Let's Talk Politics....
Replies
-
Frankly I don't believe Romney will spend less or reduce the size of government anyway. Name the last Republican president who did.
Yes well if Bill Clinton were running I'd vote for him.0 -
I would disagree that sending a bunch of inexperienced people to Washington would solve the problem. That would only likely intensify the hyperpartisanship that is a big part of the problem in the first place.
The Senate isn't even bothering to pass a budget anymore... I'm really not sure how things could get much worse.0 -
I would disagree that sending a bunch of inexperienced people to Washington would solve the problem. That would only likely intensify the hyperpartisanship that is a big part of the problem in the first place.
The Senate isn't even bothering to pass a budget anymore... I'm really not sure how things could get much worse.
I think some senators might argue that the proposed budgets are much worse than doing nothing. A difference in fiscal ideologies is just that.0 -
I would disagree that sending a bunch of inexperienced people to Washington would solve the problem. That would only likely intensify the hyperpartisanship that is a big part of the problem in the first place.
The Senate isn't even bothering to pass a budget anymore... I'm really not sure how things could get much worse.
I think some senators might argue that the proposed budgets are much worse than doing nothing. A difference in fiscal ideologies is just that.
I am quite certain, based on your posting history, if the Senate were currently GOP-controlled, your opinion on that subject would be significantly different.0 -
I would disagree that sending a bunch of inexperienced people to Washington would solve the problem. That would only likely intensify the hyperpartisanship that is a big part of the problem in the first place.
The Senate isn't even bothering to pass a budget anymore... I'm really not sure how things could get much worse.
I think some senators might argue that the proposed budgets are much worse than doing nothing. A difference in fiscal ideologies is just that.
I am quite certain, based on your posting history, if the Senate were currently GOP-controlled, your opinion on that subject would be significantly different.
Oh, no. I'd still see it as a difference of fiscal ideologies. Given the current state of the GOP, I tend to agree with you that I wouldn't agree with them. They weren't always like this, sadly. My point is just that you made a blanket statement of doing nothing is awful, when it's fairly clear that either side wants to block what it sees as "worse than nothing."0 -
Oh, no. I'd still see it as a difference of fiscal ideologies. Given the current state of the GOP, I tend to agree with you that I wouldn't agree with them. They weren't always like this, sadly. My point is just that you made a blanket statement of doing nothing is awful, when it's fairly clear that either side wants to block what it sees as "worse than nothing."
The Economist agrees with you:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure0 -
I'm starting to be convinced by the idea, held by quite a few for awhile now, that politicians have no interest in discussing anything with each other and prefer to speak *at* one another. I'm also starting to be convinced that the reason for this is because the discussion has already happened, behind closed doors with the people funding their campaigns.
Does Obama spend a lot of time fund raising? Yup. They all do. They all think they have to. Money buys votes.0 -
Frankly I don't believe Romney will spend less or reduce the size of government anyway. Name the last Republican president who did.
I agree with this, and democratic presidents don't cut back either. Which is why I won't vote for either. In my opinion a vote for Obama IS a vote for Romney and vice versa.
Seriously, how are things ever going to change if we keep voting for the same kind of presidents, even with different parties? I supposed everyone is ok with just letting things continue on until our country is completely destroyed?
I'll be voting for Paul, or Gary Johnson. I will write in if I must but my vote will not go to Obama or Romney. :sick:0 -
Frankly I don't believe Romney will spend less or reduce the size of government anyway. Name the last Republican president who did.
I agree with this, and democratic presidents don't cut back either. Which is why I won't vote for either. In my opinion a vote for Obama IS a vote for Romney and vice versa.
Seriously, how are things ever going to change if we keep voting for the same kind of presidents, even with different parties? I supposed everyone is ok with just letting things continue on until our country is completely destroyed?
I'll be voting for Paul, or Gary Johnson. I will write in if I must but my vote will not go to Obama or Romney. :sick:
^^^same here. My vote stays with R. Paul. I may not agree with all he says, but then I never agree 100% with anyone. His values on personal freedom and responsibility more closely align with my own. That, and agree with him or not, he is probably the most honest person I've seen in Washington - and that I can respect.
Listening to hardcore Democrats and Republican both, snipe at each other and ridicule each other's views accomplishs nothing. I long for a Congress filled with Independents who hold no ideology or values with either side. Then maybe we could actually have some adults, with real adult conversations, to determine what is truely in the best interests of ALL Americans, and who actually understand what is a "State's right" and leave their noses out of it. <sigh> Politics causes me stress.
In anycase, whomever wins the Presidency, I sincerely hope that whichever party they belong to does not gain a Supermajority in Congress. That just never seems to work out in the American public's favor.0 -
This is probably a waste of breath, but... Ezra Klein is a complete political hack. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they are so blindly ideological. You went on and on and on about how Obama is post-partisan (which is also crap, but I digress), and then reference Ezra Klein?!
It would be like me talking about how wonderful George Bush was and then using an article written by Bill Kristol to prove my point. Ideologues from both sides make me sick. Each side thinks *they* are the keepers of the "one truth"... it's ridiculous.
Ok sorry... this is probably another one of those times I should have kept my opinion to myself
Well, you get the award for the first ad hominem attack.
The article reviews the economic conditions faced by the Obama administration when they took office, the initial steps they took to attack the problem, and asked whether a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the economic crisis led to missteps in their approach.
There were two things: one was that the state of the economy was much worse than anyone realized.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis originally projected that the economy shrank by 3.8% for Q4 of 2008. Months later, that figure was revised to 6.2%. It wasn't until 2011 that it was determined that the economy had actually shrank by 8.9%--one of the worst quarters in American history.
So not only was the decline over twice as much as originally thought, the nature of the recession was different as well. Klein cites a study by Carmen Reinhoff and Ken Rogart about the nature of financial crises vs other types of recessions.
From the article:The basic thesis of “This Time Is Different” is that financial crises are not like normal recessions. Typically, a recession results from high interest rates or fluctuations in the business cycle, and it corrects itself relatively quickly: Either the Federal Reserve lowers rates, or consumers get back to spending, or both.
But financial crises tend to include a substantial amount of private debt. When the market turns, this “overhang” of debt acts as a boot on the throat of the recovery. People don’t take advantage of low interest rates to buy a new house because their first order of business is paying down credit cards and keeping up on the mortgage.
In subsequent research with her husband, Vincent Reinhart, Carmen Reinhart looked at the recoveries following 15 post-World War II financial crises. The results were ugly. Forget the catch-up growth of 4 or 5 percent that so many anticipated. Average growth rates were a full percentage point lower in the decade after the crisis than in the one before.
Perhaps as a result, in 10 of the 15 crises studied, unemployment simply never — and the Reinharts don’t mean “never in the years we studied,” they mean never ever — returned to its pre-crisis lows. In 90 percent of the cases in which housing-price data were available, prices were lower 10 years after the crash than they were the year before it.
There is no doubt that the post-crisis trajectory looks more like the slog Reinhart and Rogoff described than the relatively rapid rebound predicted by the administration and many forecasters. Yet even among economists who admire Reinhart and Rogoff’s work, there is skepticism.
One source comes in how Reinhart and Rogoff find the economic phenomena they’re trying to study. “There’s an identification problem,” Stiglitz says. “When you have underlying problems that are deep, they will cause a financial crisis, and the crisis itself is a symptom of underlying problems.”
Another is in their fatalism. “I don’t buy their critique in the sense that this was an inevitability,” says Dean Baker, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one of the economists who spotted the housing crisis early.
The Obama administration didn’t buy the idea of inevitability, either. The team crafted a multi-pronged approach of stimulus spending, programs to address the housing market, and policy coordinated with an activist Federal Reserve. It firmly believed that it was better to do too much than too little. Its credo was well expressed by Romer at that December meeting, when she told the president, “We have to hit this with everything we’ve got.” But in reality, the administration could only hit it with everything it could persuade Congress to give. And that wasn’t enough.
Klein's article goes on to describe actions taken by the Obama administration, the steps, missteps, etc. It also describes the political climate and the challenges involved.
I didn't originally mean to quote so much from the article, but I felt it was necessary to dispute the reflexive charge of "hackery" thrown out without any evidence.
I found it both analytical and I felt it was even-handed. Obviously my opinion is subjective and it's fair to be skeptical of it. I provide the quote so everyone can judge for themselves the quality of the writing and perhaps be tempted to read the whole thing.
I think it 's important to bring some substance because the economy is probably going to be the key issue in the campaign and there will be a lot of "the stimulus failed" and "Obama's reckless spending". I consider both of these to be specious arguments, but if we are going to have them, they should at least be put in context.0 -
Please correct me if I've missed something, but really, what has Obama DONE for the gay community?
So perhaps you should speak so vehemently about topics you've actually researched.
vehemently? :indifferent: :huh:
I asked a question, and invited the debaters to "correct me if I've missed something"
You're fun to debate with. No, wait, that's the opposite of what I mean.
eta::flowerforyou:0 -
Please correct me if I've missed something, but really, what has Obama DONE for the gay community?
So perhaps you should speak so vehemently about topics you've actually researched.
vehemently? :indifferent: :huh:
I asked a question, and invited the debaters to "correct me if I've missed something"
You're fun to debate with. No, wait, that's the opposite of what I mean.
eta::flowerforyou:
Sorry, don't buy it. Your tone, through use of caps etc, very clearly communicated to me that you had already decided that Obama had done nothing. The request to be corrected really just came off like a false mea culpa in case someone did prove you wrong.0 -
I'm not rich enough or religious enough to vote for Romney.
To anyone who thinks he'll shrink the debt - why do you think that? How do you think he will be able to do that? Everything he's said he plans to do will actually cost money in the long run. We cannot get out of debt by just shrinking spending. That's what Europe is trying to do right now and it's not working out so well. You also have to raise revenue and stimulate the economy. That's not going to happen if you crush the middle class.0 -
I wish we had better candidates. I am very torn on who to vote for come Nov. I'm so undecided that I might just skip this vote and not vote at all.0
-
I care too much about the basic rights all people living in this country should have to ever vote republican.0
-
I'm just flat out disgusted by the whole thing. The politicians, the media, the Dems, the Repubs, the citizens. I voted for Obama and while I really don't like some of what he has done, I give him credit where credit is due. Thing is, thanks to our wonderful news outlets, there is so much propoganda now, figuring out what the facts are is practically a full time job which means most Americans will just stick to their favorite bumper sticker slogans. I might vote third party if I see a candidate I actually agree with, but as far as Mitt Romney, I would rather sit on an upside down jackhammer being operated by and epilectic than vote for that guy.0
-
A question for you all. An old friend of mine, to whom I am no longer close, posted a rather graceless facebook rejection of the celebration this past weekend of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, on the basis that she abhors the concept of inherited privilege. She feels the UK should have an elected Head of State rather than an hereditary one.
My response ran along the lines that the position of Monarch is a position of hereditary responsibility/duty that far outweighs the accompanying privilege, and suggested that UK politics was infinitely better off with a politically-neutral (and continuous) Head of State than, say, the US, where political partisanship is apparently more important than getting anything done/common sense/compassion, if what we have seen from the Senate/HoR over the last few years is to be believed.
Politics in the UK, generally speaking, are much less heated, much less intrusive into individual rights (despite not having a written constitution/Bill of Rights), and the principal parties quite regularly reach a consensus on the nuts and bolts of the really important things, despite their differences. Hypothetically, do you think that US Politics would benefit from a politically-neutral head of state with veto power over legislation and/or the power to dismiss the various Houses if an inescapable deadlock was reached? Or, for that matter, with a system that ensured a certain amount of continuity, rather than a complete change in direction potentially every four years?0 -
A question for you all. An old friend of mine, to whom I am no longer close, posted a rather graceless facebook rejection of the celebration this past weekend of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, on the basis that she abhors the concept of inherited privilege. She feels the UK should have an elected Head of State rather than an hereditary one.
My response ran along the lines that the position of Monarch is a position of hereditary responsibility/duty that far outweighs the accompanying privilege, and suggested that UK politics was infinitely better off with a politically-neutral (and continuous) Head of State than, say, the US, where political partisanship is apparently more important than getting anything done/common sense/compassion, if what we have seen from the Senate/HoR over the last few years is to be believed.
Politics in the UK, generally speaking, are much less heated, much less intrusive into individual rights (despite not having a written constitution/Bill of Rights), and the principal parties quite regularly reach a consensus on the nuts and bolts of the really important things, despite their differences. Hypothetically, do you think that US Politics would benefit from a politically-neutral head of state with veto power over legislation and/or the power to dismiss the various Houses if an inescapable deadlock was reached? Or, for that matter, with a system that ensured a certain amount of continuity, rather than a complete change in direction potentially every four years?
"Politically Neutral" is not a term that's in our political vocabulary, lol.
That wouldn't work over here. You'd start a civil war trying to decide how to select such a person.0 -
A question for you all. An old friend of mine, to whom I am no longer close, posted a rather graceless facebook rejection of the celebration this past weekend of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, on the basis that she abhors the concept of inherited privilege. She feels the UK should have an elected Head of State rather than an hereditary one.
My response ran along the lines that the position of Monarch is a position of hereditary responsibility/duty that far outweighs the accompanying privilege, and suggested that UK politics was infinitely better off with a politically-neutral (and continuous) Head of State than, say, the US, where political partisanship is apparently more important than getting anything done/common sense/compassion, if what we have seen from the Senate/HoR over the last few years is to be believed.
Politics in the UK, generally speaking, are much less heated, much less intrusive into individual rights (despite not having a written constitution/Bill of Rights), and the principal parties quite regularly reach a consensus on the nuts and bolts of the really important things, despite their differences. Hypothetically, do you think that US Politics would benefit from a politically-neutral head of state with veto power over legislation and/or the power to dismiss the various Houses if an inescapable deadlock was reached? Or, for that matter, with a system that ensured a certain amount of continuity, rather than a complete change in direction potentially every four years?
"Politically Neutral" is not a term that's in our political vocabulary, lol.
That wouldn't work over here. You'd start a civil war trying to decide how to select such a person.
From the British perspective, that's exactly what the War of Independence was!
:laugh: Almost impossible to do now, I know - selection would be the least of it, I'm guessing. In reverse, I did also make the point to my friend that the thought of who the UK might have the option to elect as our Head of State gave me the shudders - truly horrendous! Hypothetically, though, would it change anything? If things didn't get stirred up so much every four years electing your head of state, would government be more effective? 0 -
From the British perspective, that's exactly what the War of Independence was! :laugh: Almost impossible to do now, I know - selection would be the least of it, I'm guessing. In reverse, I did also make the point to my friend that the thought of who the UK might have the option to elect as our Head of State gave me the shudders - truly horrendous! Hypothetically, though, would it change anything? If things didn't get stirred up so much every four years electing your head of state, would government be more effective?
The thing is, our constitution is not designed for government to be "effective." We don't trust the government, so we rigged gridlock into the system in the interest of protecting individual liberty. In the grand scheme of things, we would rather have a government that does nothing, than one that even runs the risk of becoming tyrannical.0
