American Politics

[skauble]

It's the win at all costs mentality. It doesn't matter how bad a candidate is, it only matters that they fight for a majority in the house or senate. The problem though, is that even if one wins, seems like the other can just filibuster anything to death. After all, with the record number of filibusters in the last 4 years, will it really be a victory for either to get a majority? Other than bragging rights of course.

I think that if Obama wins and the Republicans don't take the Senate, they'll be forced into a position where they'll have to compromise. Part of the reason that they've gotten away with the block for so long was because they believed that their wins in 2012 meant that the country no longer supported Obama's policies, and so they were able to package all of this stalling in the context of carrying out the will of the people who realized they'd made a mistake in 2008 and, therefore, would not want anything the Dems put forth to pass.

 

If Obama is re-elected and especially if the Dems don't lose the Senate, then I think they know that the country won't put up with this anymore and they'll give in to save them from losing anymore congressional round. More to the point, I think that they'll also be aware, as will the Democrats, that all of this bringing everything to a halt will have actually helped Obama win (that's if he does), and they'll all reconsider how wise a tactic this is in the future.

 

It's just one of the reasons that this election is crucial.

 

As pointed Vahle pointed out, the Supreme Court could be vastly changed, which liberals care about, but seems to scare conservatives far more, maybe because they know they'll be losing some control and that feels more panic inducing. Although, if there are vacancies to fill, look for their to be a blood bath type of fight over the nominations.

 

There's also the fact that if Obamacare doesn't get thrown out relatively soon, it's not going anywhere.

 

On top of all of that is the economy. No matter what some people are saying about it, it is getting better - demonstrably so. In fact, The Bureau of Labor Statistics has announced their early estimated figures on their benchmark revision of payroll data. It seems that we added about 400,000 more jobs than we thought. Which isn't a huge change, and there are still other lagging indicators, but this figure does seem to take Obama across that "job loss" line which means more people are working now than when he took office.

 

So the party that has the presidency is going to be able to go into 2016 with, most likely, a growing economy. Which, of course, will be helped by the ending of our last war.

 

Even before all of Romney's election woes began, there was a lot of speculation that he was just a place holder. There was actually open talk about him being a one-termer (although, obviously they had a different take on the reason). Frankly, if he wins I'd be surprised if the party didn't quietly lean on him to not run for a second term unless he's personally very popular. The Republicans have a lot of young, up and comers, and I think they're looking to use Romney as their "in" and then put in they're younger set that more closely fit the conservative ideals. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio ticket.

 

To be honest, I'm really surprised that they weren't grooming the conservative voters to accept a more moderate candidate (which would have put Romney in a much stronger position), by getting them to understand that this was a "foot in the door" kind of compromise. They have a very well developed media machine to convey those ideas via Fox, Limbaugh, Huckabee, etc. (which isn't to say that the liberals don't also cultivate that kind of thing), and I think that the could have raised a lot more tolerance for a middle of the road candidate.

 

But, yeah, this election strikes me as more important than any that I can think of in the recent past. Sure, many of them were incredibly meaningful, like Bush/Gore in 2000, given 9/11, but that's realized in retrospect. And yes, Obama being the first black president was a huge hurdle for our country to finally clear, but that wasn't about politics, per se. This election is beyond critical because it will, IMO, shape our country in ways that we know now will last for decades to come.

[Rosedamai]

Just read this, I'm just a bit surprised-is it okay to put out the "OBAMA WILL TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR RIGHTS" stories after this?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/28/virg...tent=FeedBurner

 

A Virginia man allegedly killed himself and his family earlier this week in part because he was upset by the thought of President Barack Obama being re-elected.

 

“He felt that our God-given rights were being taken away,” a family friend identified as “Maggie L.” told The Daily Mail. “He didn’t like where the country was going.”

Edited September 29, 2012 by ylangylang

[skauble]

Just read this, I'm just a bit surprised-is it okay to put out the "OBAMA WILL TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR RIGHTS" stories after this?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/28/virg...tent=FeedBurner

 

What bothers me is that they make the Obama thing such a feature of the story, which subtly implies that there may be some legitimacy to the idea. That, yes, the man was mentally ill, but that he some how would have been okay if he hadn't been pushed over the edge by Obama's policies.

 

The fact is he was clearly mentally ill, and had what seems to be a strong family history of mental illness. And, like most people in this country, I have a feeling that he was probably very under-treated for what those who know him are clearly calling paranoia.

 

I do want to point out that concerns about our rights under this administration aren't necessarily unfounded - Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice Department. But many of the people screaming about Obama usually fail to admit that often most of these kinds of things are part of policies put in place by Republicans. The law being used in the above article was actually passed during the Reagan administration. And we gave up hordes of protection with the Patriot Act under Bush.

 

But, realistically, while there are certainly many, many legitimate issues with Obama and there are many, many people who have problems with him based solely on those issues, there is still this very strong undercurrent in our society that a powerful black person is dangerous because they'll want to punish white people. And there have been far too many people who are willing to play on that fear, for political gain, who have whipped up this frenzied panic that all of our rights are magically going to evaporate and, somehow, the Congress and the Supreme Court will be, for reasons I don't understand, completely unable to do anything to stop it...even though Congress has pretty much proven that they can stop lots and lots of stuff from happening.

[Kestra15]

I want the goverment to actually follow it's own rules,

 

The right to LIFE being one of them

 

to be alive you have to have a few things

 

breathing is one of them

 

thus fetus does not equal alive

 

A living, breathing human being DOES equal a life.

Technically life requires respiration, not breathing, which an unborn child does do, therefore by that argument making them alive.

 

An enjoyable episode of 'Mock the Week' this week, where predictably the rip was taken out of Romney and his utter stupidity.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Kestra15

[skauble]

You know, sometimes a small part of me wants to just go ahead and give the whole small government, power back to the states thing a try. At least then we could either see that it works, or decide that we do work better with a larger government at the national level.

 

Frankly, I have a feeling that it while it might work, it probably wouldn't work out quite the way some advocates of it believe it will. For instance, Romney is talking about getting rid of Obamacare and then returning power to the states to devise their own programs and giving them block grants for it. But really, how long is it going to take some of the states to realize that they'd be much better off if they got rid of the middle man and taxed for those programs at the state level?

 

The problem, of course, is that we pool our money at the national level and then give a lot of it out to states by need as opposed to how much they paid in. That would leave some states with a windfall or the ability to lower taxes for their residents, but it would also leave some states struggling to meet people's needs with a budget that simply can't support them.

 

And while I'm sure that the more “well off” states could argue that they have a right to that extra money because it will have become, even more so, a state's ultimate responsibility to focus on it's own residents, and that any benefit is due to running the state well, fiscal responsibility, etc., I don't see the states on the other side of things simply going along with that. After all, it's not like there are a bunch of them right now that are refusing to take more than they give to the government, so I don't know why that would change.

 

I just get the feeling that there's a lot of people who genuinely do want control back in the states hands in a major way, but that many of them don't realize what it's going to be like if the states keep more and more of their own money as a result of that.

[brairtrainer]

You know, sometimes a small part of me wants to just go ahead and give the whole small government, power back to the states thing a try. At least then we could either see that it works, or decide that we do work better with a larger government at the national level.

 

Frankly, I have a feeling that it while it might work, it probably wouldn't work out quite the way some advocates of it believe it will. For instance, Romney is talking about getting rid of Obamacare and then returning power to the states to devise their own programs and giving them block grants for it. But really, how long is it going to take some of the states to realize that they'd be much better off if they got rid of the middle man and taxed for those programs at the state level?

 

The problem, of course, is that we pool our money at the national level and then give a lot of it out to states by need as opposed to how much they paid in. That would leave some states with a windfall or the ability to lower taxes for their residents, but it would also leave some states struggling to meet people's needs with a budget that simply can't support them.

 

And while I'm sure that the more “well off” states could argue that they have a right to that extra money because it will have become, even more so, a state's ultimate responsibility to focus on it's own residents, and that any benefit is due to running the state well, fiscal responsibility, etc., I don't see the states on the other side of things simply going along with that. After all, it's not like there are a bunch of them right now that are refusing to take more than they give to the government, so I don't know why that would change.

 

I just get the feeling that there's a lot of people who genuinely do want control back in the states hands in a major way, but that many of them don't realize what it's going to be like if the states keep more and more of their own money as a result of that.

This so much. Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged when the National government decided to tax the state of Colorado because it was actually doing well.

 

We need to dial back and let the states take care of their people, but on the other side I believe that certain soical programs should be dealt with nationally so as to not confuse stores on what to accept not accept when people go in to buy things. Food stamps and food stamp cards should be done nationally so that corrperations big and small have consistancy of what is allowed to be bought on food stamps and what isn't.

[Fuzzbucket]

but on the other side I believe that certain social programs should be dealt with nationally so as to not confuse stores on what to accept not accept when people go in to buy things. Food stamps and food stamp cards should be done nationally so that corporations big and small have consistency of what is allowed to be bought on food stamps and what isn't.

AND because otherwise you'd get people moving from state to state to make sure they got the best ones available. Fair enough - but also a bit of a nightmare !

[skauble]

AND because otherwise you'd get people moving from state to state to make sure they got the best ones available. Fair enough - but also a bit of a nightmare !

States would just start setting higher residency requirements for people to get benefits and since it would probably cost more to live in states that were doing better it could be difficult for people in poorer states to be able to move out of them.

 

That's really the problem with the whole 47% thing. Yes, there's a percentage of people who don't pay federal income tax, for a variety of reasons, and you can call them takers. However, if someone does pay those tax but lives in a state that gets more from the pot than they threw in, then they're a taker, too because they live in a state that's being partially subsidized by the tax payers of other states.

 

But, who knows, maybe if the states manage their own affairs they'll all be successful. But I suspect that wouldn't be the case. I just think that people who believe that we're going to shrink the federal government, but then everyone's going to be happy to give that new government their money simply so that they can pass it directly off to other states, as opposed to running any kind of program or having oversight, might be a bit unrealistic.

[Fuzzbucket]

I can't see your average US citizen being well pleased not to be able to move around at will....

[brairtrainer]

I can't see your average US citizen being well pleased not to be able to move around at will....

Oh that would be the begining of the end for some freedoms >.<

[~Kat~]

Obamacare Wealth Redistribution: Health Reform To Add $52,000 To 1 Percenters Tax Bill To Pay For Benefits For Poorest Americans

 

Though redistribution of wealth through Obamacare and other means may seem like a certainty in the coming years, it still holds quite a stigma. Following the release of Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent video, a 1998 speech at Loyola surfaced where Obama declared that he “believe in [wealth] redistribution.” Romney subsequently attacked the stance, arguing that “it’s never been a characteristic of America.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/g...26pLid%3D213556

 

After reading this up above after clicking on the lnk, look at how some of the posters feel underneath this article.

 

So, I am not the only person that feels that this is wrong.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Obamacare Wealth Redistribution: Health Reform To Add $52,000 To 1 Percenters Tax Bill To Pay For Benefits For Poorest Americans

 

Though redistribution of wealth through Obamacare and other means may seem like a certainty in the coming years, it still holds quite a stigma. Following the release of Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent video, a 1998 speech at Loyola surfaced where Obama declared that he “believe in [wealth] redistribution.” Romney subsequently attacked the stance, arguing that “it’s never been a characteristic of America.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/g...26pLid%3D213556

 

After reading this up above after clicking on the lnk, look at how some of the posters feel underneath this article.

 

So, I am not the only person that feels that this is wrong.

So redistributing money so everyone isn't poor is a bad thing?

[brairtrainer]

Only when the money is taken just because you are rich, concidering part of the 47% are actually in the top 1% (waves at Mitt's dancing horse) I think giving them more taxes is actually right, or at least close tax loopholes.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Only when the money is taken just because you are rich, concidering part of the 47% are actually in the top 1% (waves at Mitt's dancing horse) I think giving them more taxes is actually right, or at least close tax loopholes.

I don't really see a down side. The rich always have money and unless they make bad choices on what they do with it they never run out. So I can't see the down side of taking some from the ones who have it to give to the poorer ones so they can get back up on their feet and get a job.

[brairtrainer]

what I mean is no 75% tax like they propsed in france

[demonicvampiregirl]

what I mean is no 75% tax like they propsed in france

Oh so you're saying don't tax them if you are going to take money from them to give to the poor?

[brairtrainer]

No what I mean is I think the tax bracket system is stupid if it was my way it'd be a flat tax. The fact that the 1% are getting a higher tax to cover the poors health care that I can get behind. A blanket well you now make over 1,000,000 so we are gonna charge you 75% of that which means you have 250000 left over while bob gets a 999,999 salary and only gets taxed 25% so he has 749999.25 over is wrong (exagerated for point)

[demonicvampiregirl]

No what I mean is I think the tax bracket system is stupid if it was my way it'd be a flat tax. The fact that the 1% are getting a higher tax to cover the poors health care that I can get behind. A blanket well you now make over 1,000,000 so we are gonna charge you 75% of that which means you have 250000 left over while bob gets a 999,999 salary and only gets taxed 25% so he has 749999.25 over is wrong (exagerated for point)

Oh now that I can agree with to a point. I do think the multi-millionaires should have to pay slightly more since obviously they have a lot more than just a millionaire. At least just for now until it finally gets balanced out and then drop it down to a flat tax rate.

[brairtrainer]

I honestly think that there are two things we need to even things out

 

1st the flat tax so that the rich don't have any tax breaks. The only tax break I agree is if you have kids, that can be kept.

 

2nd we need to make the public college system like the k-12 system to put people on a playing field. College can still not be required but allow the reasons for not going because of price dissappear.

[demonicvampiregirl]

I honestly think that there are two things we need to even things out

 

1st the flat tax so that the rich don't have any tax breaks. The only tax break I agree is if you have kids, that can be kept.

 

2nd we need to make the public college system like the k-12 system to put people on a playing field. College can still not be required but allow the reasons for not going because of price dissappear.

I agree with that. I haven't gone to college yet myself and have no clue if I can or will. Still very undecided about my future.

[MysticTiger]

The only tax break I agree is if you have kids, that can be kept.

I kind of disagree with this. One because you are punishing people who decide not to have children (or who's children have grown up) and two, people are and will abuse this. Either by having children they shouldn't have and can't afford or by faking the birth of a child (a relativity easy thing to do).

 

There should be some sort of tax reimbursement, maybe, but not a tax break.

 

Although I do agree that College needs to be made free or close to free. I refuse to be buried in debt for the rest of my life simply to have a paper stating that I know stuff I already knew before, with absolutely no guarantee that I will actually find a career with it. A country should invest in it's next generation, not actively insure they will fail.

Edited October 2, 2012 by MysticTiger

[brairtrainer]

I can see that, and I only argue for it because the tax break doesn't cover the cost of a kid but it helps.

[philpot123]

So redistributing money so everyone isn't poor is a bad thing?

If by redistributing you mean government seizure of funds from the wealthy to give funds to the poor, who have no motivation to earn money for themselves if they're being handed a living, yes, that's bad. Because it doesn't solve the problem of poverty in the slightest.

[demonicvampiregirl]

If by redistributing you mean government seizure of funds from the wealthy to give funds to the poor, who have no motivation to earn money for themselves if they're being handed a living, yes, that's bad. Because it doesn't solve the problem of poverty in the slightest.

You are only assuming that they don't want to. There are many out there that do want to get a job but no one is willing to hire them. Not everyone is leeching what they can from the government because they are to lazy to work.

[philpot123]

You are only assuming that they don't want to. There are many out there that do want to get a job but no one is willing to hire them. Not everyone is leeching what they can from the government because they are to lazy to work.

I'm assuming that, based on human nature, if you give someone a living without requiring them to work for it, they will have no incentive to take up work again and lose that free money. May not be true for everyone, but it's a major problem with the idea of wealth redistribution. Take the money from the rich people, give it to the poor people, the poor people spend it, they're still poor... Where's the solution here? We've been providing welfare for how many years now?