OutofDate1980

Let the games begin.

mike114

I think Obama wins. My hope is that congress gets more conservative/liberatarian and nothing happens for 4 years.

__________________
Obama/Biden 2012...Because some Americans still have jobs!! ~ Mike Church

OutofDate1980

I hope we get a congress that is not in somebodies pocket.

TxGoat

Gridlock by our leaders is one of the reasons the S&P downgraded our rating. I guess you're hoping for the U.S. to go bankrupt?

You'd have to fire all of congress. Our system is set up to allow money into the process and until that stops, we're always going to have politicians that are going to be influenced by money.

Look at that joke of a pledge being passed around by Grover Norquist. If someone signs the pledge to never vote to raise taxes, and then they vote raise taxes, the people fronting the money for this cause (fronting the money secretly I might add, what exactly do they have to hide?!?!) will funnel money into someone to unseat the politician at the next election.

I personally would like to see transparent campaign finance reform. I want to know which candidate has what corporation backing them.

What I found interesting is when the BP oil spill hit. The right wing was clamoring that BP was a big contributor to Obama's campaign. What they failed to mention is that BP also donated a large amount of money to McCain (more money to Obama since they probably figured Obama would win). I personally think that practice is indicative of how corporations think. They place bets on both sides (interestingly enough, like the housing fiasco) so that they will have a seat at the table regardless of who wins.



I see Obama winning in November, not so much based on his track record (I personally don't think it's a great record although 2 dictators are gone, GM and Chrysler are still in business), but because the typical American can't identify with Romney's stories about how his father closed a factory, how he's building an elevator for his cars, or his off-key singing.

Last edited by TxGoat; April 1st, 2012 at 04:35 PM.

mike114

So the $16 trillion debt with no way to repay it has nothing to do with the downgrade? If there were gridlock in DC, maybe we wouldn't have such an astounding debt.

Tell me, what do you think these clowns can actually accomplish to get us out of this mess considering they are the ones who orchestrated it?

As far as the US going bankrupt, too late, we're there.

ElasticNinja

Surprisingly and shocklingly enough, the 100% debt to GDP ratio actually had nothing at all to do with the downgrade. Kinda shows how ridiculous the system is. Not that they werent spot on for downgrading based on the prevailing evidence of Republican inwillingness to mve on the Budget.

Anyway, I'm far more interested in Sarkozy vs Hollande right now.

__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!

TxGoat

Well if I remember correctly, one side offered up some cuts, and letting some tax breaks expire that were already supposed to expire, but one party and ONE PARTY ALONE wanted NO COMPROMISE.

Most economists claimed that making some cuts, and letting some tax breaks expire was the most sensible idea. You tighten the belt AND you seek out revenues to pay down debt.

Of course, the GOP's talking head (yes Limbaugh even though the GOP acts as if he's not the leader of their party) has already stated that he wanted Obama to fail via America's failure. Not exactly a patriotic thing to say, and even less patriotic to act on that sentiment, don't you think?

A.Nonymous

Bit surprised there aren't any Ron Paul fanboys here. There's a rather rabid one on another forum. He is convinced that Paul is the only candidate who can possibly beat Obama and that Paul will be a force at the convention because he's apparently going around behind the scenes and stealing delegates from other candidates. I asked him why Republican voters would support a guy that they've gone to the polls and clearly shown they are not interested in, but he says this is irrelevant. Ugh. Paul fanboys are the worst.

In any case, I think Obama wins and it's not even that close. Won't be a landslide, but there will be no doubt who's going to win even before the polls open.

TxGoat

I never thought Bush would get elected to his 2nd term, and we all know how that turned out. I think a lot of people may figure Obama will beat whatever GOP candidate is out there and thus not take the time to vote. Granted, I think the GOP candidates have done Obama's work for him once the primaries roll around. All you have to do is play back every candidate's negative ads against Romney, and then there are the GOP candidates that "freudianly" support Obama...

Senator John McCain Endorses President Barack Obama - YouTube

OutofDate1980

I don't know. The Hedge Fund crowd is backing Romney with big money. I guess to preserve their 15% tax rate, which I don't think they deserve, they are investing other peoples money, i.e., no risk to HF manager.

A.Nonymous

Um, the run of the mill stockbroker does the same thing.

9to5cynic

let's do it!



I wouldn't check 'satisfied' next to Obama's performance so far, but I'm pretty much scared of the two GOP front runners. Like, run* away to the moon scared.

*fly on a space ship, probably Russian.... because, well, you know

__________________
Nandroid Backup Script|unanswered threads|BabyBlues Breast Cancer Pledge

OutofDate1980

Firing the politicians will just replace one bad one with another.

The basic problem is the system of how politicians secure funding for elections.

The politicians view is by necessity shaped by those providing the funds, the fewer the sources of funding, the narrower the view.

A.Nonymous

Part of the problem is that no matter how much people claim they hate Congress, they go out and re-elect them. I've seen years where people give Congress an approval rating of like 30%. Then they go out and re-elect like 80% of them. One of two things is going on. Either voters are stupidly voting for people they hate (entirely possible) or the other parties can't run anyone who's better than the incumbent (also possible.) Ugh.

9to5cynic

^ Yeah, 80% of people would prefer an approval rating of 30% than 20%




But seriously, the system is seriously flawed when approval ratings fall below 50%

TxGoat

What happens is local people like their congressman but hate everyone else's congressman. Take that bonehead congressman that apologized to BP when the President lashed out at them for the Gulf oil spill, most of the country was like "WTF is that guy apologizing for? Is he really kissing up to the oil industry after that oil spill?" He's one of the local politicians here. For some reason the people in his district STILL love him and he'll probably be re-elected. People will also re-elect the politicians that bring pork spending to their district.

B2L

I am a Paul supporter, but I believe he has no chance now. Anyone who believes otherwise must be crazy.

As for Romney and Obama, I don't like either, but I plan on voting for Romney if it comes down to these two. (which it most likely will.)

breadnatty08

Whelp, I'm a very hardcore liberal, so if I did vote, it would be for Obama. Presidential voting in DC is pretty pointless though (Obama got ~97% in 08). Had the Republicans put someone out there who was decent, at least it'd be an interesting race. As the cast is now, hilarious.
The facts vs. Mitt Romney - The Washington Post

A.Nonymous

Yeah. I tend to agree with you. It's kind of like people complaining about how everyone else's kids are little hellions while their own child is out robbing some old lady of her grocery money.

I like Paul as well, but I think he ought to drop out at this point. I know he won't though which is sad. Last time he was the only candidate who refused to turn his delegates over to McCain and went and held his own convention. I suspect he'll do the same thing this year. He won't be a force at all on the convention floor. Romney will gather enough delegates to ensure the nomination and that'll be it.

I don't care for Romney or Obama and will likely vote for neither. That is what I typically do.

A.Nonymous

Santorum has officially dropped out. This all but seals the deal on Romney's nomination and makes Paul and Gingrich a complete and total non-factor. Previously their only hope of being a factor was to work a deal out to give their delegates to Santorum and thus deny Romney the nomination or work out a deal to give their delegates to Romney thus ensuring his nomination. Now it doesn't matter as they don't have enough delegates to make a difference.

9to5cynic

I'd bet that Ron Paul runs as independent or something. And I will say that I'm not too sad to see Santorum go.... but, I do think that it'll be Romney v. Obama for the main event.

A.Nonymous

Last time around, the GOP refused to give Paul a speaking spot at the convention (he's not very popular at all with his party) so he took his delegates and had a convention of his own across town. His delegates were basically the only delegates who didn't vote for McCain. I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same thing this year. I like Paul as well, but doing stuff like that makes him look small and petty. He lost. Do the classy thing. Is that unreasonable?

ylexot

I'm hoping that he drops out and endorses Gary Johnson. They have almost the exact same platform.

ylexot

Really? Here's the S&P report where they detail the downgrade:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spratingreport_080611.pdf
In other words, the US has a lot of debt and it only shows signs of increasing.

Also,
So, if the slope of the debt increase is higher than they are currently projecting, they'll downgrade us more.

Yes, the political bickering was a cause as well, but it was not the only cause.

A.Nonymous

Am I the only one completely and totally disillusioned by the system? It's so unbelievably broken and corrupt.

mike114

Ron Paul is the only candidate responsible and knowledgeable enough to start repairing some of the damage being done. It's sad that Americans don't take him seriously. Shame on us. We get what we deserve, and we'll be getting 4 more years of Obama.

And TxGoat, fyi...tax rates that have been in effect for 10 years can no longer be called the Bush tax cuts. They are now the current tax rate. What you are endorsing is RAISING taxes. That is not a solution. Cutting spending is.

saptech

To be honest, the system has been broken since the Nixons, Reagans, & Bushes.. Throw Clinton in it also. Greed is playing a big part in it also.

America has fallen and she can't get up!

__________________
"One Nation Under A Groove"

saptech

I think alot of Americans really don't know enough about RP or what is his agenda. Besides being too old. He's not convincing enough people to get the votes.

ElasticNinja

And indeed, reading it, you will see that the current debt burden is not whats worrying them - its the political inwillingless to act, leading to a far, far higher debt burden. The U.S. can borrow at such low rates, it can pay off its debts fairly easily, so you're talking 200% of GDP debt levels before you start having a critical economy threathening issue there. The thing is, politicians wont raise taxes or cut spending, so the federal debt is heading there.

So if you cut taxes, you can never raise them again? Reminds me of the economic policy that screwed my state over. Woo cyclical policies.

ylexot

I posted two quotes from the report saying that it was. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

Edit: thought of something that might help clarify...if the US had no debt, would S&P care if Congress can't get anything done?

Last edited by ylexot; April 12th, 2012 at 07:56 AM.

ylexot

Gary Johnson.

TxGoat

I'm curious to see how Romney attacks Obamacare while trying to defend Romneycare. It's going to be interesting. I'm sure he'll try the "state mandate vs federal government mandate". I don't see if that's the only difference, how that's a difference. That's like saying, "We're not going to build a super-Walmart in your affluent neighborhood, we're going to build a regular sized Walmart in your affluent neighborhood".


As far as the tax cuts, it most likely wouldn't have had such an impact on our debt if we hadn't gone to war in 2 countries as well. You can't increase your expenditures at the same time you're reducing your revenues. I don't see how some people can't see how the 2 aren't related. As I've stated before, buy 2 new cars and ask for a pay cut at work and you'll see how Bush helped tank our economy. I'm not defending Obama, but I guess I might as well be since when you attack GOP policies, most red-koolaid drinkers will automatically assume you to be a long haired weed smoking hippie.....

A.Nonymous

Sadly, I don't disagree with you. I'd love to disagree with you on all of that, but I can't. Politics in America is all about greed and power. Maybe not even in that order.

Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

TxGoat

I don't think any candidate is going to bring America out of its coma until we get some massive campaign contribution reform and a much more transparent system in place. You have large corporations that are contributing to BOTH parties and gain access regardless of which candidate wins. IMO that should be outlawed but then again, that's what happens when the wealth is so disproportionately distributed, you get these large entities that can place their risk across the board and win regardless of who wins.

ylexot

I don't know...if he can get the people on his side, Congress won't stand in his way.

A.Nonymous

Right 'cuz Congress never stands in the way of the people.

ylexot

I hate to say it (because I don't like public funds going to...well just about anything), but I think the fairest system would be for campaigns to be publicly funded. Presidential candidates get $X, Senate candidates get $Y, and House candidates get $Z. No other funds (personal or donations) could be spent on the campaign.

Some problems would be do we fund the crackpot candidates? Every time, there are candidates that we know (and usually they know) that they have no chance at all. For example, Google Vermin Supreme (he's actually pretty funny).

What about the infamous 527 groups? We can't really limit the free speech of individuals or groups of individuals. So, you'd probably end up with massive shadow campaigns with unlimited funds.

ylexot

Not really. Obamacare is probably the most unpopular legislation that has been put out by Congress (that I know of) and it's only ~52% against it and ~42% for it.

A.Nonymous

People would step around it anyway. They'd form a group called "People for Romney" and go campaign for Romney. They would put disclaimers on the bottom of all their ads (not affiliated with the Romney for President campaign) and would take massive funding from any private source. You'd have the same problem you have now sadly.

TxGoat

My idea would be to set limits on the campaigning across the board. Not money limits, but how many commercials one can have, how much they can spend on advertising etc. Or, you can make no ceiling and let each candidate shoot themselves in the foot by spending insane amounts of money, which would give the public an idea of how well or poorly they'd help balance the budget.

Or...

We do like MOST EVERY OTHER position on the planet, and let each candidate interview for the position, or have them voted off via an American Idol/Miss USA pageant (sans the swimsuit competition of course) and then we have elections with the top 2 candidates. This would probably only work for electing a President btw, other offices, let them just figure it out via a Wii Boxing tournament or something...

A.Nonymous

My suggestion - Barbed Wire Steel Cage Death Match

TxGoat

That would ensure that at least for every candidate elected, a few politicians would be killed, but I don't know if i like the idea of the strongest person winning. The strongest person is rarely the smartest person. Just look at who our future president could be....

OutofDate1980

Maybe a proposal from Colorado, donor transparency would be a step in the right direction.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20120323/OPINION01/203230350/DISCLOSE-Act-first-step-campaign-finance-reform

mike114

Is that what I said?? I simply stated that the Bush tax cuts have been in place for 10 years. Isn't it about time we stopped calling it that and just simply stating that it's now the current tax rate? Or is it because telling the American public that on top of a $16 trillion debt and zero spending cuts, we are now going to raise your taxes.

And do you have any expectations that raising taxes will somehow pay off this debt? If you do, how much should taxes be raised to accomplish this? I could save you time by telling you that simply raising taxes will do nothing to reduce the debt we owe.

mike114

We can disagree on this. I think the last thing we need is a president who gets along with congress. That's why we are in the mess we are in. One party compromises to allow increased spending on one side, and then the other side returns the favor and the president goes along with this.

Ron Paul can do things immediately without the approval of congress. He would cut at least 5 cabinet positions and he would start bringing troops home from all over the globe. He would probably start issuing executive orders undoing much damage that previous orders account for as well. This alone would account for a $1 trillion savings in his first year.

What we need is a president BOTH parties hate, but the people embrace. BTW, Rasmussen just put out a poll where Ron Paul, not Romney, could win against Obama.

ElasticNinja

They are the current tax rate, but that does not negate how, why or when they were cut.
Zero spending cuts? heh, in that case theres been zero tax hikes.
Tell state and local governments not cut spending or increase taxes, oh wait they already have. You got a deficit of 10% of GDP, gotta get it to 3%. You tax and cut expenditure to do so, based on the economies situation. The time to cut spending is at the worst part of the recession, the time to tax is after the recovery has gotten momentum. Also as the US has very low tax/GDP in the first place, there's far more wiggle room.

Tax is how you get money, so uhm, yes? Taxing alone will only slow the rate of debt increase, spending has to be cut by a few hundred billion too.

A.Nonymous

What if it was an Electrified Barbed Wire Steel Cage Death Match? Would that make a difference?

mike114

Who cares? It's been 10 years. The rates are the rates. Just tell the American people that we need to raise their taxes. Let's see how popular that is.


Great, more failed Keynesian policies. Let's keep spending more money we don't have since the $765 billion stimulus worked so well. How about we keep printing more money too? Oh wait....


So uhm, how much more are we expected to pay? We all have so much extra cash after exploding gas and food prices, right. Again, how do you think Americans will respond to a politician who wants to raise their taxes??

And maybe you haven't noticed, the debt is $16 TRILLION and growing and you advocate cutting a FEW hundred billion. What a great plan for my children. I'm sure they'll appreciate our crappy efforts.

copestag

well to be fair....... a few hundred billion in CUTS is the answer

but we have...... unlike the previous poster wants to believe....... seen ZERO offered in cuts

what we have seen is reduced increases called cuts

this is like your wife telling you she just saved $50 because she had a coupon for $50 off a new set of truck tires........ only problem is you dont own a truck and probably didnt need tires even if you did.... but by only spending $750 instead of $800 shes doing you a favor and saving you some money

if instead of INCREASING the budget by $1.2 trillion dollars I agree to only INCREASE it by $1.1 trillion dollars did I just produce a $100 billion tax cut? NO........ yet this is the game you play and want us to believe there are cuts

you cannot have a higher budget this year than you did last year and call it a decrease..... not possible

and again to be fair the same holds true on the other side of the coin....... a very similar word game is played with tax cuts

its all semantics and the stupid American people who believe the words they hear without thinking about the meaning of them

I always love to use my favorite example of this exact ideology:

I will be glad to sell you dogcrap in a bag for $1

this is a heck of a bargain........ its in its own bag... and its only $1

dont worry that its dogcrap........ its only $1 and it has its own bag

WHAT?

you dont want to pay a dollar for a bag of dogcrap?

in that case .... just for you...... one time offer... tax cut/spending cut..... I will give you an additional bag with your purchase......... THATS RIGHT........ you get 2 bags of dogcrap for $1

welcome to politics...... and we just love to hang on every contrived word they say

Last edited by copestag; April 14th, 2012 at 12:30 AM.

A.Nonymous

So what you're saying is the guy who routinely criticizes the President for doing things by executive order and without Congressional approval is going to do the same thing? So much for change.