American Politics

[skauble]

Well, apparently Bill O'Reilly said:

But you know what's shocking? 35 percent of the Hawaiian population is Asian, and Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They're usually more industrious and hard-working.

What I can't figure out is this is just some of O'Reily's typical ignorant stereotyping or if he's possibly considering (via said stereotype) that liberals can be industrious and hard working.

 

Of course, Bill also said this of the election:

And whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.

 

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

So what I'm truly wondering is if maybe he's just a closet Democrat, because this can't possibly be helping Republicans connect with voters that they're going to need to survive as a party.

 

But 10 to 1 it's just about money.

[TikindiDragon]

And whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.

 

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

 

So.... the problem with American politics is that people who are not straight, white and male are allowed to vote?

[Kestra15]

So.... the problem with American politics is that people who are not straight, white and male are allowed to vote?

Pretty much.

[KageSora]

zSo.... the problem with American politics is that people who are not straight, white and male are allowed to vote?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

It's also that poor people are allowed to vote, and non-Christians can vote (especially those darn athiests, ruining everything with their unholy lack of God!).

 

>_>

[Fuzzbucket]

Yeah, pretty much.

 

It's also that poor people are allowed to vote, and non-Christians can vote (especially those darn athiests, ruining everything with their unholy lack of God!).

 

>_>

This too !

[KageSora]

Actually, come to think of it, it's more like "the problem with America is people who support [insert thing I don't support here] are allowed to vote!"

 

'

 

I actually read an article once, can't remember when or where, with people arguing to make it harder for college students who were living out of their home state to vote--and then somebody wanted to ban ALL college students from voting because "young people don't know what they're doing and tend to vote liberal" (or something to that effect). >_>

Edited January 5, 2013 by KageSora

[skauble]

Speaking of liberals who only vote for people because they want "stuff" - did anyone see the Republican governor of the blue state of New Jersey, Chris Christie, the other day after the House postponed the hurricane relief bill?

 

Not only did he completely go off on his fellow Republicans, but he said the one thing I never hear the Repubs speak about. He basically said that New Jersey is a "donor state" that subsidizes poorer states. That shocked me because there's not a lot of talk like that about states that are willingly accepting the federal "handout" of other states' money.

 

To his credit, Christie wasn't upset that New Jersey gave more than it got back, he was simply pissed off at what he perceived as the House dragging it's feet to help disaster victims in blue states when relief came much faster for disasters in red states.

[TikindiDragon]

Not only did he completely go off on his fellow Republicans, but he said the one thing I never hear the Repubs speak about. He basically said that New Jersey is a "donor state" that subsidizes poorer states. That shocked me because there's not a lot of talk like that about states that are willingly accepting the federal "handout" of other states' money.

Funnily enough even in the UK - where there's not the stigma attatched to it - it's very rarely spoken of that there are certain areas and counties (noteably those in the South East of England) that provide vastly more in taxes than they actually get back in services.

[skauble]

Funnily enough even in the UK - where there's not the stigma attatched to it - it's very rarely spoken of that there are certain areas and counties (noteably those in the South East of England) that provide vastly more in taxes than they actually get back in services.

Mostly the problem with it here is that the conservative narrative is so strong about people who are ruining the country by being on welfare (which is often a code for black people). It played a large part in the Southern strategy, which I personally think has seen a resurgence, although it's been somewhat nullified by the changing demographics we saw in this last election.

 

Since a number of red states are on the "taker" not "maker" list, you can see why it would be a fairly uncomfortable topic for them. It certainly makes the talking point that it's ruinous for the government to use the money of those who have to help those in need harder to sell.

 

As Jon Stewart said - "Can't we just admit a socialist is someone who wants to spend government money on you don't like?"

Edited January 5, 2013 by skauble

[Fuzzbucket]

Funnily enough even in the UK - where there's not the stigma attatched to it - it's very rarely spoken of that there are certain areas and counties (noteably those in the South East of England) that provide vastly more in taxes than they actually get back in services.

Yes and no. We in the north don't have the kind of fancy houses those in the south more often have. As a result the council tax my mother in law used to pay on her house, F band, as I recall - worth, at the time we worked this out, about £1.5 MILLION, was LESS (as in the actual sum of money she had to pay) than what we in the north pay on ours (C band) - valued at about £180,000. Also the south is much more densely populated, so they would pay more in total !

 

Services ? she had regular buses and trains to London and all over her general area; THREE libraries within easy range, well maintained roads, police and fire services easily accessible, wide choice of schools, swimming pools and leisure centres - you name it.

 

Up here we have one bus a day into the town that no-one actually wants to go to (they took off the one in the other direction, as it goes into another county and the other side refused to chip in, even though that is where the hospital most people here get referred to is.) Quite often it doesn't even show up. It gets into the town where I used to work an hour and half after I should have been at work, and leaves too early for me to have put in my 5 hours I used to work - and I was told I OUGHT to use pub trans. The library for my county is 25 miles way - in the direction of - no bus. As is the swimming pool. Our roads are so badly maintained that this county got an award for the worst maintained roads in the nation - one of the ones leading up to my place is at present impassable because of MASSIVE (and I do mean massive) potholes; you cannot get anything larger than a Smart car between them. The main roads are so bad that someone got a flat the other day driving through a puddle with a huge pothole in it. He wasn't local. The locals know not to drive through puddles.

 

Last winter the snow and ice on our road wasn't cleared for three weeks. Someone had a heart attack and they had to call in the air ambulance - for a normal rural road with 20 or so inhabited houses on it.

 

Er - just saying ! You can't just give more services to areas with more rich people. It's all about sharing the wealth.... It has to be.

 

I LOVE that socialist quote.

Edited January 5, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[TikindiDragon]

Yes and no. We in the north don't have the kind of fancy houses those in the south more often have. As a result the council tax my mother in law used to pay on her house, F band, as I recall - worth, at the time we worked this out,  about £1.5 MILLION, was LESS (as in the actual sum of money she had to pay) than what we in the north pay on ours (C band) - valued at about £180,000. Also the south is much more densely populated, so they would pay more in total !

 

Services ? she had regular buses and trains to London and all over her general area; THREE libraries within easy range, well maintained roads, police and fire services easily accessible, wide choice of schools, swimming pools and leisure centres - you name it.

 

Up here we have one bus a day into the town that no-one actually wants to go to (they took off the one in the other direction, as it goes into another county and the other side refused to chip in, even though that is where the hospital most people here get referred to is.) Quite often it doesn't even show up. It gets into the town where I used to work an hour and half after I should have been at work, and leaves too early for me to have put in my 5 hours I used to work - and I was told I OUGHT to use pub trans. The library for my county is 25 miles way - in the direction of - no bus. As is the swimming pool. Our roads are so badly maintained that this county got an award for the worst maintained roads in the nation - one of the ones leading up to my place is at present impassable because of MASSIVE (and I do mean massive) potholes; you cannot get anything larger than a Smart car between them. The main roads are so bad that someone got a flat the other day driving through a puddle with a huge pothole in it. He wasn't local. The locals know not to drive through puddles.

 

Last winter the snow and ice on our road wasn't cleared for three weeks. Someone had a heart attack and they had to call in the air ambulance - for a normal rural road with 20 or so inhabited houses on it. 

 

Er - just saying ! You can't just give more services to areas with more rich people. It's all about sharing the wealth.... It has to be.

 

I LOVE that socialist quote.

That wasn't quite what I meant, fuzz. I meant when it's worked out the per-head income from tax, against per-head spend. Meaning total tax income from an area divided by population, measured against total speand in an area divided by population.

 

Also, great way to generalise about the south. We're not all rich, living costs are huge (because the cost of those houses? Doesn't pay for half of what it would in your area. I'm living in a 2-up 2-down and it would cost me £210k if I wanted to buy it. Which deposit neither I, nor anyone else of my age in this area, can actually afford. You're still talking over 100k for a bedsit. Buses in rural parts of the south east are being withdrawn on a regular basis (the village I'm in has one bus an hour, if you aren't fussy about which direction you happen to be going in. If you have a destination in mind, it's one every 2). Broadband provision in the SE is the worst in the country (and providers have been given a governmental wrist-slap about this), and you should see the state of my local roads.

 

Incidently your reaction is also why almost no one will entertain even having the debate.

 

Edit:

                          £ per capita

                            Min  Max

North East          9,000  9,600

North West        8,400  9,400

Yorks & Humber  8,100  8,700

East Midlands      7,400  8,000

West Midlands    7,800  8,700

Eastern              7,500    7,800

Greater London  10,100  10,700

South East          7,500    8,500

South West        7,900    10,100

Wales                9,000    9,900

Scotland            10,000  10,400

Northern Ireland 10,600  10,900

 

UK Average        8,457 8,457

 

Just as an fyi. If you want a look at the report I pulled the table from it's here. Table 3 on page 8 - which also exlplains why they have both a maximum and minimum value. Please note that the lowest 3 on that list are all Eastern sections - Eastern itself, East Midland, and South East. Also interesting to note that the greatest expenditures are Greater London, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

Will edit further with details of tax paid by area.

Edited January 5, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Fuzzbucket]

I am all for local income tax, myself. The poll tax was what started these huge discrepancies. I can assure you that the services up here are MINIMAL compared to those in the Home Counties. Yes your housing costs are higher - way higher - I totally agree (and I did say MORE people in the south have fancy ones, not everyone. I've seen the slums of Oxford and they ain't pretty !) and property prices in the UK are CRIMINAL - all started with the removal of rent controls and was compounded by Thatcher convincing everyone that house PURCHASE was the only way to go (it isn't !) - but your food costs are lower (except with ALDI and Lidl, which are the same everywhere, as I think Morrisons is now - we used to have the most expensive Safeway in the nation, and when asked about it they said happily "We charge what the local market will bear - and this is the store where people are prepared to pay the most.... !) - never mind that most of you don't have to trek 25 miles (by car) to get your groceries.

 

As that report says:

which is not surprising given the relative strengths of the different regional economies and the broadly redistributive nature of government policies towards taxation and spending.

 

I never meant to suggest that you are all rich - but money does tend to gravitate towards London; new roads and rail services are set up on the assumption that is where everyone wants to go; companies want to locate there - we NEED a policy like Norway - when a company wanting to set up in the UK is told OK - that's fine - you can do it in Wrexham or Hartlepool; that's where we need you just now." What we have now is people commuting to London EVERY DAY from YORK, for ***'s sake. That is how Home Counties centric it has all become. The highest spend in that report is - London.

 

London receives a far greater share of public spending than any other UK region, estimated at between £76.1 billion and £80.6 billion in 2006-07. London is, though, one of the most highly populated regions. While spending per capita in London remains the highest in England....

Yes, the South East is one of the lowest. Not good.

 

All I'm saying, though, is that people DO say how cheap houses are up here. Sure they are, fairly - but the costs of living up here that people further south do not have to meet are very high - especially transport - and our petrol prices are often higher (we always fill up when visiting Oxford or Rugby...) - and we have no mains gas over huge areas - oil heating is scary expensive... I'm mad jealous of my daughter's heating bills, I am !

 

But comparisons are odious. Everyone should pay according to their means (YES THE RICH SHOULD PAY A LOT MORE THAN THE POOR) and everyone should have access to essentials (water, food, fuel, transport, libraries etc) at a reasonable price. The SAME price all over. I'd like to see regulated fuel prices, for instance.

 

This kind of we have it and you can't have any is what causes so much ruck in the US - at least SO FAR in the UK it isn't THAT bad. And I always hope it will pick up in the US - that more people will see it the way most people here seem to - that sharing what we have is the best way to go - those who hav4e more chip in to help those who have less. There is a SKAD of research showing that the moist equal societies are the happiest and healthiest.

 

ETA and not really relevant as this is a US politics thread - one bus an HOUR ? We have one bus a DAY (3 miles from my house but yes, that is my choice) - none on weekends. Two a day in school term, but set for school hours and there is talk of not allowing shoppers to use them... Not possible to go to a movie by bus as the last one back is around 5....

 

Broadband - we couldn't get it at all on the phone line - still couldn't - we are (with about 40 other houses) on VERY old 4 mile long rotting copper wires and it isn't "economic" to replace it. We are lucky that a local consortium set up a radio one (see under cybermoor) as the phone line is routinely eaten by rabbits. One year we got 3 months FREE phone while BT tried to work out why we couldn't even get on line with dialup and quite often couldn't phone at all (no mobile signal here... we can text - some days) - when I think how much time their service personnel spent up here it would have been cheaper to replace all the wires in the area - honestly it would !.... I'm sorry - but the idea that your broadband is the worst in the country I cannot accept !!!! If you aren't within the sightlines of a transmitter up here - you are on dial up and that's IT ! (now you do have the weird situation where a few tiny cottages in the side of a Pennine have highspeed broadband - that's well weird !) Same sightline issues with TV, incidentally. I DREAD the day the analog radio signal is turned off as we can't pick up digital at all...

 

But hey, it is PRETTY up here And don't get me wrong - I like it. But people don't realise.... I know rural dwellers all over are having a crap time too - I think that is where the HUGE divide is. Rural vs urban. Everything seems to be on a bulk purchases are cheaper thing - and of course where there are more people in a small area, service provision is cheaper.

 

Peace.

Edited January 5, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[TikindiDragon]

But hey, it is PRETTY up here And don't get me wrong - I like it. But people don't realise.... I know rural dwellers all over are having a crap time too - I think that is where the HUGE divide is. Rural vs urban. Everything seems to be on a bulk purchases are cheaper thing - and of course where there are more people in a small area, service provision is cheaper.

 

Peace.

This is very true. I'm actually in a rural area in the South East, and we have many of the same problems. Old copper wires on the phone line, a long way from the exchange. There are no buses, at all, from where my Dad lives (about 5 miles up the road from me). There's a load of places around here that aren't on mains gas (I should know - I read the meters for a living. Large parts of the rural SE have no mains gas, so the only thing I read is electric in those areas.).

 

Utility prices are extraordinarily high here too. That's another bit of knowledge from working in the industry. The old Seeboard area is right at the top of the list for electricity charges (although, for some reason I'm totally unsure of, South Wales appears to be the highest).

 

But, see, the thing is that very little of that has to do with service provision. Not in a governmental spending sense. We're talking money spent on schools, hospitals, that sort of thing. The nearest A&E to me is 13 miles away - and they are trying to close it down. The local Health Authority wants to centralise Emergency Provision in Redhill and Brighton only - the two are a good 35 miles apart if you use the M23 and A23 (major A road around here). If you're starting out in the sticks the trip to either is a major distance. *That* is the sort of thing I mean when I say lacking services.

 

Well, that and the fortnightly bin collections we're now on (to save money), and the fact that the few stree lights we do have all turn off at midnight (in a village where most people work shifts at the airport, and are thus getting up to go to work for 6am).

[Fuzzbucket]

Actually I am with the fortnightly bins - as long as they give you a decent sized wheely one. Did you know that they've just finished a study that shows in areas where they have that (we do) recycling has more than doubled. That HAS to be good. Landfill sucks.

 

But a lot of it IS under government control. They cut bus subsidies; they insist that any subsidy goes to a NEW service - so at the end of that year one has to fine a NEW new service. Water and power used to be - what in Canada they would call Crown Corporations - independent but under price controls and - crucially - non profit - no shareholders...

 

But let us leave these things to the Americans since this is a US politics thread. We agree, basically, I think ! (I did think eOn was the worst. We just switched to the Co-op - I recommend it most highly - to our amazement, our charges have rocketed down (this was part of one of those community efforts to band together to get the best deal...)

 

I know the A23. You have my sympathy. But - we have two hospitals even before they start closing (which, to be fair, they dare not) - they are both 25 miles away - in opposite directions. AND - that is also the distance to our nearest ambulance station. However - there is LOADS I could say about the NHS - but we should take that to email I think I worked for it for 20 years...

[skauble]

I don't think it will actually happen, but I found this interesting:

 

Petition to appoint Paul Krugman as Sec. of Treasury

 

And the Republicans think Hagel for Secretary of Defense is an "in your face" Obama move; this would certainly be a shakeup but I can't see him getting through the confirmation process.

 

Like I said, it's unlikely to happen, but the petition does have over 173,000 signatures at this point.

[Fuzzbucket]

Wow ! I'm not American and it is kind of none of my business - but ALL my many American friends would be thrilled if he made it.

 

[skauble]

Wow ! I'm not American and it is kind of none of my business - but ALL my many American friends would be thrilled if he made it.

With the debt ceiling coming up that could potentially crash the world economy, it is most definitely your business, too.

 

I'm really hoping that the president stands strong on not negotiating over this. I've heard that it will possibly be set up so that attempts to negotiate will go through to voice mail. He'll have public pressure on his side as we get closer and the media starts its "we're all going to die" thing they do, in addition to the CEOs who in no way want this to happen. Since the Tea Party seems to be more and more reliant on their money, the business bigwigs will probably have the best chance of getting them to knock this stupidity off.

 

If that doesn't happed, there are two options floating around that Obama could use, but the Republicans will take a big hit if they make him go to those lengths because, unlike last time, a whole lot more of the public understand the situation and they'll be likely to make their feelings know at the polls.

 

Also, the petition is nearly at 181,000 sigs since I last posted. So there's certainly some enthusiasm for him.

[siliconrose]

Krugman certainly has the necessary economic abilities, but I'm not sure he could navigate the political and bureaucratic landscape effectively.

 

Aaaaand there's this.

[Fuzzbucket]

Krugman certainly has the necessary economic abilities, but I'm not sure he could navigate the political and bureaucratic landscape effectively.

 

Aaaaand there's this.

Damn

 

But I like the idea that he can have MORE influence if he isn't. If that's true, more power to him !

[skauble]

Damn

 

But I like the idea that he can have MORE influence if he isn't. If that's true, more power to him !

I don't think it is true, but Krugman's realistic enough to know that he would never make it through the process. I could be wrong, but I think we have a good way to judge by watching Jim DeMint, the Senator who recently resigned to head the Heritage Foundation for the very reason that he felt that he could do more from the outside. So we'll have an opportunity to see a bit of how that theory works out.

 

Of course, acknowledging that Krugman couldn't make it through the process completely ignores the fact that his chances of getting nominated, petition or no, were probably hovering at near negative numbers. lol And it's not because he tends to be hard on Obama, but because his views are often too far to the left of Obama's.

 

I admit that I have to laugh every time someone goes off about Obama being a socialist. I know that it's a favorite talking point of the right's media complex, but it's so outside the realm of reality that I don't even know how it gained traction. In fact, it's ridiculously easy to check by going anywhere where liberals, progressives, and socialists congregate and watching how angry they are with the president, on a pretty much daily basis, for not being liberal enough. When Obama said that if this were the late '80s he'd probably be a moderate Republican he wasn't kidding.

 

That's why I think that this "oppose all things Obama" mentality has been a bad idea for Republicans rather than Democrats. Sure, I see why they thought denying him anything that looked like a victory would get them the presidency in the last election. But I think that if they had reinforced the idea of Obama as a moderate, then they could have negotiated with him as one without having to look like they were siding with a "socialist".

 

Honestly, I think that some policies have come out a lot more liberal than Obama necessarily wanted them to because he has to rely on a liberal consensus because the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner where they simply can't appear to politically support him. Like I said before, I think a lot of the dysfunction stems from an attempt to play out the Southern strategy for as long as possible to combat the demographic shift that's becoming more and more pronounced. But considering that the Democrats took the White House, the Senate, and gained seats in the House, despite redistricting, and managed a million more votes for Democrat representatives overall, makes the shift to the right a self-defeating strategy. And though it's still working on the state level, the fact that Florida could well be shifting from "leaning Red" to a true "purple" state is a bad sign for holding the advantage on even that level.

[brairtrainer]

http://video.pbs.org/video/1099844054/

 

posting this because it has relavence despite its age. Bush had a hand in getting rid of the surplus, Obama spent a bunch to stimulate, and (video doesn't state this) there were laws that allowed people to make money off insurence on stuff they didn't own which Clinton signed.

[~Kat~]

This past Monday I got my paycheck. I got a nice raise in November, and guess what .... I am making less than I was before I got my raise because of Obama's little tax raise on a lot of people. A lot of people where I work are just the middle class and lower that live pay check to pay check, and they are very unhappy right now. I guess Obama has forgot how the middle and lower class people have to live. Well how nice for him that he is above most of us in the money department, and of them up there with him are exempt from what we the people have to follow.

 

A few people that I talked to that voted for him are very sorry they did now, and, I guess I can not blame them.

 

Like I have said before, my friends that have children that do not work, and have never worked and payed tax's, can not even begin to understand what I and their parents feel after having been taxed as we have been.

[LascielsShadow]

And guess whose fault it is that those people are exempt? BTW, those people are, mostly, the same ones who should of course not be paying more in taxes because rich people apparently shouldn't be supporting/paying for various things . Honestly, I find it strange for someone to talk about how unfair it is that politicians (who are, generally speaking, rich) are exempt while arguing for the exemption to continue.

Edited January 17, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[hazeh]

And guess whose fault it is that those people are exempt? BTW, those people are, mostly, the same ones who should of course not be paying more in taxes because rich people apparently shouldn't be supporting/paying for various things . Honestly, I find it strange for someone to talk about how unfair it is that politicians (who are, generally speaking, rich) are exempt while arguing for the exemption to continue.

Exactly. Or, they go on about how the politicians and the president should pay higher taxes or take a pay cut- but of course, they only argue this for the Democrats. Any republican who makes a lot of money is obviously hard working and should never have to pay more in taxes than the less wealthy.

 

[TikindiDragon]

This past Monday I got my paycheck. I got a nice raise in November, and guess what .... I am making less than I was before I got my raise because of Obama's little tax raise on a lot of people. A lot of people where I work are just the middle class and lower that live pay check to pay check, and they are very unhappy right now. I guess Obama has forgot how the middle and lower class people have to live. Well how nice for him that he is above most of us in the money department, and of them up there with him are exempt from what we the people have to follow.

 

A few people that I talked to that voted for him are very sorry they did now, and, I guess I can not blame them.

 

Like I have said before, my friends that have children that do not work, and have never worked and payed tax's, can not even begin to understand what I and their parents feel after having been taxed as we have been.

I should imagine most people would feel the way I did when I saw some taxes go up here - suck it up, we're in the .

 

Really, the world is in a massively financially unstable position. Did you really expect that life was just going to sail on as normal with you feeling *none* of the pain of putting it right?