Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[Phi for All]

+1 though figuring out which side does this more would be a fool's errand, IMO.

The Dems have their own faults, and I really don't think duplicity is one of them. They have many different ideologies to represent, much like the Reps, but I don't think those perspectives are nearly as mutually exclusive as the Reps have to deal with. Anti-big-government platformists and Big Brother Homelanders, pro-individual liberty supporters and anti-abortionists, national defenders and neocon World Police, I mean it's really difficult to see how these people can all be honestly represented by the Republican party.

 

The Dems don't have the balls to back what they know needs to be done, and I think it's partly because they know that their intellectual reasoning will be overwhelmed by very visceral and massively organized arguments that appeal to the majority for their brevity and lack of serious thought processing. They're also very bad at picking their battles and fighting them cohesively. They do a great job balancing the budget and then allow things like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Way too short-sighted when it really counts.

 

But duplicity doesn't work as well for Dems, imo, since it's patently obvious that what they do wrong can't as easily be pinned on Republicans.

[iNow]

I thought that they tried that and the result was lots of sub-prime lending followed by a massive crash in the world economy.

Indeed. Americans seem to have very short memories and the Republican team is definitely counting on that. In the meantime, hey look! A bicycle!

[rigney]

So a political party that supports candidates that have to either lie or be stupid is preferable to everyone else? A political party that is supported by and actively panders to people who promote the taking away of the rights of it's citizens can be trusted? A political party that is the author of our woes, supports and even promotes religious division and persecution of people whose beliefs are different is the lesser of two evils? Democrats must barbecue children at fund raisers... no wait, they are communist? Horse feathers...

 

Oh wait I forgot, a political party that is anti science, denies reality in favor of political and financial gain as well... it would be a funny plot for a b science fiction movie if it weren't a nightmare we can't wake from...

Your bitterness is showing Moontanman. Unless you live on an isolated island somewhere, there is no way to get through a day without 90% of the people you meet being christian or some other religion. Granted, many of them are creationist. But for them to not believe in science borders on the rediculous. Most of my people are religious but when they get sick, the first thing they want is a DOCTOR; not a SHAWMAN. C'mon get rational. Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

 

well the problem is that its obvious that businesses growing, hiring more people, etc is beneficial to the economy. Regulations which stifle business growth is obviously bad. However, the question is whether regulations (or repeal thereof) are designed to actually grow the economy or line the pocket of wall street traders and CEOs (which seems to have marginal benefit to economic growth).

 

The " Regulations which stifle business growth is obviously bad." argument would have gone down well with those who opposed the abolition of slavery.

The trouble is that some regulations are a very good idea from society's point of view.

As you say, it will be interesting to see if the regulations that R and R favour will be good for society or good for the rich.

I suspect we know the answer to that.

[Phi for All]

Right now I'm looking at Republicans as the lesser of two evils

Eight years of Democratic Clinton and a balanced budget, budget surpluses and some of the best prosperity to happen in my lifetime, then eight years of Bush wiping out those surpluses, putting us in the deepest debt we've ever been in, setting us up for the worst Depression since the Great One, and now four years of Obama trying to dig us out makes you yearn for Bush's party to take the reins again? I think your evil glasses are broken.

[Moontanman]

Your bitterness is showing Moontanman. Unless you live on an isolated island somewhere, there is no way to get through a day without 90% of the people you meet being christian or some other religion. Granted, many of them are creationist. But for them to not believe in science borders on the rediculous. Most of my people are religious. but when they get sick, the first thing they want is a doctor not a shaman. C'mon be rational.

 

 

No, being Christian doesn't mean you have to reject science or even reject evolution, but the fundamentalist parts of this religion are trying their very best to make this seem to be true but they know it's not. They are doing their best to make it look like voting for Democrats means you are voting against being a Christian, voting to have atheism taught to your kids, voting for abortion, voting for teenagers being instructed to have sex, they know this isn't true but they assert it anyway in an attempt to influence the more rational segments of Christians. I agree for them not to believe in science is ridiculous that is why I assert they are liars. In everything they say are lies.

 

They are nothing but fear mongers trying to whip the less fundamentalist parts of their religion into line by asserting lies.

 

All the republicans want is the money and votes from Christian conservatives and to do this you cannot admit to believing in evolution, climate change, the big bang, the list goes on and on but the rejection of scientific naturalism is the goal of these fundamentalists and the goal of the republicans party is to have these peoples money and support.

 

This is a very emotional issue, the tea party has asserted these things over and over and consistently support the teaching of creationism in schools and the rejection of climate change among other things. The Christian right is adamant in wanting creation science to be taught in schools, they do not reject all of science just the parts that contradict their religious world view. The republicans lie to make it look like they care but all they are really doing is lying to garner their support.

 

The religious fundamentalists want to assert religious control over our society, the republicans want their support so they support the efforts of these people to change our society to match the values the fundamentalists want. They don't want freedom of religion they want the freedom to assert their religion into your life as law.

 

it's not a joke rigney, it's not some half baked assertion either. The republicans are using the christian right to get into power so they can continue the failed policies of the past.

 

Rigney, in my state the Christian right has passed a constitutional amendment stripping citizens of their rights, not just homosexuals either, anyone who is not married and living together is affected by this as well. The Christian right is not all of Christianity but they have a disproportionate amount of influence due to fear mongering and ignoring of any evidence that disagrees with them and out right lying about what the evidence for these things actually say.

 

Nothing but liars rigney...

[Jebus]

I was rooting for Paul Hunstman.

[ecoli]

Eight years of Democratic Clinton and a balanced budget, budget surpluses and some of the best prosperity to happen in my lifetime, then eight years of Bush wiping out those surpluses, putting us in the deepest debt we've ever been in, setting us up for the worst Depression since the Great One, and now four years of Obama trying to dig us out makes you yearn for Bush's party to take the reins again? I think your evil glasses are broken.

 

I've said this before, but heaping praise on Clinton for prosperity makes about as much sense as blaming Obama for the recession. Clinton came into office during a huge tech and housing bubble which increased prosperity and the coffers of the treasury. Bush II didn't help matters by waging two huge, expensive wars, but was no more directly responsible for the tech bubble bursting than he was for 9/11 (housing + current recession is a different story, I agree).

 

The Dems have their own faults, and I really don't think duplicity is one of them. They have many different ideologies to represent, much like the Reps, but I don't think those perspectives are nearly as mutually exclusive as the Reps have to deal with. Anti-big-government platformists and Big Brother Homelanders, pro-individual liberty supporters and anti-abortionists, national defenders and neocon World Police, I mean it's really difficult to see how these people can all be honestly represented by the Republican party.

 

The Dems don't have the balls to back what they know needs to be done, and I think it's partly because they know that their intellectual reasoning will be overwhelmed by very visceral and massively organized arguments that appeal to the majority for their brevity and lack of serious thought processing. They're also very bad at picking their battles and fighting them cohesively. They do a great job balancing the budget and then allow things like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Way too short-sighted when it really counts.

Idk, I agree with the principle, but the premise

 

 

But duplicity doesn't work as well for Dems, imo, since it's patently obvious that what they do wrong can't as easily be pinned on Republicans.

Well maybe not for this cycle, but you latest post shows that you're perfectly willing to assign blame to a republican (tech bubble burst) for something that really happened during a Democrat's 'reign'.

[rigney]

No, being Christian doesn't mean you have to reject science or even reject evolution, but the fundamentalist parts of this religion are trying their very best to make this seem to be true but they know it's not. They are doing their best to make it look like voting for Democrats means you are voting against being a Christian, voting to have atheism taught to your kids, voting for abortion, voting for teenagers being instructed to have sex, they know this isn't true but they assert it anyway in an attempt to influence the more rational segments of Christians. I agree for them not to believe in science is ridiculous that is why I assert they are liars. In everything they say are lies.

 

They are nothing but fear mongers trying to whip the less fundamentalist parts of their religion into line by asserting lies.

 

All the republicans want is the money and votes from Christian conservatives and to do this you cannot admit to believing in evolution, climate change, the big bang, the list goes on and on but the rejection of scientific naturalism is the goal of these fundamentalists and the goal of the republicans party is to have these peoples money and support.

 

This is a very emotional issue, the tea party has asserted these things over and over and consistently support the teaching of creationism in schools and the rejection of climate change among other things. The Christian right is adamant in wanting creation science to be taught in schools, they do not reject all of science just the parts that contradict their religious world view. The republicans lie to make it look like they care but all they are really doing is lying to garner their support.

 

The religious fundamentalists want to assert religious control over our society, the republicans want their support so they support the efforts of these people to change our society to match the values the fundamentalists want. They don't want freedom of religion they want the freedom to assert their religion into your life as law.

 

it's not a joke rigney, it's not some half baked assertion either. The republicans are using the christian right to get into power so they can continue the failed policies of the past.

 

Rigney, in my state the Christian right has passed a constitutional amendment stripping citizens of their rights, not just homosexuals either, anyone who is not married and living together is affected by this as well. The Christian right is not all of Christianity but they have a disproportionate amount of influence due to fear mongering and ignoring of any evidence that disagrees with them and out right lying about what the evidence for these things actually say.

 

Nothing but liars rigney...

For some reason I thought you lived in S. Carolina? I can't give an honest yea or nay to this conundrum Moon. People, married or not, gay or not, have legal avenues to pursue their endeavours. But at the moment Christian fundamentalist have a voting bloc and control. I didn't like it that Obama got into office, but I had to accept him and he's a Christian. Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[ecoli]

For some reason I thought you lived in S. Carolina? I can't give an honest yea or nay to this conundrum. People, married or not, gay or not, have legal avenues to pursue their best endeavours. At the moment Christian fundamentalist have a voting bloc and

control. I didn't like it that Obama got into office, but I had to accept him and he's a Christian.

 

* disclaimer - statement doesn't apply in some states if you are gay and want to get married.

[Moontanman]

For some reason I thought you lived in S. Carolina? I can't give an honest yea or nay to this conundrum. People, married or not, gay or not, have legal avenues to pursue their best endeavours. At the moment Christian fundamentalist have a voting bloc and

control. I didn't like it that Obama got into office, but I had to accept him and he's a Christian.

 

How does Obama being a christian have anything to do with my argument?

 

* disclaimer - statement doesn't apply in some states if you are gay and want to get married.

 

 

only six states allow same sex marriage

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

 

This link provides the key to this map

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

[rigney]

How does Obama being a christian have anything to do with my argument?

 

 

 

 

only six states allow same sex marriage

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

 

This link provides the key to this map

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

Well shucks, I know how you don't have any love for Christians and was wondering how you could have coerced yourself into voting for him? Plus, I was agreeing with you. I'd even bet that there are some gays out there right now who pretend to be Christian just to be accepted by a larger audience? Hey! We were talking politics. Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I've said this before, but heaping praise on Clinton for prosperity makes about as much sense as blaming Obama for the recession. Clinton came into office during a huge tech and housing bubble which increased prosperity and the coffers of the treasury. Bush II didn't help matters by waging two huge, expensive wars, but was no more directly responsible for the tech bubble bursting than he was for 9/11 (housing + current recession is a different story, I agree).

Clinton could easily have used those surplus funds for other things, being a "tax and spend liberal" as the conservatives often portray the Dems (and not without reason at times). Instead, he taxed those that had been given a 12-year break in the Reagan-Bush years and chose to balance the budget and reduce the deficit in every way he could.

 

I really dislike some of the stuff Clinton let slip through, like allowing our news outlets to be owned by the very people we should be kept informed about, setting the stage for financial shenanigans by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but I do give him credit where it's due. And Bush's tax policies took effect in 2002, before the Iraq war, and quickly sunk the deficit to almost $400B.

[iNow]

I was rooting for Paul Hunstman.

Did you mean John Huntsman? He was a very rational and intelligent man... I think that's why he lost the Republican primary so quickly.

[Moontanman]

Well shucks, I know that you don't have any love for Christians and I was just agreeing with you. I'd even bet that there are some gays out there who pretend to be Christian just to be accepted by a larger audience? Hey! We were politikin'.

 

 

Again, there is no hard feelings here rigney, but you have fallen for the basic fallacy these right wing nut christians are using manipulate all christians. Christians all have to believe the same things this is simply not true, they define the parameters of christianity to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.

 

This is what is being used to manipulate the electorate, these fundamentalists are claiming that "all" Christians have to believe in Creationism (or more accurately their definition of christianity) and if you believe in science or evolution or disagree with their basic definition of what a christian must believe then you are not a christian.

 

I live in NC btw...

 

Did you mean John Huntsman? He was a very rational and intelligent man... I think that's why he lost the Republican primary so quickly.

 

 

I agree and that is my basic premise, to be a republican and have some chance of being president, or really even a party leader and to a great extent this applies to even to local elections, you must either be stupid or a liar, Huntsman admitted to having a brain and he was excluded almost immediately.

 

I think it can be asserted that Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives but are nothing but pawns of the Religious Right and the 1% (I'm not comfortable with that 1% thing as a definition) at the moment I can't think of anyway to put this and if anyone else has a better way to put feel free to point it out but the Republicans are nothing but pawns of special interest groups that either favor religious extremism or financial extremism.

 

The rest of us who really are centrists and want what is best for the entire country no longer have a party to vote for we are forced to choose from extremes, anyone who espouses a moderate political point of view is excluded... And both Democrats and Republicans are owned by special interest groups that have no interest in the well being of the United States of America... it actually smacks of treason to me...

 

I feel very strongly it is very similar to what happened to the Soviets, they pursued political extremes that destroyed their country from within, it was not a failure of Communism but a lack of vision to include anything else, China seems to be doing quite well by trying things outside the paradigm of Communism, we must allow for things outside the paradigm of Capitalism... Politics should not be a left/right thing, there has to be room for the best of both sides, neither side has an agenda that cannot be questioned.

[Phi for All]

I think it can be asserted that Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives but are nothing but pawns of the Religious Right and the 1% (I'm not comfortable with that 1% thing as a definition) at the moment I can't think of anyway to put this and if anyone else has a better way to put feel free to point it out but the Republicans are nothing but pawns of special interest groups that either favor religious extremism or financial extremism.

I'm also not comfortable with the 1% definition, since it includes some folks like Warren Buffet who think they should be paying a progressive tax, but it's a dumbed-down definition the dumbed-down electorate can understand.

 

To me, it's simply those corporations following a business model that demands higher and higher profits for their shareholders. It should be no surprise that enough years of following a model like that will lead to changing the laws to squeeze out more and more. The market will only allow so much corner-cutting, that part still works fairly well, but when the number crunchers can show that changing regulations and increasing subsidies is a low-risk, big return investment, it's become a practice that leads to inevitable catastrophe since this kind of prosperity doesn't help the GDP and harms the country in lost revenue, low wages and high unemployment.

 

The two major parties have been seduced, as has the Tea Party. I was going to say suborned, but that's a big part of the problem here, when they change the laws to make the evil they do legal, you can't come at them with due process. We can only try to remember that we control who gets in office and only if we're much more vigilant about it than we ever have been before. It only helps the 1% if we believe we're really split 50-50.

[Jebus]

Well, Romney is a mormon. If he gets elected, would that be the first time a president is neither catholic nor christian (excluding Jefferson)?

 

Did you mean John Huntsman? He was a very rational and intelligent man... I think that's why he lost the Republican primary so quickly.

 

 

Yes, it's Jon Hunstman. I don't know why I said Paul... lol. Too bad he lost though.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Jebus

[waitforufo]

I'm also not comfortable with the 1% definition, since it includes some folks like Warren Buffet who think they should be paying a progressive tax, but it's a dumbed-down definition the dumbed-down electorate can understand.

 

It sounds like you are saying your rich people are good and my rich people are bad. Is that how you feel? Sure Warren Buffet says taxes should be progressive. Progressive income taxes might as well be called wealth prevention taxes. That is what they are designed to do. Keep people from becoming rich. Notice however that the already rich stay rich regardless of the tax code. You know, people like the Kennedys. Warren Buffet can eliminate his future competition and be popular with Liberals at the same time. What a genius. No wonder he is rich. If you think Warren Buffet will pay more in taxes with changes in the tax code you are only deluding yourself. On top of that Berkshire Hathaway will just start marketing new products to avoid the new taxes and Buffet will just be come richer.

 

Warren Buffet is a good rich person. Good one. That’s like saying George Soros is a good corporate raider.

[iNow]

If he gets elected, would that be the first time a president is neither catholic nor christian (excluding Jefferson)?

No. It seems that Unitarian is one of the more common (in fact, JFK was the FIRST and ONLY catholic president).

 

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

Edited August 16, 2012 by iNow

[Arete]

Progressive income taxes might as well be called wealth prevention taxes.

 

Given that the poorest 40% of US residents have 0.2% of the financial wealth of the country, I'd be interested in the non-progressive taxation strategy you'd suggest that would raise an adequate budget whilst this section of the population contributed the same percentage of income tax as the richest 40%, who have 96% of the financial assets.

 

I mean, even if you took every cent that the bottom 40% had, you'd still have to take a massive hit to your annual income with a flat income taxation rate....

 

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Edited August 16, 2012 by Arete

[Jebus]

No. It seems that Unitarian is one of the more common (in fact, JFK was the FIRST and ONLY catholic president).

 

http://www.adherents...presidents.html

 

Never mind then. They all seem the same to me.

 

 

A few of his issues do appeal to me though. On Energy, "Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research." On Healthcare "Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines," and I agree with his foreign policy. Obama isn't that much different that Romney though...

[Phi for All]

It sounds like you are saying your rich people are good and my rich people are bad. Is that how you feel? Sure Warren Buffet says taxes should be progressive. Progressive income taxes might as well be called wealth prevention taxes. That is what they are designed to do. Keep people from becoming rich. Notice however that the already rich stay rich regardless of the tax code. You know, people like the Kennedys. Warren Buffet can eliminate his future competition and be popular with Liberals at the same time. What a genius. No wonder he is rich. If you think Warren Buffet will pay more in taxes with changes in the tax code you are only deluding yourself. On top of that Berkshire Hathaway will just start marketing new products to avoid the new taxes and Buffet will just be come richer.

I'm sorry you feel the need to reduce things to good vs bad. It's not how I feel. I feel Warren Buffet's views on the progressive tax are in line with mine. And he certainly made a decent living under Clinton's tax structure while the middle and lower classes prospered better than under Reagan or either Bush as well.

 

So I'm not sure what you should do with your concept of "wealth prevention taxes". You seem to be saying progressive taxes keep people from getting richer, except they do no matter what the tax code. Sounds a bit contradictory to me.

 

Warren Buffet is a good rich person. Good one. That's like saying George Soros is a good corporate raider.

Yeah, jokes always work out better for you when you get to write the straight lines AND the punch lines.

[ecoli]

Clinton could easily have used those surplus funds for other things, being a "tax and spend liberal" as the conservatives often portray the Dems (and not without reason at times). Instead, he taxed those that had been given a 12-year break in the Reagan-Bush years and chose to balance the budget and reduce the deficit in every way he could.

 

I really dislike some of the stuff Clinton let slip through, like allowing our news outlets to be owned by the very people we should be kept informed about, setting the stage for financial shenanigans by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but I do give him credit where it's due. And Bush's tax policies took effect in 2002, before the Iraq war, and quickly sunk the deficit to almost $400B.

 

Not much to add, but you've made some good points here.

[padren]

It sounds like you are saying your rich people are good and my rich people are bad. Is that how you feel? Sure Warren Buffet says taxes should be progressive. Progressive income taxes might as well be called wealth prevention taxes. That is what they are designed to do. Keep people from becoming rich. Notice however that the already rich stay rich regardless of the tax code. You know, people like the Kennedys. Warren Buffet can eliminate his future competition and be popular with Liberals at the same time. What a genius. No wonder he is rich. If you think Warren Buffet will pay more in taxes with changes in the tax code you are only deluding yourself. On top of that Berkshire Hathaway will just start marketing new products to avoid the new taxes and Buffet will just be come richer.

 

Warren Buffet is a good rich person. Good one. That’s like saying George Soros is a good corporate raider.

A rich person can be good and believe in a regressive tax system - as long as they believe in it for a good reason. If you're a job creator and actually care about the careers and lives people have been good enough to invest in your company more than squeezing out every dollar you can - you might be good.

 

If you don't care how many lives are destroyed as long as it improves your portfolio - you might just be bad.

 

There are still employers and even rich people who care about their communities, and the country as a whole beyond it's capacity as a wealth generating platform. I don't even care if they are left or right, as long as they are honest about how they come to their conclusions and care about the quality of life across the country.

 

If a rich person uses tax breaks because the tax code rewards investments that help keep moving this country forward - that's good. If a rich person buries as much of their money as they can into tax sheltering schemes simply because they can stick the tax bill with everyone else - that's bad.

 

I don't even care if a rich person makes their money Bain Capital style if they genuinely take on risky companies and try to make them profitable (even through heavy layoffs!) because businesses do falter and shareholders can recoup a lot more that way than through bankruptcy. When the "failing business" is actually easy to turn around but gets cannibalized for a short term stock value push and dump - that's bad.

 

 

I appreciate your ardent defense of the rich people who do have honest criticisms of liberal tax policy - I completely agree such a demographic is easily misjudged harshly, even boarding on bigotry at times. I do not feel however, that their unjustified sufferings justify turning a blind eye to those wealthy people who do game the system with no regard for who picks up the check or the impact it has on the quality of life for Americans as a whole.

[swansont]

Your bitterness is showing Moontanman. Unless you live on an isolated island somewhere, there is no way to get through a day without 90% of the people you meet being christian or some other religion. Granted, many of them are creationist. But for them to not believe in science borders on the rediculous. Most of my people are religious but when they get sick, the first thing they want is a DOCTOR; not a SHAWMAN. C'mon get rational.

The amount of money spent on untested supplements and sham cures like copper or magnetic bracelets, homeopathic remedies, Reiki and the volumes of people running away from vaccines these days runs contrary to this claim. People seek out sources that tell them what they want to hear to reinforce their biases and/or to give them the path of least resistance, much like in politics. They are too credulous and easily fooled. Why listen to a doctor when it's easier to believe that vaccinations cause your kid's autism or that wearing a special bracelet will cure you of arthritis or cancer? Why bother with the facts when the politician you like spouts lies that fit with your views and make it easy to hate his opponent?