campaigns!?!? HA! Are people at least getting healthcare, education, retirement pensions, aside from just having to pay for Wall Street's excesses and finance the mastodon military apparatus?!? How many homeless are there on the streets of your state Scott?

Ha!! What's weighing down the eurozone, Rhub? The rich not paying their taxes??? Or is it the unsustainable public promises such as healthcare, education and retirement pensions? Even moderate proposals to change some of the promises bring the entitled out in force.

How many homeless in the US? Good question. Probaly more than when we began spending trillions on the war on poverty. That great and oh-so-successful government feel-good-about-ourselves-without-really-helping-to-do-anything-except-trap-generations-of-our-nations-most-vulnerable-into-a-perpetual-cycle-of-poverty program.

No I merely think that your system is totally unsustainable, morally without principle and will one day become an historical relica a result

Classic. Meanwhile there are multiple examples of your system having already collapsed.

Maybe if you can just get the right people to run the "new" socialist utopia it will work out this time...

Obama has had a rough go. No doubt. But he is incompetent and there is no getting around that.

 

[Amsterhammer]

No. The "intelluctual dwarf" comment was somone else's, not mine. It's fashionable to label everyone on the right as something less than bright. It's what you guys do. You are so arrogant in your political belief structure that anyone who disagrees with you and the "rest of the world" can not possibly be sane. You and Rhubroma are cut from the same cloth.



I have no doubt you believe this hook, line and sinker. 100%. I also have no doubt your circle of influence believes as you do. Birds of a feather.



W left a huge hole. No doubt.



Look, you can pretend Clinton had an easy go if you would like. Obama has not seen even a little bit of the vitriol Clinton received. Bush, particularly in his second term was and continues to be excoriated by his opposition. As was Reagan.

You clearly have not been paying attention (until recently, perhaps) if you think opposition from the minority party is something new. The debt debate was a tough go for Obama because the adults in the room finally stood up and said "17 Trillion in debt is too much". Get over it.



I'm going to let you slide here as you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I venture to suggest that I understand rather more about the current socio-political issues in western Europe than you do. Belgium had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything that we've been discussing here. A classic red herring on your part.

The vitriol directed at Clinton was 99.5% to do with his peculiar definition of "sexual relations". Since you appear to have some difficulty understanding plain English, I'll spell it out one last time - neither Reagan, nor Clinton, nor Dubya were confronted by an organized radical lunatic fringe sitting in Congress as an opposition within the opposition - the Tea baggers. Every President has faced vociferous opposition for a plethora of reasons; none except Obama have had their very legitimacy (citizenship) called into question and none have been accused of being socialist or communist (health reform). Also, no previous President has been black or had an Arabic-sounding middle name.

Oh, and where were the "adults in the room" when Dubya was piling trillions onto the debt?

 

[rhubroma]

Ha!! What's weighing down the eurozone, Rhub? The rich not paying their taxes??? Or is it the unsustainable public promises such as healthcare, education and retirement pensions?

Yes and the tangents and kickbacks.

Scott you can rail all along about your liberal capitalist babble, but at least we know the solutions that can resolve Europe's troubled system even if they will not at all be easy to place into effect.

Whereas there is no cure for America's, unless the country were to eliminate poverty and at the same time balance its budget, which within the current system can't happen. It simply can not happen.

Aint gonna happen, ever. And what a ghastly world you guys will have created when there will be more people living on the street than those with roofs over their heads. But you don't give a damn, because it's all about you.

The conservatives will stop at nothing to push through an agenda that, while congenial to the interests of the really rich, will create an ever widening margin between wealth an poverty.

Be on guard though, Scott, in the future. For someday a pack of stray hoboes with wrenches and bats might come forcing into your home looking to become squatters and force you out.

Clockwork Orange, post-post modern!

 

[Anonymous]

I venture to suggest that I understand rather more about the current socio-political issues in western Europe than you do. Belgium had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything that we've been discussing here. A classic red herring on your part.

The vitriol directed at Clinton was 99.5% to do with his peculiar definition of "sexual relations". Since you appear to have some difficulty understanding plain English, I'll spell it out one last time - neither Reagan, nor Clinton, nor Dubya were confronted by an organized radical lunatic fringe sitting in Congress as an opposition within the opposition - the Tea baggers. Every President has faced vociferous opposition for a plethora of reasons; none except Obama have had their very legitimacy (citizenship) called into question and none have been accused of being socialist or communist (health reform). Also, no previous President has been black or had an Arabic-sounding middle name.

Oh, and where were the "adults in the room" when Dubya was piling trillions onto the debt?

Oh, and where were the "adults in the room" when Dubya was piling trillions onto the debt?

Do your homework on this then get back to me. You can start with the conservative opposition to the Medicare Part D. And while you are at it go ahead and compare the accumulation of national debt (between W and Barry).

The vitriol directed at Clinton was 99.5% to do with his peculiar definition of "sexual relations". Since you appear to have some difficulty understanding plain English, I'll spell it out one last time - neither Reagan, nor Clinton, nor Dubya were confronted by an organized radical lunatic fringe sitting in Congress as an opposition within the opposition - the Tea baggers.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. The "elite, inside the Beltway" republicans thought they had Clinton in a perjury trap and tried to impeach him for it. It was 95% political and not good for the country. Obama has faced exactly nothing like this and to pretend otherwise makes you look foolish.

Belgium had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything that we've been discussing here. A classic red herring on your part.

I use Belgium as an example of a eurozone country that is in big turmoil over (among other things) public debt. It's not a red herring, it's an example that has at least one similar theme when compared to the USA, Italy, Greece, France, Spain, Potrugal and the struggle with public debt versus an "enlightened" society, or as you call it "the rest of the world".

 

[Anonymous]

Yes and the tangents and kickbacks.

Scott you can rail all along about your liberal capitalist babble, but at least we know the solutions that can resolve Europe's troubled system even if they will not at all be easy to place into effect.

Whereas there is no cure for America's, unless the country were to eliminate poverty and at the same time balance its budget, which within the current system can't happen. It simply can not happen.

Aint gonna happen, ever. And what a ghastly world you guys will have created when there will be more people living on the street than those with roofs over their heads. But you don't give a damn, because it's all about you.

The conservatives will stop at nothing to push through an agenda that, while congenial to the interests of the really rich, will create an ever widening margin between wealth an poverty.

Be on guard though, Scott, in the future. For someday a pack of stray hoboes with wrenches and bats might come forcing into your home looking to become squatters and force you out.

Clockwork Orange, post-post modern!

Well that's a pretty high standard considering it's never been done in the history of mankind.

But you don't give a damn, because it's all about you.

What ever makes you sleep at night, Rhub.

Be on guard though, Scott, in the future. For someday a pack of stray hoboes with wrenches and bats might come forcing into your home looking to become squatters and force you out.

You are really looking forward to that day aren't you?

 

[redtreviso]

""It's fashionable to label everyone on the right as something less than bright""
If the shoe fits.. less than sane,,,,less than sober too,.




Republican debate in 45 seconds..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc

 

[Anonymous]

I thought the speech was pretty good. I think there is much more pressure on the republicans than you may think there is.

Here's how this bill passes - Obama lays out a plan to all lawmakers showing where the bill is paid for in the short term, NOT OVER 10 YEARS. That is the same as saying the cuts/revenue increases WILL NEVER HAPPEN. This idea where we spend now and cut later is what kills this proposal.

If Obama can do this, and do a good job of taking this plan directly to the people then I think there would be so much pressure to pass this that it might get done.



Let me ask you this, do you think if Obama was willing to pass elements of this bill such as the increase in payroll tax cuts that Republicans would do anything other than pass that portion immediately?

Wow, you show more optimism than I would have imagined.

First, the problem is that you and I both know it will not be paid for immediately. It will be structured to be paid for in later years...and like you point out, the country has about as much patience for that as they do screaming children.

Secondly, no, I don't think the Republicans would jump on cutting payroll taxes based on the fact that they are the ones that want to allow the current payroll tax cuts to expire. What changed this morning? The policy of the Republican party (movement of wealth to the top 5%) was outed earlier this week. ( http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779 ) The political game in Washington is much stronger than the policy game. Washington is no longer a policy game, it is a purely political one. It died the day Reagan got the 1986 tax reform act passed. We moved for the first time in history from well researched and modeled major tax legislation to ideological idea driven tax policy. I am getting the opportunity to study in detail the US Tax Code this semester, and the first thing we did was look at the major provisional changes of the 1986 Act, and how it was presented an structured. The legislative legacy of that bill is an interesting one in a historical context. It was the first time something that important was thrown against the wall to see if it would stick. It was horrific policy, and was the dawn of the fiscal mess we have today in both substantive policy and political gamesmanship.

A friend of mine today posted a quote by Abraham Lincoln that I believe more beautifully expresses my beliefs about where we are headed and why I will keep fighting than anything I have ever read:

"Many free countries have lost their liberty; and ours may lose hers; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume, not that I was the last to desert, but that I never deserted her. I know that the great volcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit that reigns there, belching forth the lava of political corruption, in a current broad and deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocity over the whole length and breadth of the land, bidding fair to leave no green spot or living thing, while on its bosom are riding like demons on the waves of Hell, the imps of that evil spirit, and fiendishly taunting all those who dare resist its destroying course, with the hopelessness of their effort; and knowing this, I cannot deny that all may be swept away. Broken by it, I, too, may be; bow to it I never will."

Sadly, the Republican party has gone from the party of men who could express themselves beautifully and competently to Rick Perry who probably finger paints his speeches.

In my estimation, we are screwed, and in reality, I blame Obama as much as anyone. A man with convictions he is unwilling to fight to his last breath for should not be president. Obama is either the weakest Democratic president in modern history, or he is a closet Republican. Anymore, I don't really care which one he is. He ceded to field to the Republicans and their ineffectual policy, and there is no turning back now.

 

[Stingray34]

17 Trillion is too much debt?

I'm sure it is...

...but no one in Congress was complaining about sovereign debt when the Govt bailed out Wall Street.

Political debates are a bit like moral ones: the decisions you reach depend not at all on the strength of the arguments presented, but on what sort of person you are.