The Republicans are the Problem

[esmith]

Since you disagree with what Romney has put forth, would you please let me know what programs Obama has proposed that will correct the problems that this country is facing. I, not like the Democrats, do not need the finite details just the basic ideas and how he expects to pay for these ideas.

 

[Storm]

I disagree with the article; for one it is obvious that the author is biased toward the left, as a member of the Brookings Institution which is describe as a left leaning association the authors would reflect the ideals of that institution. I do not think that the Dems have shifter right with the rest of the country. In my opinion they have shifter farther left than the majority of the country. Did the authors list any tactics that they consider "low"? No they didn't just expressed an opinion. I am sure if you go to any right leaning foundations you would get the exact opposite view. So, it is the responsibility of each person to weigh all information and come to their own opinion. I do not accept any opinion just on what is said, and neither should anyone else. I know that I am going to take heat for the following statement, but I really think that the "real news programs" on Fox try to be fair, giving equal time to both liberals, progressives, independents, and Republicans. There are a few other programs on Fox that I consider "fair" Greta Van Susteren for one. Yes, Fox has a right of center bias, but it is the only one of all the network and cable programs that does. Do, I relay totally on Fox for my news? No, I try and get opposing views from various cable and over-the-aid media. The Sunday AM political programs are the ones I usually watch. But, I must admit I have a very hard time, at times, listing to the Chris Matthews show.

How was that remotely connected to any of my first 3 points?

Maybe I missed it Storm, since you say you are not a Democrat; what economic and social values do you ascribe to?

I'm fairly liberal on most social issues, the most notable exceptions being the 2nd Amendment and the death penalty. I believe in a strategic blend of a capitalist private sector supported and restrained by judicious application of socialist ethics (safety nets, attempts to level the playing field of opportunity, public safety departments, and infrastructure). My personal pet economic issue is sorely neglected: We need a total overhaul of education funding. That's all I can think of off the top of my head, feel free to ask about anything else.

If you want to know what party I favor, that would be a resounding NONE. I never had anything resembling respect for partisanship, and this thread triggered a revelation for me this very morning: all parties are evil and will abandon any and every principle they claim to be founded on to keep power once they get it. **** party politics!

 

[Storm]

Don't be hasty. I am appalled by your headlong rush to premature judgment. Think of your great great great grandchildren who will only be a generation or so away from seeing trickle down economics finally work!

Uh huh. I'd rather think of my son, who actually exists. And then there's me. Ain't I a selfish *****?

 

[Storm]

Since you disagree with what Romney has put forth, would you please let me know what programs Obama has proposed that will correct the problems that this country is facing. I, not like the Democrats, do not need the finite details just the basic ideas and how he expects to pay for these ideas.

If you want to shift to a single Republican, may I suggest you choose one who doesn't reinvent himself every few weeks?

I honestly don't know whether Romney is for instance, pro-choice or a happy general in the GOP's War on Women. How am I supposed to argue policies dictated by polls instead of facts?

 

[Alceste]

Since you disagree with what Romney has put forth, would you please let me know what programs Obama has proposed that will correct the problems that this country is facing. I, not like the Democrats, do not need the finite details just the basic ideas and how he expects to pay for these ideas.

He wants to raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. And we of course know for a fact that collecting more revenue DOES reduce the deficit. We don't have to rely on voodoo economic theories that tell us the less money we take in, the richer we will become.

 

[esmith]

He wants to raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. And we of course know for a fact that collecting more revenue DOES reduce the deficit. We don't have to rely on voodoo economic theories that tell us the less money we take in, the richer we will become.

Well it seems like there are some that disagree with you and Obama's plan. I am giving you a web page link from the Cato Institute. Even though the Cato Institute is known as a libertarian (or classical liberal) think tank you might be interested in its appraisal of the Obama plan.

Obama: Tax 'the Rich' | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[esmith]

How was that remotely connected to any of my first 3 points?

I'm fairly liberal on most social issues, the most notable exceptions being the 2nd Amendment and the death penalty. I believe in a strategic blend of a capitalist private sector supported and restrained by judicious application of socialist ethics (safety nets, attempts to level the playing field of opportunity, public safety departments, and infrastructure). My personal pet economic issue is sorely neglected: We need a total overhaul of education funding. That's all I can think of off the top of my head, feel free to ask about anything else.

If you want to know what party I favor, that would be a resounding NONE. I never had anything resembling respect for partisanship, and this thread triggered a revelation for me this very morning: all parties are evil and will abandon any and every principle they claim to be founded on to keep power once they get it. **** party politics!

Sorry you feel that way. I assume then that you don't care what happens.....they are all evil.
The only way to change this country is to attempt to elect the right people to do the job. If you walk away, you are basically admitting defeat. I for one have to determine which candidates, local, state, and federal will do a better job than the other. Maybe they aren't perfect or even close to perfect; BUT if you do not become involved you can not complain if things are not going as they should. One person can not change the system. The TEA party movement, whether you agree with them or not, is an example of a citizen group that decided that they wanted peaceful change to the government and organized to make a change. So, it can be done.

 

[Storm]

Sorry you feel that way. I assume then that you don't care what happens.....they are all evil.

You know what happens when you assume, right? I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. Parties are not people, so no I don't care what happens to them. I do care what happens to PEOPLE.

The rest of your rant was excised for irrelevance.

 

[Alceste]

Well it seems like there are some that disagree with you and Obama's plan. I am giving you a web page link from the Cato Institute. Even though the Cato Institute is known as a libertarian (or classical liberal) think tank you might be interested in its appraisal of the Obama plan.

Obama: Tax 'the Rich' | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

"Think tanks" are not credible sources of information. They are glorified ad agencies. If you're looking to buy a vacuum cleaner, do you ask a Hoover ad man what the most cost effective brand is?

Edit: I also don't see why you need to find republican propagandists to explain why you think cutting taxes is more likely to eliminate the deficit than raising them. Can't you come up with an explanation yourself? That might be a sign that your reasoning is flawed. Just saying. ;/

 

[Drolefille]

Sorry you feel that way. I assume then that you don't care what happens.....they are all evil.
The only way to change this country is to attempt to elect the right people to do the job. If you walk away, you are basically admitting defeat. I for one have to determine which candidates, local, state, and federal will do a better job than the other. Maybe they aren't perfect or even close to perfect; BUT if you do not become involved you can not complain if things are not going as they should. One person can not change the system. The TEA party movement, whether you agree with them or not, is an example of a citizen group that decided that they wanted peaceful change to the government and organized to make a change. So, it can be done.

She gave you a list of the things she cares about and you assume she doesn't care about the country?
Not favoring a particular party doesn't mean she doesn't vote. Read the entire post, then comment.

 

[Storm]

She gave you a list of the things she cares about and you assume she doesn't care about the country?
Not favoring a particular party doesn't mean she doesn't vote. Read the entire post, then comment.

*tries to count the number of times she's mentioned voting for Obama the last week. Fails*

 

[esmith]

You know what happens when you assume, right? I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. Parties are not people, so no I don't care what happens to them. I do care what happens to PEOPLE.

The rest of your rant was excised for irrelevance.

I might have expressed what I thought in a different manner, but I took your statement

If you want to know what party I favor, that would be a resounding NONE. I never had anything resembling respect for partisanship, and this thread triggered a revelation for me this very morning: all parties are evil and will abandon any and every principle they claim to be founded on to keep power once they get it. **** party politics!

that you would not support either party, but you care about people. I understand this. So, I took your meaning as "I don't agree with the policies of either party and neither of them deserve my vote". Can you now see where I might come to that conclusion?

 

[Storm]

I might have expressed what I thought in a different manner, but I took your statement
that you would not support either party, but you care about people. I understand this. So, I took your meaning as "I don't agree with the policies of either party and neither of them deserve my vote". Can you now see where I might come to that conclusion?

Only if you ignored everything else I said. I've stated quite clearly, numerous times, across several threads including this one that I intend to vote for Obama. This thread in particular features my increasingly desperate attempts to explain the motive behind that vote. To restate it AGAIN, I believe that the Republican party (as distinct from the conservative bloc of the electorate) is deliberately harming the nation in a multitude of ways in a transparent bid for power. The Democratic candidate will therefore get my vote, not because he deserves it, not because his party represents my views or has any sort of moral superiority, but because that's the singlemost effective thing I can do to defend the people I care about from the damage the GOP will do if they get their way.

 

[esmith]

"Think tanks" are not credible sources of information. They are glorified ad agencies. If you're looking to buy a vacuum cleaner, do you ask a Hoover ad man what the most cost effective brand is?

Edit: I also don't see why you need to find republican propagandists to explain why you think cutting taxes is more likely to eliminate the deficit than raising them. Can't you come up with an explanation yourself? That might be a sign that your reasoning is flawed. Just saying. ;/

What makes you think that the Cato Institute is Republican propagandists organization? If you bothered to research the Cato Institute you would have found the following:
Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues. (my emphasis)
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato's Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today's world of global markets and unprecedented access to more information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.

And from Wikipedia
The Institute's stated mission is "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."[9]
Cato scholars were critical of George W. Bush's Republican administration (2001–2009) on several issues, including the Iraq War,[10] civil liberties,[11] education,[12] agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending.[13] On other issues, most notably health care,[14] Social Security,[15][16] global warming,[17] tax policy,[18] and immigration,[19][20][21][22][23] they supported Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.[24][25][26][27]
Cato has criticized President Obama's stances on policy issues since his inauguration, such as fiscal stimulus, healthcare reform, foreign policy, and the War on Drugs,[28][29][30][31] while supporting his stance on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell[32] and liberal immigration policy.[33]


So, you can see they are very non-biased toward Political parties and agree and disagree with ideas from both Parties. Care to change your opinion?

 

[esmith]

Only if you ignored everything else I said. I've stated quite clearly, numerous times, across several threads including this one that I intend to vote for Obama. This thread in particular features my increasingly desperate attempts to explain the motive behind that vote. To restate it AGAIN, I believe that the Republican party (as distinct from the conservative bloc of the electorate) is deliberately harming the nation in a multitude of ways in a transparent bid for power. The Democratic candidate will therefore get my vote, not because he deserves it, not because his party represents my views or has any sort of moral superiority, but because that's the singlemost effective thing I can do to defend the people I care about from the damage the GOP will do if they get their way.

Fine you have your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[Storm]

Fine you have your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it.

I never asked you to. I merely objected to you quote mining the response you thought would make me look bad in defiance of all our previous conversations.

Also, you raised every irrelevant point of this particular tangent, beginning with the assumption that I must support one party to oppose another, asking me to summarize my political views (which I happily did, ending with an invitation for further discussion), and concluding with a demonstrably ludicrous admonition that I should vote whether I like it or not.

Now. Given that the vast majority of this thread is an off-topic mess and the OP doesn't object (if she's even reading anymore), I will happily discuss any and every political point you would like, provided you keep the number of arguments reasonable. (Like 3, as opposed to 50.) I suspect we have a good deal more in common than you think.

I will not, however, play along with the game of chiding one another to return to the topic in lieu of discussion, particularly when said topic is partisan strategy, not policy ideals.

I think that's fair. Do you?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Only if you ignored everything else I said. I've stated quite clearly, numerous times, across several threads including this one that I intend to vote for Obama. This thread in particular features my increasingly desperate attempts to explain the motive behind that vote. To restate it AGAIN, I believe that the Republican party (as distinct from the conservative bloc of the electorate) is deliberately harming the nation in a multitude of ways in a transparent bid for power. The Democratic candidate will therefore get my vote, not because he deserves it, not because his party represents my views or has any sort of moral superiority, but because that's the singlemost effective thing I can do to defend the people I care about from the damage the GOP will do if they get their way.

Here...here...!!!..:clap

 

[Storm]

Here...here...!!!..:clap

Thank you.

 

[esmith]

Now. Given that the vast majority of this thread is an off-topic mess and the OP doesn't object (if she's even reading anymore), I will happily discuss any and every political point you would like, provided you keep the number of arguments reasonable. (Like 3, as opposed to 50.) I suspect we have a good deal more in common than you think.

I will not, however, play along with the game of chiding one another to return to the topic in lieu of discussion, particularly when said topic is partisan strategy, not policy ideals.

I think that's fair. Do you?

Let's try just one to start. By the way, anyone can jump in if they so desire.
Let's start with unemployment insurance. I totally disagree with the present policy for the following reasons.
1. I think it promotes a "I do not want to work attitude". Let me give you an example. I have a nephew who was laid off. He went on unemployment and about 3 months into the period he was offered a job. The job paid about $200 more a month than unemployment. He turned it down because he said he could make just about as much and not have to work. When his unemployment expired, he went out and got a job at about the same pay as he was offered the first time. I do not know how much you believe John Stossel, but he did a program on the unemployed. He interviewed people inline at the employment office and various businesses within about a 10 block area. He found many of those business were looking for help, but couldn't find anyone that wanted to work. Of those he interviewed there excuses ranged from, why work to it isn't in my career field.
I therefor think that the time period for unemployment should be lowered back to an earlier time limit.

 

[Storm]

Let's try just one to start. By the way, anyone can jump in if they so desire.
Let's start with unemployment insurance. I totally disagree with the present policy for the following reasons.
1. I think it promotes a "I do not want to work attitude". Let me give you an example. I have a nephew who was laid off. He went on unemployment and about 3 months into the period he was offered a job. The job paid about $200 more a month than unemployment. He turned it down because he said he could make just about as much and not have to work. When his unemployment expired, he went out and got a job at about the same pay as he was offered the first time. I do not know how much you believe John Stossel, but he did a program on the unemployed. He interviewed people inline at the employment office and various businesses within about a 10 block area. He found many of those business were looking for help, but couldn't find anyone that wanted to work. Of those he interviewed there excuses ranged from, why work to it isn't in my career field.
I therefor think that the time period for unemployment should be lowered back to an earlier time limit.

OK. That's really lame behavior that does exploit the system. That said, I don't think it's justifiable to cut off people who are legitimately struggling in an inarguably bad economy to stop jerks from being jerks.

The crappy thing about safety nets is that no matter how many measures you take to prevent exploitation, someone somewhere will find a way to exploit them. So, the government has to try to strike a balance between helping people who need it and not letting lazy people bleed the system dry. In the particular case of unemployment insurance, I don't think it should be infinite, but I don't know where to draw the line myself.

If I HAD to come up with a solution, I would say the case managers (not sure if that's the correct term) should be provided means to confirm an honest search for employment. Like, the recipient provides the contact info of the companies applied to, and the case manager contacts them to find out if a job offer was made. Turn down x amount of job offers, and you don't get anymore insurance.

Honestly, though, I don't know whether that's a feasible solution, as it depends entirely on average caseload.