American politics has truly hit a new low

[bascule]

The Democrats are trying to fix problems the Republicans have largely caused, problems like the economic slump resulting from the financial crisis and the enormous budget deficit which is largely the result of Bush administration policies such as tax cuts coupled with massive military spending on two wars, one of which was completely unnecessary. The Democrats have received nothing but barbs and extreme vitriol from both Republicans and Republican mouthpieces like Fox. The problems have gotten marginally better but are nowhere near solved.

 

We have Republicans running on the platform that the Democrats have not yet fixed the problems the Republicans caused. The Republicans suggest "solutions" which are identical to what caused the problems in the first place. They are succeeding in this platform and are set to possibly take control of the House. The only difference between now and 2 years ago is the Democrats have been in power for 2 years.

 

But the Republicans are right, the money that Democrats are wasting on providing healthcare is just as horrible as the money the Republicans spent on wars. Glenn Beck is no worse than Michael Moore, who is of course as culturally relevant in 2010, because he's done ??? lately which means he's in the cultural mainstream. Things that make absolutely no sense to compare totally make sense to compare. Up is down. Black is white. And people buy it.

 

I'm not sure what can be done. Our country has severe difference of opinion. Our country has severe communication problems. We are a highly polarized country and the two sides hate each other. We don't have any common ground to start from anymore. A political action committee called Fox spends every hour of every day feeding people who vote misinformation which fuels their own predispositions.

 

Can America be fixed? I don't think so. I predict a Republican victory this election, and I predict it will severely harm this country in the way the 2000-2006 years of Republican control severely harmed this country.

 

I predict the responses to this thread will be:

 

• How dare you insult the Republicans
  
• The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans
  
• Fox isn't as bad as you say it is
  
• The Democrats really ARE doing more damage to this country than the Republicans did
  
• Let's mince words! The Democrats controlled the House from 2006-2008! That means they were in power, and things continued to get worse!
  

 

In my opinion, these views are only not defensible, but patently wrong. The Republicans should be subject to criticism. There is no reason to assume a priori that two sides in a particular dispute are equally culpable. I have documented plenty of prior cases of ways Fox is determental to the political process, and now that they're shelling out money to the Republicans this really isn't a point of contention. The Republicans policies have been extremely harmful to our country and that's a point I think I have demonstrated as well. While the Democrats controlled the house from 2006-2008, they didn't control the Senate or the Presidency, and even with two years of a supermajority, they don't have a lot to show for it, and pretty much everything they've managed to pass has been a party line vote. This was not the case when the Republicans were in power: they managed to pass a lot of legislation with a marginal amount of Democratic support. I believe this shows that the Democrats are truly a "big tent" party with diverse views, whereas the Republicans are more of a monoculture and policies which do not fit that monoculture will never receive Republican support.

 

But please, blame the black guy for what Bush did... (or worse, claim my rhetoric is evoking race, rather than actually responding to the substance of my argument, the entire time ignoring that there is a large group of Americans whose votes are racially influenced)

 

Oh, did I mention that the Democrats tried to provide healthcare benefits for 9/11 first responders and the Republicans blocked it? Let's see if any of this forum's conservatives try to defend that deplorable action, and write it off as "spin" by the Democrats. Seriously, denying 9/11 first responders healthcare... I really don't know what to think of anyone who would defend that. I'd have to say that you're an evil person and you hate 9/11 victims. Is that spin? It's certainly not spin compared to what the Republicans pulled off. Year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year (literally) of showboating about 9/11 and 9/11 victims, and when a vote happens that really matters, the Republicans do not have the backs of the 9/11 first responders. That is deplorable. I don't know what attitude I'm supposed to have about these people except hatred. That is truly hypocrisy in its worst form. Firemen are dying because of toxic chemicals they inhaled in what is the worst terrorist attack in the history of America, and all Republicans have to say is "f*ck you."

 

Republicans have no substance. It's just rhetoric. They have an agenda to advance, and when Democrats try to help the real human casualties of 9/11, the Republicans balk, claim the Democrats are abusing the process, then jump onto the media hype machine and try to divert attention. And they're succeeding.

 

I am truly disgusted, appalled, and clearly angry at anyone who is voting for these people. In my home state, Ken Buck who is pretty likely to take the senate seat in this state just came out with the traditional religious rhetoric about how being gay is a choice on Meet the Press. His tone was that gay couples don't deserve the same rights as straight couples because being gay is a choice and gay people should choose to be straight.

 

I really don't know how to feel about the Republicans getting away with this. It's unfathomable. It makes me angry. I will certainly be voting a straight Democratic ticket this election, but that's a mere drop in the bucket. Somehow the Republicans have a large number of people convinced what they're doing is right, and yet when given power, they have failed miserably.

 

You may have heard the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." A large number of Americans are expecting different results by voting the same people, or people with the same ideas, back into power. I don't know what else to think of these people but that they're insane.

 

Bottom line, if you vote Republican this election expecting substantial differences in key issues like the economy and the national budget/deficit are addressed by our national government, you are either ignorant or insane. The Republican track record on these issues is deplorable and they have not changed their tune. You are attempting to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Edited October 19, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

I predict the responses to this thread will be:

 

• How dare you insult the Republicans
  
• The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans
  
• Fox isn't as bad as you say it is
  
• The Democrats really ARE doing more damage to this country than the Republicans did
  
• Let's mince words! The Democrats controlled the House from 2006-2008! That means they were in power, and things continued to get worse!
  

 

I'll take 2, 3, 4 and 5, with a side of onions, please! And super-size me!

 

 

The Republicans should be subject to criticism.

 

And they are receiving it. The only thing stranger than Democrats trying to blame everything on Republicans is the fact that Democrats don't think anybody knows that Bush and the Republicans rang up a massive debt and deficit.

 

But assuming that Main Street America is unfathomably stupid is hardly new ground for Democrats.

 

 

Republicans policies have been extremely harmful to our country

 

But please, blame the black guy for what Bush did...

 

I really don't know how to feel about the Republicans getting away with this.

 

I will certainly be voting a straight Democratic ticket this election

 

if you vote Republican this election expecting substantial differences in key issues like the economy and the national budget/deficit are addressed by our national government, you are either ignorant or insane.

 

To each his own, I guess.

 

 

You may have heard the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." A large number of Americans are expecting different results by voting the same people, or people with the same ideas, back into power. I don't know what else to think of these people but that they're insane.

 

THAT I agree with. Interestingly, the majority of federal elected officials are Democrats at the moment. Unfortunately the people have no other way to express their dissatisfaction than to vote against the people they voted for two years ago. It's a blunt instrument for sure, but it's the only one they have.

 

But I wouldn't worry about it. Mark my words: Putting Republicans back in charge in 2010 will be the worst thing that has ever happened to the Republican party. You heard it here first.

 

My favorite Kurt Vonnegut quote (from the intro to Mother Night): "We are what we pretend to be. So we should be careful what we pretend to be."

[waitforufo]

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive, less taxing government. Liberals want a larger, nanny state government of larger taxes as long as they are not the ones taxed. Republicans tell the people that they are conservatives, but the Bush years are a great example of how they are not. Evidence Democrats often vote with Republicans. In the last election cycle many conservatives punished the Republicans by staying away from the polls or even voting with the Democrats. What was their reward? Obamacare. So now the conservatives are flocking back. Is this really a surprise?

 

Just as an aside, the best way to prevent the creation of large social programs is deficit spending. When debt is high, large social programs seem foolhardy. This is why Republicans don’t have a problem with deficit spending.

 

In addition to the above, the government simply can’t afford to give the middle class money through social programs. There is just too many of them. Somehow the Democrats occasionally convince the middle class that this isn’t true. Then the middle class see their tax bills go up with little or no personal benefit, so they switch back to the Republicans. Simple again.

 

Finally unemployment is high. Republicans are the party of business, or at least perceived to be so. Businesses aren’t hiring so people what to improve the business climate. So they vote Republican. Simple again.

 

This is not a new low. It’s same as it ever was. Bascule, you just don't like the current phase of this cycle.

[jackson33]

But please, blame the black guy for what Bush did... (or worse, claim my rhetoric is evoking race, rather than actually responding to the substance of my argument, the entire time ignoring that there is a large group of Americans whose votes are racially influenced)[/Quote]

 

bascule; In essence, this one issue is what worried me the most, about the 2008 election and the potential consequences and it came from all sides the racial/minority differences and I'm going to emphasize the minority factor. Many small groups of folks with some particular agenda, be it liberal or even conservative in nature, imagined a person running for the office of President, that in their minds must be on their side, whether being black, half black, from the Muslim connection (real or not), an obviously dysfunctional family (mother), the Black Liberation, connection, being a community organizer (anti-establishment) or any number of factors most Americans these days can relate to. The problem that he actually created, was that these individual segments of the US Society, were not unhappy with the entire "status quo" only their particular grievance/disagreement and each program/policy sought has gone well beyond any majorities ability to accept. Said another way the folks were interested in their own problems, not necessarily a restructuring of the Constitutional Government itself.

 

Yes, I agree that Americans voted in 2008 WERE racially motivated, but it might not be as your suggesting. Yes, 95-98% of Blacks voted for Obama, but I'd suggest for a combination of reasons many of which mentioned above. Many Whites also voted for Obama, simply because he was Black, hoping this racial divide could be finally put to rest and just maybe the Nation could move forward, with out an NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus or the hundreds of racial/ethnic groups trying to keep us divided for some mysterious reason. However, he or more likely the Administration, played the racial factor (objections would be limited) in over playing their cards, directly designed toward socialism and an ideology not acceptable to again, any majority, and IMO these objections HAVE BEEN based on policy, NOT the fact Obama is whatever.

 

Can America be fixed? I don't think so. I predict a Republican victory this election, and I predict it will severely harm this country in the way the 2000-2006 years of Republican control severely harmed this country.[/Quote]

 

Leaving out 2007/8 (Bush Factor), normally would tell me you believe Congressional Action/Policy, dictates the Countries Policies, which if true, I would agree. The problem here is those Policies and those directions were dramatically changed in 1994, with many of the same problems as today. In this case, those changes were in fact good for the Nation, effectively making Clinton, what he has become today, a creditable former US President. If your saying the Republican majorities of 2000-2006 (though not near today's Democrat majorities) were in fact destructive in some manner, I would also agree and suggest many of them are also being dealt out of a possible 2011 Congress.

 

Briefly on you self proclaimed arguments;

 

1-How dare you insult the Republicans

2-The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans

3-Fox isn't as bad as you say it is

4-The Democrats really ARE doing more damage to this country than the Republicans did

5-Let's mince words! The Democrats controlled the House from 2006-2008! That means they were in power, and things continued to get worse![/Quote]

 

1- I rarely hear this anywhere, especially on Conservative Forums/Blogs and never here. There is plenty of blame to go around.

 

2-4- If you didn't know, much of Johnson's welfare programs were in fact first proposed by Eisenhower and guess who put a stop to them...Yes the then Senator Johnson. Policy is not necessarily destructive in itself if properly adopted, handled and administered. Our problem is each administration and/or Congress has built onto policy, EACH believing their party will get the credit. Unfortunately since 1965, the majority of Congresses, have been Democratically Controlled, thereby given the credit for success OR FAILURE.

 

3- Not only is it not as bad as you say, it has been nearly the only source for objective news reporting for many years. Mixing opinion shows and news reporting has been a problem for you...IMO.

 

5- Well they were, have things gotten better with a Democrat President, seriously....

[padren]

Bottom line, if you vote Republican this election expecting substantial differences in key issues like the economy and the national budget/deficit are addressed by our national government, you are either ignorant or insane. The Republican track record on these issues is deplorable and they have not changed their tune. You are attempting to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Even Republicans acknowledge this to a degree, why else would they be running ads posing as Latino Progresses telling them the moral thing is (not to vote Republican but) to not vote at all.

 

 

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive, less taxing government. Liberals want a larger, nanny state government of larger taxes as long as they are not the ones taxed. Republicans tell the people that they are conservatives, but the Bush years are a great example of how they are not. Evidence Democrats often vote with Republicans. In the last election cycle many conservatives punished the Republicans by staying away from the polls or even voting with the Democrats. What was their reward? Obamacare. So now the conservatives are flocking back. Is this really a surprise?

You mean the token adjustments to the free market health care insurance industry, that were watered down post-election in an attempt to placate conservatives?

 

Just as an aside, the best way to prevent the creation of large social programs is deficit spending. When debt is high, large social programs seem foolhardy. This is why Republicans don’t have a problem with deficit spending.

 

In addition to the above, the government simply can’t afford to give the middle class money through social programs. There is just too many of them. Somehow the Democrats occasionally convince the middle class that this isn’t true. Then the middle class see their tax bills go up with little or no personal benefit, so they switch back to the Republicans. Simple again.

On point 2, see point 1. If we weren't dead set on maintaining a Cold War era military, don't you think that just maybe we could provide basic safety net programs for the middle class?

Finally unemployment is high. Republicans are the party of business, or at least perceived to be so. Businesses aren’t hiring so people what to improve the business climate. So they vote Republican. Simple again.

 

This is not a new low. It’s same as it ever was. Bascule, you just don't like the current phase of this cycle.

Who still considers the Republicans to be the party of business?

 

More to the point, you can call it the "current phase of this cycle" but frankly it's not a cycle, it's a spiral, and not the good kind that keeps going up. We can go round and round all we want, but the debt keeps going up. Our dips are getting deeper, our recoveries are taking longer, and this is far and away anything but business as usual.

 

 

I'd say considering the context it does make this a new low.

[Pangloss]

Obama can't get anything done with the current Congress. And even if you maintain the majority in the House, it would take nothing short of a miracle of Biblical proportions to produce a 60th Senate vote out of this Iraqmire. So in effect you're arguing for the status quo, which we all agree isn't working.

 

Losing Congress could be the best thing that could happen to both Obama and the Democratic Party. As happened in 1994, the upheaval may bring a Democratic president back to the middle, able to work with an opposition Congress to make great things happen and even contribute to Obama's re-election.

 

That all sounds great to me, the independent voter. I'm having a hard time seeing the down side here.

[padren]

Obama can't get anything done with the current Congress. And even if you maintain the majority in the House, it would take nothing short of a miracle of Biblical proportions to produce a 60th Senate vote out of this Iraqmire. So in effect you're arguing for the status quo, which we all agree isn't working.

How would loosing the House make any difference? The Republicans won't have a super majority either, and they'll just promise a million free lollipops for everyone and 150% tax cuts to pay for it, then decry the Democrats must Hate America for not passing their bills. This will continue until 2012, status quo as usual.

 

Losing Congress could be the best thing that could happen to both Obama and the Democratic Party. As happened in 1994, the upheaval may bring a Democratic president back to the middle, able to work with an opposition Congress to make great things happen and even contribute to Obama's re-election.

 

That all sounds great to me, the independent voter. I'm having a hard time seeing the down side here.

I don't disagree that politically it could be the best thing for both Obama and Democrats to give the GOP enough rope to hang themselves (and the rest of us) all over again, but as citizens it will hurt them. If the Republican policy of obstruction fails to gain a majority in the House, they may actually have to come back to the middle and talk to Obama, who has proven to a fault he's happy to compromise on just about anything short of suicide for bipartisanship.

 

However, rewarding the obstructionists who believe in "our way or no way" with more power, yet still (thankfully) not enough power to get "their way" will only reinforce the strategy clear until 2012.

[waitforufo]

With regard to Obamacare you write.

 

You mean the token adjustments to the free market health care insurance industry, that were watered down post-election in an attempt to placate conservatives?

 

Look you don’t need to convince me or anyone else that the law passed is a piece of crap. So why did Obama sign it? The only thing I can figure is that he and his majority congress wasted his first two years creating that turd so if he didn’t sign it he would have no accomplishments in his first two years. A veto would have shown that he had some courage at least. Now we have a bad economy and a lousy health care plan. Nice attempt at trying to blame conservatives and Republicans. How many voted for it? The Democratic party owns that law and everyone knows it.

 

On point 2, see point 1. If we weren't dead set on maintaining a Cold War era military, don't you think that just maybe we could provide basic safety net programs for the middle class?

 

The middle class don’t need a safety net, the poor do. The military provides significant employment opportunities to young poor people. It’s part of our safety net.

 

Who still considers the Republicans to be the party of business?

S-Corporations. You know those corporations that file their tax returns as individuals making over 200k per year. Democrats call them the rich.

 

More to the point, you can call it the "current phase of this cycle" but frankly it's not a cycle, it's a spiral, and not the good kind that keeps going up. We can go round and round all we want, but the debt keeps going up. Our dips are getting deeper, our recoveries are taking longer, and this is far and away anything but business as usual.

 

I'd say considering the context it does make this a new low.

 

Naw, like Bascule things aren’t currently going your way. To conservatives Obamacare was a new low. What I don’t get is why liberals consider Obamacare a Democratic party accomplishment. We all know you wanted a single payer health care plan.

[padren]

Look you don’t need to convince me or anyone else that the law passed is a piece of crap. So why did Obama sign it? The only thing I can figure is that he and his majority congress wasted his first two years creating that turd so if he didn’t sign it he would have no accomplishments in his first two years. A veto would have shown that he had some courage at least. Now we have a bad economy and a lousy health care plan. Nice attempt at trying to blame conservatives and Republicans. How many voted for it? The Democratic party owns that law and everyone knows it.

At least the health care is better than it was, but it sure fell short of the goals. He had to sign it, he had to demonstrate that unilateral obstruction means you get left out of the game, and you can't deny it's better than leaving the broken system as it was. It's still broken, but it's less so.

The middle class don’t need a safety net, the poor do. The military provides significant employment opportunities to young poor people. It’s part of our safety net.

Do you really believe that? I don't see how signing your life over to get shot at is considered a safety net, or why veterans still end up having to fight just to get treatment for PTSD when what's left of them gets back state-side.

 

If the middle class doesn't need a safety net, why is it shrinking? They aren't all becoming millionaires. Middle class people have been hit with joblessness too.

S-Corporations. You know those corporations that file their tax returns as individuals making over 200k per year. Democrats call them the rich.

What have Republicans done that actually would give a business owner the impression that they know the first thing about business?

 

Naw, like Bascule things aren’t currently going your way. To conservatives Obamacare was a new low. What I don’t get is why liberals consider Obamacare a Democratic party accomplishment. We all know you wanted a single payer health care plan.

Did you hear that on Fox News? I don't know where you got your information about my sentiments, but go on ignoring the statements of fact that I posted contradicting your assessment, call a spiraling deficit "a cycle" and feel smug if you like.

 

Btw, as a "middle of the roader" all I wanted was a public option, and I don't know many liberals who consider Obamacare a victory, but it was an accomplishment. Getting anything past the unrepentant obstructionists is an accomplishment. But lets keep blaming Democrats for only getting 59 out of 60 when they had a super-majority for the lack of progress. Never mind that Republicans couldn't muster more than 0 out of 40 for anything.

[waitforufo]

What’s up with all the anger? I simply want different things from government than you do. Mainly I want less government and more freedom. I also wish our government and citizens would celebrate successful people. For example I wish our country had more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch types. I’m also thankful to all those wonderful people that provide me with that wonderful chemical, gasoline. It makes my life so much better.

 

I don't know where you got your information about my sentiments, but go on ignoring the statements of fact that I posted contradicting your assessment, call a spiraling deficit "a cycle" and feel smug if you like.

 

Now regarding the above, I respect your opinions, but please provide me a post where you more clearly identify these statements of fact you mention. With regard to the “cycle” I was mentioning the political cycle not a deficit cycle. The deficit is a different matter. Republicans like deficit spending because it stops the creation of large new social programs. Look, no single payer health care. The Democratic solution to every problem is more spending. What did the stimulus buy us? One thing I noticed this year while burning gasoline was that the almost the entire shenandoah skyline drive and blue ridge parkway was repaved. Also the going to the sun road in glacier national park. These three roads prohibit commercial traffic. Also I’m sure the “your stimulus dollars in action” sign makers were rolling in cash. Those suckers were everywhere.

 

At least the health care is better than it was, but it sure fell short of the goals. He had to sign it, he had to demonstrate that unilateral obstruction means you get left out of the game, and you can't deny it's better than leaving the broken system as it was. It's still broken, but it's less so.

 

How is it better? If it’s so much better why are they wavering companies (McDonalds) and unions (Teachers) out of it.

 

Do you really believe that? I don't see how signing your life over to get shot at is considered a safety net, or why veterans still end up having to fight just to get treatment for PTSD when what's left of them gets back state-side.

 

Yes, I really do believe that. I appreciate that not everyone wants to serve their country by the military option but many do. I respect and appreciate their service.

 

If the middle class doesn't need a safety net, why is it shrinking? They aren't all becoming millionaires. Middle class people have been hit with joblessness too.

Did you ever think that it’s shrinking because government is growing?

 

What have Republicans done that actually would give a business owner the impression that they know the first thing about business?

Less business regulation and less taxes. Now you might think that less regulation got us into this mess by having less regulation on banking. Not so. The government forced banks through regulation to loan money to people that could not afford to pay it back. Then they allowed Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac securitize those bad loans to pawn them off on the world. Thankfully Iceland, Ireland, and Scotland bought up so much of it. Sucker born every minute.

 

Did you hear that on Fox News?

Never watch TV news. Never visit the Fox News web site. I am sometimes taken there by hyperlinks. Perhaps you should turn of MSNBC.

 

Btw, as a "middle of the roader" all I wanted was a public option, and I don't know many liberals who consider Obamacare a victory, but it was an accomplishment. Getting anything past the unrepentant obstructionists is an accomplishment. But lets keep blaming Democrats for only getting 59 out of 60 when they had a super-majority for the lack of progress. Never mind that Republicans couldn't muster more than 0 out of 40 for anything.

 

I do believe you are a middle of the roader. Pick a side it’s more fun. By the way some games aren’t worth playing. If congress puts up a full extension of the Bush tax cuts however, my guess is you will have more than all the Republicans voting for it.

[A Tripolation]

I feel your pain bascule. In my home state, Rand Paul is set to win by a landslide. And that guy is as crazy as crazy gets. But everybody loves him around here. I just don't understand it...

 

Jack Conway may be an idiot, but he's the lesser of two idiots.

 

It frightens me with what zeal people defend Paul. And they don't even know what he believes. Just that he's not a democrat and is a Christian.

 

Spiraling downward indeed.

 

Yes, I really do believe that. I appreciate that not everyone wants to serve their country by the military option but many do. I respect and appreciate their service.

 

By the context of your statement, it sounded like you were saying, "The military is a way for the poor to get a job/money and benefits. They should sign up." That's how it appeared to me anyways. And I think (apologies if this is incorrect), that padren was saying, "They shouldn't have to go sign up for a war in a remote desert and get shot at to have medical care, and if they do, they damn well should have continued health care when the return."

 

But yeah...

Edited October 20, 2010 by A Tripolation

[padren]

What’s up with all the anger? I simply want different things from government than you do. Mainly I want less government and more freedom. I also wish our government and citizens would celebrate successful people. For example I wish our country had more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch types. I’m also thankful to all those wonderful people that provide me with that wonderful chemical, gasoline. It makes my life so much better.

Frustration would be a more apt word, you make assumptions about what I do and do not want. For instance, I want less government and more freedom. I also wish our government and citizens would celebrate successful people. For example I wish our country had more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch types. I’m also thankful to all those wonderful people that provide me with that wonderful chemical, gasoline. It also makes my life so much better.

 

I don't understand what I could have said that would make you think I didn't want those things, other than I think the Democrats have a better chance of delivering that than Republicans.

Now regarding the above, I respect your opinions, but please provide me a post where you more clearly identify these statements of fact you mention.

You said "Naw, like Bascule things aren’t currently going your way. "

 

This is after I clearly stated that I don't buy the cyclical argument, stating the facts:

 

"We can go round and round all we want, but the debt keeps going up. Our dips are getting deeper, our recoveries are taking longer, and this is far and away anything but business as usual."

 

Do you dispute that these are factors that are continuing to increase, despite the cyclical elements? That's why I referred to this as a "spiral" and stated why this is the reason for my dismay. Your "Naw..." not only puts words in my mouth, they completely contradict the words that did come out of my mouth, and completely ignore the statements of fact I cited to describe why I held my position.

 

If you are going to challenge my arguments for why I feel as I do you could at least have the courtesy to demonstrate where I went wrong in my own articulation of why I feel as I do.

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

With regard to the “cycle” I was mentioning the political cycle not a deficit cycle. The deficit is a different matter. Republicans like deficit spending because it stops the creation of large new social programs. Look, no single payer health care. The Democratic solution to every problem is more spending. What did the stimulus buy us? One thing I noticed this year while burning gasoline was that the almost the entire shenandoah skyline drive and blue ridge parkway was repaved. Also the going to the sun road in glacier national park. These three roads prohibit commercial traffic. Also I’m sure the “your stimulus dollars in action” sign makers were rolling in cash. Those suckers were everywhere.

Actually, the whole point of reforming health care is to save money while providing better health care, but that is a whole other debate. At this point however, you can't separate our financial situation from the political cycle.

 

Also, I don't think you can judge the entirety of stimulus spending based on what you see driving around.

 

How is it better? If it’s so much better why are they wavering companies (McDonalds) and unions (Teachers) out of it.

The waivers are temporary, they exist to provide more time to facilitate the transition. Any initial change to a system puts momentary stress on that system, and this allows that stress to be largely mitigated.

Yes, I really do believe that. I appreciate that not everyone wants to serve their country by the military option but many do. I respect and appreciate their service.

As do I but that is irrelevant to the question of those who don't want to join the military, nor does it change the fact that despite all the bumper stickers out there, many veterans still struggle to reintegrate with civilian life, and often have to fight to get the benefits they are do. Again, separate topic, but the military is hardly a social safety net. It also doesn't address those who for whatever reason are disqualified for service.

 

Did you ever think that it’s shrinking because government is growing?

I am not in the habit of drawing causative relationships where isn't even evidence of a correlative one.

Less business regulation and less taxes. Now you might think that less regulation got us into this mess by having less regulation on banking. Not so. The government forced banks through regulation to loan money to people that could not afford to pay it back. Then they allowed Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac securitize those bad loans to pawn them off on the world. Thankfully Iceland, Ireland, and Scotland bought up so much of it. Sucker born every minute.

I think Alan Greenspan put it better:

Partially ... I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations' date=' specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. I had been going for 40 years with considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. The overall view I take of regulation is, I took an oath of office when I became Federal Reserve chairman. I'm here to uphold the laws of the land passed by Congress, not my own predilections.

[/quote']

Edit: Found a more complete quote and updated for better context.

 

Never watch TV news. Never visit the Fox News web site. I am sometimes taken there by hyperlinks. Perhaps you should turn of MSNBC.

That was a joke, regarding the fact you were enlightened to some piece of information outlining how I really felt, which apparently was reliable enough to counter and contradict my own statements on the topic.

 

I do believe you are a middle of the roader. Pick a side it’s more fun. By the way some games aren’t worth playing. If congress puts up a full extension of the Bush tax cuts however, my guess is you will have more than all the Republicans voting for it.

I'm only middle of the road on some issues, but what games are you referring to? I agree with regards to the Bush cuts, Republicans rarely vote against Bush.

Edited October 20, 2010 by padren

[bascule]

The only thing stranger than Democrats trying to blame everything on Republicans is the fact that Democrats don't think anybody knows that Bush and the Republicans rang up a massive debt and deficit.

 

But assuming that Main Street America is unfathomably stupid is hardly new ground for Democrats.

 

It's not necessarily that they're stupid. Many of them are being fed a deliberately misleading narrative... primarily by Fox. These people are not doing their due diligence on the information they receive and it has lead them to believe that things which aren't happening... are. Case in point:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1&hp

 

At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.

 

“Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others.

 

After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.

 

“You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”

 

Taxes are the lowest they've ever been in history and yet taxes are one of the top issues you hear conservatives complaining about. The Bush Administration engineered their tax cuts (which were, of course one of the many things responsible for the huge increase in the debt) to expire under the next administration. Obama would like to preserve these tax cuts for the lower and middle class but is not seeking to renew them for the upper class. The Republican take on the matter? Obama is raising taxes on the rich.

 

Hannity is certainly do his part to reenforce this idea on Fox:

 

K88cAq1Lw3o

 

This is not a new low. It’s same as it ever was. Bascule' date=' you just don't like the current phase of this cycle.[/quote']

 

When else has the country been this polarized? The Civil War?

[Pangloss]

How would loosing the House make any difference?

 

Well, if we go by the Clinton administration and the 1994 "revolution" as a guide, Clinton was forced to work with Republicans, producing true bipartisanship. The result? A surging economy and budget surplusses. Sounds like a winner to me. (I thought splitting the government between Democrats and Republicans was a good idea even BEFORE 1994.)

 

 

The Republicans won't have a super majority either, and they'll just promise a million free lollipops for everyone and 150% tax cuts to pay for it, then decry the Democrats must Hate America™ for not passing their bills. This will continue until 2012, status quo as usual.

 

Well that's not what happened in 1994, but certainly I agree that it could go down that way. In which case the American people will explain to the GOP the error of their ways (again).

 

 

If the Republican policy of obstruction fails to gain a majority in the House, they may actually have to come back to the middle and talk to Obama, who has proven to a fault he's happy to compromise on just about anything short of suicide for bipartisanship.

 

You're welcome to your opinion (I happen to disagree), but what matters at the moment is that as far as the general public can tell President Obama is NOT a compromiser, and has NOT compromised to a fault. And they're about to tell him so in no uncertain terms. As Obi-Wan might say, this is not the change we were looking for. (waves hand mysteriously, replacing one worthless, obstructionist party with another)

 

 

It's not necessarily that they're stupid. Many of them are being fed a deliberately misleading narrative... primarily by Fox. These people are not doing their due diligence on the information they receive and it has lead them to believe that things which aren't happening... are.

 

Some things, sure, I think that's a fair statement. Like I said, turning out the Dems is a blunt instrument. Sadly it's the only tool in the shed.

 

 

When else has the country been this polarized? The Civil War?

 

I agree. And I am increasingly of the opinion that even war would be preferable to giving in to polarizing extremism. It's about time the majority stood up and engaged. The extremes have pushed too hard, too long. And in a couple of weeks we're going to send them a message as well. They won't understand it, but that's okay -- we'll keep explaining it to them until they do, or until we restore enough sanity to stop the damage -- whichever comes first.

[waitforufo]

When else has the country been this polarized? The Civil War?

 

My perception is that this polarization represents only a small minority of the American population. Half of that minority listens to Fox news and their ilk, and the other half listens to MSNBC and their ilk. Both of these media organizations are simply catering to their audience in an attempt to sell the soap they advertize. The majority is not participating in this polarization. The media just wants you to think they are. The vast majority of Americans are tired of the noise and have turned it off. Unfortunately, those revved up by the hype also donate to the political parties. So both parties consider their half of the hysterical minority to be their base. So the majority have lost interest in politics in general.

 

Perhaps cable and satellite TV are to blame. When I was young most cities in the US had about four channels to chose from. In the early evening every channel had news on at the same time for about an hour. That news was all very much the same. The networks tried to attract an audience and advertisers by having the best on screen personality (Walter Cronkite). Now we have many channels. Too many of those channels are 24 hour “news.” Much of that “news” is just opinion. Much of that opinion intended at gathering a audience shrunk by the spread of viewers over more channels. So each media outlet intentionally polarizes their audience in order to make them loyal viewers and purchasers of the products they advertise. Just turn them off.

 

I think the internet by the way is making the above worse. Those already polarized just visit sites that reinforce their polarization. Thankfully most don’t use the internet for news and opinion.

[Pangloss]

I feel your pain bascule. In my home state, Rand Paul is set to win by a landslide. And that guy is as crazy as crazy gets. But everybody loves him around here. I just don't understand it...

 

This is no longer the case. A new poll Rand Paul is presently leading by about 5 points, down from 11 a month ago.

 

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-lexington/paul-s-poor-polls

 

BTW, bascule was a big fan of Paul's father Ron, if memory serves.

[A Tripolation]

This is no longer the case. A new poll Rand Paul is presently leading by about 5 points, down from 11 a month ago.

 

That's excellent news. Conway unleashed a VERY aggressive negative ad challenging Rand Paul's faith that's on the local channels constantly. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?

 

And Ron is much more moderate and progressive than his son is.

Edited October 21, 2010 by A Tripolation

[bascule]

My perception is that this polarization represents only a small minority of the American population. Half of that minority listens to Fox news and their ilk, and the other half listens to MSNBC and their ilk.

 

Sorry, I think you're living in a fantasy world, and worse, as I stated in the last thread I posted you're falsely equating what liberals are doing with what conservatives are doing. Fox is deliberately disseminating falsehoods as part of a specifically directed narrative. MSNBC, well it's not great journalism, but Fox is over 9000 times worse, and has a substantially bigger audience.

 

And really, this just plays back to my point in aforementioned thread. Conservatives not only fail to realize that this is going on, but continue to look for liberal analogues to some extreme conservative treachary and once found, however minor, in their minds the liberals are no worse than the conservatives. No, really, that's not the case. What the conservatives are doing is substantially worse, and all these comparisons are patently false. Comparing Michael Savage to what's going on on the now defunct Air America network was false. Comparing Michael Moore to Glenn Beck is false.

 

The very fact otherwise well-thinking people blindly make these sort of comparisons when they're not valid whatsoever is extremely infuriating to me. Stop doing that. If you're going to compare two radio hosts, their audience sizes cannot be over an order of magnitude apart, or the comparison isn't valid. And worse, what they're saying has to be equally as bad. MSNBC is doing nothing close to what Fox is doing. Fox is literally telling their audience that Obama has raised taxes. He hasn't. He has no plans on raising taxes. Yet people watch Fox and believe that their federal taxes are higher under Obama. They're not. That simply isn't true.

 

Please, stop doing this. It harms rational political discourse. Before you pick arbitrary liberal thing A and arbitrary conservative thing B, take a second, step back, enumerate their qualities, and please determine if the comparison is in any way valid.

 

It is simply wrong to compare MSNBC to Fox. I cannot overstate this.

[Pangloss]

Ok, how about the Huffington Post, which just got a million-dollar donation to its investigative arm from George Soros?

 

How about National Public Radio, which just got a $1.8 million donation from George Soros (on the same day that it fired Juan Williams)?

 

Can we compare them with Fox News Channel?

[mississippichem]

Comparing Michael Moore to Glenn Beck is false.

 

How so? I hate Glenn Beck just as much as the next reasonable man. But I just can't see Michael Moore as a serious investigative documentary maker. His movie "capitalism: a love story" pretty much stated that derivatives markets were designed so that the common person couldn't understand them. Then he showed what he called their "cryptic language", it was nothing more than a little calculus. Michael Moore takes real data or ideas and draws his conspiracy theories just like Glenn Beck. Michael Moore also tried to make the Cuban Health-care system out to be so wonderful; citing that the WHO ranked Cuba above the US. Well, they also ranked North Korea in the single digits last year.

Bascule, you're too intelligent to allow your ideology to sway your assessment of the truth value of Michael Moore's statements. Michael Moore is a rampant ideologue who is willing to spread disinformation and half-truths in the name of the advancement of his agenda. How is that different from Glenn Beck? At least Glenn Beck admits to having made a fortune in his line of work.

Edited October 22, 2010 by mississippichem

[Pangloss]

Here's an article talking about Soros' massive donation to NPR, which has enabled the hiring of 100 new reporters for 50 of its radio stations. I wonder if they come with ACLU membership cards and carbon offset receipts packed into their hemp wallets.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/billionaire-soros-pays-additional-npr-reporters/

 

The money will go to launch a project called Impact of Government, which Soros' Open Society Foundation says will "bring greater transparency and accountability to the workings of state capitals across the country."

 

"A strong democracy requires a diverse, independent, and highly functioning watchdog press to help people hold the government and private sector accountable," Ann Beeson, executive director of U.S. Programs at the Open Society Foundations, said in a statement earlier this week.

 

"Watchdog", eh. I bet. Sounds to me like he wants to turn NPR into Media Matters for America, a partisan Fox News watchdog that openly exaggerates Fox News bias (just as the conservative Media Research Center does to the left). Oh, by the way, Soros also just donated a million dollars to MMA. Gee, what a coincidence.

 

Love these George Soros quotes:

 

"There is no question in my mind that the country -- and the world -- will be better off if Democrats keep control," Soros reportedly wrote in an e-mail to OpenSecrets blog, which is run by CPR.

 

“The Republicans have become so extreme in their rhetoric," Soros said. "For me, the Tea Party is a movement of intolerance … My donations will help to combat this intolerance, I hope."

 

Soros also founded MoveOn.org (of "General Betray Us" fame) and funded the now-defunct Air America (a more wretched hive of scum and villainy you will not find this side of conservative talk radio).

 

--------------

 

 

How so? I hate Glenn Beck just as much as the next reasonable man. But I just can't see Michael Moore as a serious investigative documentary maker. His movie "capitalism: a love story" pretty much stated that derivatives markets were designed so that the common person couldn't understand them. Then he showed what he called their "cryptic language", it was nothing more than a little calculus. Michael Moore takes real data or ideas and draws his conspiracy theories just like Glenn Beck. Michael Moore also tried to make the Cuban Health-care system out to be so wonderful; citing that the WHO ranked Cuba above the US. Well, they also ranked North Korea in the single digits last year.

Bascule, you're too intelligent to allow your ideology to sway your assessment of the truth value of Michael Moore's statements. Michael Moore is a rampant ideologue who is willing to spread disinformation and half-truths in the name of the advancement of his agenda. How is that different from Glenn Beck? At least Glenn Beck admits to having made a fortune in his line of work.

 

I don't agree with bascule's assessment of Fox News Channel, but a point he's raised in the past that I believe to be valid is that Glenn Beck is different from other partisan commentators in that he is so much more over the top regarding his end of the world scenarios, crackpot conspiracy theories and so forth. Bascule acknowledged in previous discussion that he might be similar to some commentators on the left, and I believe we agreed that Anderson Cooper might fall into that category, at least with some of his statements and angrier shows that he's done. Anyway, I agree with him that a direct comparison between Glenn Beck and Michael Moore is not really fair to Moore.

 

Which is not to say that I think Beck is completely without value. I think he makes the odd correct point now and then, and his overall message, at least his most recent one, sans crackpot theories, focusing on our choice between the progressive slide into socialism and the traditional American way of life, is eye-openingly astute. I don't share his fears, and I don't agree with many of his examples, but I think his general point is accurate, and more importantly, I think it reflects what a lot of Americans are thinking right now.

 

Progressives really don't get this country.

 

---------------

 

Here's an interesting illustration of just how much more engaged conservatives are than liberals at the moment. Thus far in 2010 about 33.8 million Americans have voted in primaries. Most of those voters were Republican. The last time that happened -- the last time Republican voters outnumbered Democratic voters in mid-term election primaries -- was eighty years ago. And the number of Democrats voting in primaries this year, as a percentage of the number of eligible voters, is the lowest ever.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/begley-the-psychology-of-voter-turnout.html

[waitforufo]

Sorry, I think you're living in a fantasy world, and worse, as I stated in the last thread I posted you're falsely equating what liberals are doing with what conservatives are doing. Fox is deliberately disseminating falsehoods as part of a specifically directed narrative. MSNBC, well it's not great journalism, but Fox is over 9000 times worse, and has a substantially bigger audience.

 

And really, this just plays back to my point in aforementioned thread. Conservatives not only fail to realize that this is going on, but continue to look for liberal analogues to some extreme conservative treachary and once found, however minor, in their minds the liberals are no worse than the conservatives. No, really, that's not the case. What the conservatives are doing is substantially worse, and all these comparisons are patently false. Comparing Michael Savage to what's going on on the now defunct Air America network was false. Comparing Michael Moore to Glenn Beck is false.

 

The very fact otherwise well-thinking people blindly make these sort of comparisons when they're not valid whatsoever is extremely infuriating to me. Stop doing that. If you're going to compare two radio hosts, their audience sizes cannot be over an order of magnitude apart, or the comparison isn't valid. And worse, what they're saying has to be equally as bad. MSNBC is doing nothing close to what Fox is doing. Fox is literally telling their audience that Obama has raised taxes. He hasn't. He has no plans on raising taxes. Yet people watch Fox and believe that their federal taxes are higher under Obama. They're not. That simply isn't true.

 

Please, stop doing this. It harms rational political discourse. Before you pick arbitrary liberal thing A and arbitrary conservative thing B, take a second, step back, enumerate their qualities, and please determine if the comparison is in any way valid.

 

It is simply wrong to compare MSNBC to Fox. I cannot overstate this.

Bascule, I really recommend that you take a few deep breaths, count to ten, and then just turn them all off. Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Glen Beck, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and the rest of them. Just turn them off. It doesnt matter which side they fall on. Their goal is the same. That goal is to get your blood up. Thats how all of them make money. If you think Michael Savage is upset about the success of Michael Moore or vice a versa your wrong. They depend on each other. Just turn them off. You see a polarized America because you are polarized. The vast majority of Americans are the same as they have always been. They just want decent jobs, low taxes and freedom. They prefer to be isolationist. The regretfully except that isolationism often doesnt work. listening to those stirring the pot just clouds your reasoning. Complaining about them just focuses more attention on them.

Edited October 22, 2010 by waitforufo

[Mr Skeptic]

Here's an interesting illustration of just how much more engaged conservatives are than liberals at the moment. Thus far in 2010 about 33.8 million Americans have voted in primaries. Most of those voters were Republican. The last time that happened -- the last time Republican voters outnumbered Democratic voters in mid-term election primaries -- was eighty years ago. And the number of Democrats voting in primaries this year, as a percentage of the number of eligible voters, is the lowest ever.

 

http://www.newsweek....er-turnout.html

 

You're right. This even beats the previous record low in the 2006 primaries, and you saw how the Democrats got trounced in the 2008 election.

 

Also, I like how the article totally puts the lie to your claim that the country is mostly conservative: When turnout for an election increases, it favors the Democrats and when it decreases it favors the Republicans. So which party is liked by the majority of the population?

[Pangloss]

You're right. This even beats the previous record low in the 2006 primaries, and you saw how the Democrats got trounced in the 2008 election.

 

Sarcasm doesn't suit you. And in this case it appears to be masking your point completely, at least from me. I completely agree that Democrats trounced Republicans in 2008, having participated in that very process myself, voting as I did for Barrack Obama and other Democrats.

 

 

Also, I like how the article totally puts the lie to your claim that the country is mostly conservative: When turnout for an election increases, it favors the Democrats and when it decreases it favors the Republicans. So which party is liked by the majority of the population?

 

"Lie?" Wow, what bee flew into your bonnet?

 

I don't think the majority of Americans are conservative in the sense of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (always voting Republican). I think the traditional voting break down is typically seen as 40% Republican, 40% Democrat, and 20% independent. But at the moment I think it's probably more like 25% Republican, 30% Democrat and 45% independent (more of whom are currently planning to vote Republican than Democrat, mostly because they're pissed about the economy).

 

But I think a general label of "conservative" applies to about 90% of Americans when viewed in contrast with what the typical SFN progressive or European citizen or progressive activist would LIKE to see. Americans are really pretty moderate, but if someone is so far to the left that even Barrack Obama seems conservative then they're not going to understand these shifts in voter activity because they don't understand how Americans think.

 

So what does it mean that there are more people voting in Republican primaries than Democrat primaries for the first time in 80 years? In my opinion it means that the conservative side of the American psyche is more engaged than the liberal side at the moment. I think Americans are feeling much more aligned with conservative thinking than liberal-progressive thinking at the moment.

[bascule]

Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Glen Beck, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and the rest of them. Just turn them off. It doesn’t matter which side they fall on. Their goal is the same. That goal is to get your blood up. That’s how all of them make money.

 

You still fail to understand what's happening. This isn't about money. Fox isn't doing this for the money, and in fact they're donating money directly to the Republican party. And you continue to equate Fox with others as if Fox is doing the same thing other media outlets are doing. They aren't. Fox is intentionally trying to deceive its viewers as part of their standard practices. This differentiates them from others and making blanket comparisons between Fox and other media outlets is simply invalid. And that's completely ignoring the audience sizes. Fox's audience is over an order of magnitude larger than any of the others you reference.

 

Just turn them off.

 

I don't have a cable subscription and can't watch any of these outlets with any regularity, but I do frequently travel and stay in hotels and when I do I watch Fox News to see what's going on.

 

That said even if I were to "just turn them off", they are still the #1 cable news network in the country and influencing the opinions of millions of millions of voters by feeding them a contrived narrative which, among other things, is convincing people that Obama has raised their federal income taxes, which is patently false.

 

You simply aren't paying attention to what Fox is doing.

Edited October 22, 2010 by bascule