Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Congratulations Obama , you did it.
You have fundamentally transformed America.
Now as the USA slips further economically, people like Max will demand more and more support from the Government and will permanently elect Democrats. It will be an economic death spiral.
The US dollar will collapse. The zombie apocalypse will occur.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Romney is going to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.
ReplyDeleteYou won't here PEEP from the hypocritcal Dems that want to get rid of the electoral college. Isn't that right Maxipad?
I've never taken a dime of government assistance in my life and I've worked all my life. The electoral college, at this moment, appears irrelevant live. Study the Demographics Live. You can call me all kind of clever names, but as a middle aged white guy, me and the demo I belong to are much less of a threat to you the growing demo's who at this time do not support the far right agenda.
DeleteHad Obama lost, I likely would have been as bitter as you are today. I am not gloating.
Goodbye Israel, nice knowing you.
ReplyDeleteGoodbye coal workers. Hope you have a backup plan.
Goodbye American Dream.
Goodbye best healthcare system in the world.
Hello Brown Shirts.
Hello hyper-inflation.
Oh shocker, the us will fall back in to a recession as the administration releases the true economic figures and corporate layoffs will skyrocket.
Buy some Smith and Wesson stock.
L>S
ReplyDeletePlease do not lead your nation into a crowded room of sore losers. The vote I understand was democratic and the result was Close
\The Senate balance has changed, which represents the errors made by the Republican Party in their selection procedure of candidates. Time perhaps to look to rebuilding the GOP and at the very least, get rid of the extremists in the Tea Party who want to destroy not only Democrats but moderate Republicans also.
On the Democrat side of the fence, the Pres may well have learnt the value of being prepared to compromise and if he can become Presidential your country will become great again.
No matter which party, your man is never as good as his supporters think and never as bad as his detractors believe.
I believe both are good men and both want what is good for America, there is a lot of room for compromise but I do believe the hatred must stop. A nation fighting within itself cannot hope to prosper. Your country learnt that in the years leading up to 1865.So many heroes were found in those years but of legislators, there was but one who remains part of history. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” A quote from perhaps the greatest of the presidents to date.
Cheers from Aussie
"Time perhaps to look to rebuilding the GOP and at the very least, get rid of the extremists in the Tea Party who want to destroy not only Democrats but moderate Republicans also."
DeleteKing, we have had this conversation before. It is not about party, the Tea Party is not a party, it is about country.
Better to lose an election than to place another group of RINO'S in office who will add onto the 16T debt we face.
History is long King. We still have our freedom and our president is not(yet) a king or queen. The Senate may have remained to the left, but the House remains to the right. This journey is not about this time, it is about the future. The future of our children and grandchildren.
Yes, those who live at the government teat have banded together and temporarily protected their entitlements. The bell soon will toll, the piper paid with inflated dollars, the massive debts settled.
I choose to remain with those that value freedom.
1773-2009 DI
William my thanks.
DeleteYes I know this conversation is not new and the irony is that I have been if not supportive, at least complacent in the views expressed by the far right members of the Republican Party. Of course there is no "Tea Party”, it is simply a grouping of Republicans with views to the right of the majority of the membership and with no formal standing or organizational formality. My study of history leads me to an understanding of the values of the group but it also leads me to a belief that the group is an element self destructive unto itself but also tending to destroy the main Republican Party.
I can admit to being a life long conservative and it therefore pains me to see the GOP perusing agendas likely to keep the Republicans out of the white house for a decade. Hilary Clinton, providing she is prepared to run is a shoe in four years hence unless the economic situation is allowed to get terminal, then it will not matter who runs.
Something which bothers outsiders is the likely effect the US economy will have on the rest of the world. We know all about the fiscal cliff and the automatic trigger in January. What we are looking for is bipartisanship in Congress to prevent the worst of the effects. Your economy is still critical to the world and by my amateur figuring; implementation of the changes in full will change America from a 2 percent growth to a four percent deficit return within two quarters.
Cheers from Aussie
On the Democrat side of the fence, the Pres may well have learnt the value of being prepared to compromise and if he can become Presidential your country will become great again.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you on this comment. Obama has had 4 years to compromise and build a coalition to govern effectively. He chose to take the road of my way or the highway. Expect more of the same and possibly worse as this is his last 4 years and isn't looking at re-election.
Lou
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is correct but where to now?
I was making the point that this "second chance" is perhaps what the President needed to realize the necessity to become presidential; perhaps a characteristic missing until now. During the past week or so, I heard some commentator refer to a President who proclaimed he was going to ":live in the isle” meaning he was going to become apolitical in order to promote the compromise necessary for good governance and for the president to be seen by history as a good President.
In closing, I wish to state that the Presidents acceptance speech mirrored my sentiments even though I posted my views long before the speech was uttered.
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
DeleteI happen to agree with Lou, and don't think he deserved this second chance. Like the previous democratic president, he spent his first term doing what he could to ensure he would be re-elected, except that he far surpassed Clinton. In-your-face pandering, blaming, and otherwise unseemly and often embarrassing behavior have been the order of the day.
With all that, those who chose to voice their opnion at the polls, as appallingly low a percentage of eligible voters as seems to be the norm, have spoken, yes? Those of us who wanted the Snake oil saleman-in-chief to go to Chicago will just have to shrug our shoulders and close this chapter as we watch the forced march.
Jean
I would say Kingston that 'compromise' for the sake of compromise is NOT good governance and 'living in the Isle' does not necessarily mean including the values of your opponents in your values.... Just because you ask for 1 trillion and only get 500 billion doesn't necessarily mean that you have done something good when the right approach should have been to ask for nothing in the first place. This is the dilemma of a fiscal conservative. If you have spent too much and realize the need to stop spending then you become an obstructionist because your convection tells you that spending is no longer the direction to take.
DeleteKingston, Lou, et al, I find the talk of compromise to be a load of hogwash (to put it politely). From day one of Obama's administration, Republicans openly vowed to make him a one term POTUS. Is there anything Republicans have compromised on in the last four years? With the exception of Obama care, there has been very little Obama has done that was a sharp departure from Bush. Additionally, the Democrats controlled not one, but two houses and yet, the endless cry was that it was Obama who was the obstructionist that refused to work across the aisle.
DeleteTo your point Scott, I continue to be bitter about the absolute refusal of Republicans to accept a very deserved blame for where we are today. At the end of Clinton's term, we were beginning to pay down our debt and not only did we undo that, but we immediately threw ourselves into a hole of deficit spending that NO president is going to stop, let alone reverse in a short period of time. The real dilemma of a fiscal conservative is whether they keep pretending that trickle down economics work or whether they want to actually participate in creating a plan that will slowly but surely put us on a path of moving forward. Right now, fiscal conservatism in practice means nothing but castigating Obama, denying they contributed to the problem in the first place and refusing to do anything but defend to the death their pledges to Grover Norquist.
The difference Max is a fiscal conservative wants change. Change in how we spend our hard earned dollars.
DeleteTax cuts, we've had enough tax cuts to last a life time. We have excluded 47% from participating in the honor of pay for our government. We have wealthy people paying 10%. Everyone excluding the proven indigent should participate. 5 dollars or 500 million, everyone should participate. Set realistic tax rates without the exemptions. Why have a 15% tax rate when the effective tax rate is 5.6%. Why have a 35% tax rate and pay 15%. We need tax reform that cannot be amended or change to suit the ruling party.
The Republicans as well as the Democrats are to blame for the largess in the past years. The spending to buy votes has to stop.
Government will continue to spin out of control until a leader steps up and stops the madness. A review of every department and every employee, every program needs to take place and determine if it's in the best interest of the country. We don't need 82 different departments administering welfare dollars. We need 1.
We don't need 30 czars running the country by appointment, we need a president to lead the country.
When was a cabinet deemed inefficient and of no need to the people? Never. Until we address the government and the way it's run, we will continue our trip down the rabbit hole.
"We have excluded 47% from participating in the honor of pay for our government."
DeleteWe have also excluded them from participating meaningfully in the distribution of income. The bottom 50% earn 13% of all the income. Are you really bothered we don't tax them enough? Are they not taxed by inflation for the benefit of stock holders? Income growth is shit during Obama's tenure, yet, stock indices are up 60%. BTW, the table you and I are both using from the IRS is from 2009. I can't wait to see what it looks like since the stock market has recovered. Just think of how much wealth we have created for the top 1% with tax payer money for bailouts and fighting to the death for the principle that people like Romney should only pay 13%.
I get what you are saying Lou, and there is a lot in principle that I agree with. My belief, however, is that unfair, progressive taxation is the only way to fix income disparity. I'm not talking about punishing success, I'm talking about punishing the decision to vastly overcompensate a select few who do comparatively little to keep the system going. We are truly creating a massive class of "idle rich" who not only are not contributing nothing but reduced taxes, but are also setting the rules that the rest of us live by. There is no way to fix this that is "fair". But, to do nothing about it and continue to believe the market will provide a pathway up for those without connections or resources will continue to drag us down.
Max,
DeleteLife is about choices. Chose well and you do well. Chose poorly and deal with the consequences. That is what our lives are about.
One person chooses to go to college, pays the bill, goes to grad school, pays the bill, job, tons of hours to learn the job a trade. 10 years later the person starts a family delays children to buy a house and a secure future. Then chooses to start a family and is able to provide for that family.
Second person chooses to go to work directly out of HS as they want the money. They work, get married have children. Life's a struggle at a low paying job. 18 years later the children graduate, the cycle begins again.
Both choices, both work and provide for their family. One pays little in Federal Income Tax, the other pays a great deal.
Should government subsidize the person who went for instant gratification?
As a side note, We are truly creating a massive class of "idle rich" who not only are not contributing nothing but reduced taxes, but are also setting the rules that the rest of us live by.
California proves that to be incorrect as the poor and middle class voted to raise the state income tax on the rich to pay for the schools of the poor and middle class.
The voters in the US proved that wrong with the last election electing Obama who isn't the choice of the people paying the bulk of the Federal Income Taxes in America.
What I hear in what you are saying Lou is the message that if you aren't comfortable, it is because you are lazy. Even for the kids who go to college today, the job market still sucks and the "new" scheme is to have them work for free as interns "to get experience". Are you saying we need to rightly punish the second person because, heaven forbid, they want to start working after high school rather then sit around, drink beer and get laid for four years while they check another box on the list of things parents tell them to do?
DeleteCollege is not for everyone and that's a hard truth. Reading your comment, I take away the message that people deserve to live a shitty life if they can't climb to the top regardless of how willing they are to show up everyday and go to work. Further right of you Lou, is a cement head like view that if you are poor, it's because you are lazy and you are looking for a handout. It's a cop out and it's an attitude that absolves those who hold it of ever having to consider the well being of anyone but themselves and it allows them to continue thinking they are so much better then everyone else.
Your last para is truly something to ponder, especially the last sentence. Again I ask, if the wealthy don't want to pay all the taxes, why continue to support a system that is increasingly swelling the ranks of those who don't pay taxes? The view that life is simply about choices and that all those who are poor are basically there because they made bad choices is slowly being rejected. If the right continues to fight to death on selling this nonsense, they are going to continue to lose standing.
What you didn't hear is life is about choices we make. That story is a comparison between my younger brother and myself.
DeleteWe chose different paths and the results are what they are. His jobs in life provided a living and a retirement plan. The company he worked for offered a out package. He wasn't lowest on seniority so he was safe but chose the 50K out package. Spent the money moved to a job with a 401K plan. After saving for several years, borrowed the money to remodel the kitchen, bathe etc. Left the job, had to take equity from the house to pay the 401K loan or the taxes.
I lousy decision after another so like many Americans today.
No, not everyone is college bound but you wouldn't believe that from Obama and the here's some money go to college. No I am not better than my brother but I have made better decisions. He will work till 65, 67 collect SS with little retirement savings. Should the country be required to support him and his bad decisions? I am as he is my brother and I accept that fact but you shouldn't as a tax payer.
Many are not in the above situation by choice, many are.
Please Max.... The myth perpetrated by the democrats over the wonderful results of the Clinton administration are nauseating. Clinton raised taxes in his first administration but even he in 1995 said that it was a mistake. The conspiracy of things that make the Clinton era look so good started with his second term. First welfare reform actually increase the revenue base of the lower income by releasing them from the trap they were in with welfare rules that disallowed them to earn them money necessary to get off of welfare. Second, NAFTA in the early years created a boon in trade for the US to Mexico.. that soon changed but it added much to business export and tax revenue and thirdly and most importantly were the tens of thousands of jobs created by companies with worthless business models funded by a stock market fuels by the low interest rates of the fed. Were it not for these things, the Clinton era growth rates registered in his second term would have been worse than those of his first term ..... which were lower than Reagan's after the recession of the 1980's....
ReplyDeleteBy the way Max, not very Republican is a fiscal conservative and not every fiscal conservative is a Republican...
"By the way Max, not very Republican is a fiscal conservative and not every fiscal conservative is a Republican..."
DeleteTHIS, TS, is a truth that needs to be pounded into the head of every voting American. Despite reality painting a vastly different picture, there are no end to people who believe the Republicans are more credible on fiscal issues.
To the rest of your statement, I'm not sure how you get that I am a huge defender of Clinton. I've been critical of plenty that he did and have said numerous times he enjoys an unearned status as pooh bah. I would, however, like to see your context for his statement that raising taxes was a mistake. When Reagan later raised taxes, was that not an admission he had lowered them too much? Context is important.
At best, Clinton governed something like a moderate Republican. He bought everything that Greenspan was selling him about deregulation and trade deals and ultimately, Ross Perot was dead on about the giant sucking sound. Regardless, TS, the fact remains that we were paying debt down and we implemented a system of pay/go wherein you needed to make cuts before introducing new spending. I don't believe there is a single Republican in office today who will say it's EVER the right thing to do to raise taxes no matter how much debt we have.
You touch on something, however, that all of us are in agreement on, the financial scams of the last 20 years could not have happened without Alan Greenspan. After making a dead on comment about irrational exuberance in 96, he spent the rest of his tenure preserving that exuberance.
Romney, clearly, is not in office, but I think his plan, or concept, to cut taxes in a deficit-neutral, which would effectively have raised net taxes ont he wealthiest, would have been the exception to your "EVER the right thing to do" statement.
DeleteJean
Jean, are you talking about the plan he refused to give any details about?
DeleteMax,
DeleteA detailed plan? Surely you jest as Obama had a pretty brochure with nice picture completely lacking in detail and that was his plan. How can you ask for a plan from one and ignore the lack of a plan from the other.
After 4 years, I would think that Obama's plan with detail would have been the most important thing on the table. Instead we got to listen to the Bain Capital story the dog on the roof, the Cranbrook affair and how bad being a Mormon really is. No plan from Obama, no explanation for the failed economy other than, it was Bush's fault and most of all tax the rich.
I have to had it to Americans, totally blinded by the media on the issues and diverted to the inane to elect a failed president. But we are not racist because we elected Obama.
I see nothing in the future but trouble for the middle class people, inflation, unemployment. Think they are hurting today, wait 4 more years and you will see real pain.
Can we continue to blame it on the wealthy as they continue to invest and make money? Or should we look to the policies of the government and question why a squash is 99 cents a pound, hamburger is 3.99 a pound both 3 times 4 years ago.
Max,
DeleteI am talking about the concept he had, that would have required development. And he didn't hide the fact that it neede to be developed and detailed, as well as his intent to have congress work it out. It is an irrelevant point now, yes? But if it weren't, you can fact-check what was erroneously labelled as his $5T tax cut and read the assessment for yourself, including the possible ways the deficit-neutral tax cut might have been executed. I share misgivings about trusting any of this 'stuff', but I'm a little surprised that even the notion was not intriguing to you. This concept was clearly, almost blatantly so, a way to redistribute the wealth (yes, imagine that!), from the rich, to the middle class. Not to those 'terrible, evil, lazy, selfish' 47%, but to the middle class. To clarify: the adjectives within the quotes are not something I attribute to that bracket; I was merely repeating the Obama campaign's rhetoric on their portrayal of the former governor's oh-so-infamously terrible speech.
A revolutionary concept: a tax break that would not add to the deficit, going to those of us in the middle class, you know, that center of the left's attention and concern.
Yes. That concept.
Jean
Lou, it's time to stop whining about the media. Romney ran at least three ads that were literally lies, and kept running them. How much money did Karl Rove spend? The right had no shortage of ability to "get their message out" and chose to be in full attack mode just as Obama did. And they lost.
DeleteAs for Obama, I'm not going to pretend he had a detailed plan. Here and there, he has some ideas, but like the Republicans, he and his party seem content to keep letting special interest set the rules; I'm not quite sure yet that he or his party understands the election results any better then the Republicans do. I received an email from Fidelity yesterday talking about the fiscal cliff and they openly said that just letting the spending cuts go through will very likely put us into recession. I see it as a matter of priorities right now.
The wealthy do continue to invest and make money.......by investing in helping third world countries destroy our middle class. Of course, our consumption crazy middle class needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves if that fifth, flat screen TV is really so important to them. But, I think it's time we stop rewarding China and the wealthy who want to live here and enjoy our protections while making the majority of their money elsewhere. That is a topic for a stand alone post.
One other thing Lou, the fact that Romney could literally shoot way up in polling after that first debate says to me that a lot of unaffiliated people were dying for something, ANYTHING to give them a reason to vote for Romney. Romney may have been a bad candidate, but, I think he started to really attract people once he started the classic pivot to the middle. Looking at the senate change and toss out of tea party types, I think you and I as well as both parties need to really examine what people are saying. Your posts at the moment sound a little fatalistic to me. I don't think the outcome of this election is a mandate to tax the rich and just give out more food stamps. To the extent the right clings to that belief and keeps yelling it is the extent to which I think they will keep losing seats.
Delete"This concept was clearly, almost blatantly so, a way to redistribute the wealth (yes, imagine that!), from the rich, to the middle class."
DeleteNo, it was not. To broaden the base means to make poor people pay tax they aren't paying now. I'm sorry Jean, but I simply see nothing that supports the logic that we could lower taxes, take away deductions and see taxes go up on rich people while not going up on the poor. I went to fact check org to see what they said, I don't think it supports what you are saying here. We can question whether the logic Obama used to say Romney's plan would cost 5 trillion is accurate, but he didn't just pull that figure out of his ass. Fact check gives Romney the benefit of the doubt when Romney says he will offset all of his cuts with elimination of loop holes.
However, they go on to say "However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts" At the end of the section, the point out that by broadening the base, Romney's plan was likely to be even less stimulatory then Bush's plan was.
Admittedly Jean, I reject trickle down economics. We have cut, cut cut since Reagan and have little to show for it expect massive debt and an economy that is shit.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/the-facts-according-to-obama-and-romney-ads/
DeleteWithout any detailed information on deductions from loophole eliminations and all of that, I was referring to the paragraph or two preceeding the bold 'Romney: the facts are clear'. I'm merely saying the notion had possibilities, the ultimate fallback to the deficit-neutrality and promise to not raise being to tailor the tax cuts suitably. If the numbers would have turned out to support, at best, a small cut, then it would have been so. The thing about cut, cut, cut that is not relevant to this concept is that it would not affect budget revenue.
But I think we've wasted enough time on this topic, yes?
Back to work I go.
Jean
"But I think we've wasted enough time on this topic, yes?"
DeleteTranslation: you know you are right and are done engaging me on this. Fair enough.
No. We've wasted enough time because I don't see it (the Romney tax cut that would not cut revenue) happening. The only thing about which I "know" I'm right is that the idea had enough merit to be looked into, at depth, for feasibility.
DeleteIs that a little more fair enough, Max?
Jean
Jean,
DeleteTo be fair, It was an outline of a plan. More than we have today outside of tax the rich.
To be accurate,
As you know, Congress sets tax policy, not the president. The president can fluff his feathers and bluster all he wants, Congress says no, the answer is no.
The political side,
I personally would prefer the fiscal cliff and the recession vs. taking more money in taxes from the economy and let the idiots in Washington waste it.
Reality,
There is no political will to honestly cut spending. Cutting spending doesn't mean we are spending less borrowed money in Iraq but real spending. A good start is to return the budget to the 2009 level when Obama took office . That's the first 800 Billion.
I don't think the outcome of this election is a mandate to tax the rich
ReplyDeleteYour kidding of course. That is all Obama has been preaching for the last 3 months. All's were asking is for those that have more to give a little more so we can hire more teachers and build the middle class.
The message:
Tax the rich, they have the money.
Pander to the teachers and unions.
Help the middle class.
Max, Your crystal ball says what?
mine says we will continue to overspend and print more money. As long as that continues, more will be spent for interest to support the treasuries sold to finance the mess. The business climate remains the same, higher taxes likely, Healthcare is going to hbe a hit one way or another business and SS and medicare yet to even be acknowledged.
The adversarial relationship will continue. Reid, we will get our tax increase, Boehner, no tax increases.
I'm still looking for where I mentioned food stamps.
I stand by what I said Lou, I don't yet believe the Democrats fully understand what people are asking for. If you are saying the only reason Obama got elected is because he promised to tax the rich, then I say your view is as condescending as Limbaugh sputtering they should be rewarded for having a token black person and token Hispanic on stage at their convention. Obama also won because of backlash against people like Aiken and Mourdoch. Moderate Republican candidates lost in blue states while an openly gay female Democrat won a seat in Wisconsin. People are looking for way way more then a petty tax increase of a couple percent on the rich Lou.
DeleteMy crystal ball says much of what yours says. There is NO path forward that does not include pain. The only question to me is how does that pain get spread. Do we keep spending gobs of money on things like the military, or do we trim it and try to beat some swords into plow shares. I get that we need to keep breaking unions and keep demonizing teachers, because we get such a good return on that. But, it would be nice if someone finally started to put real regulation in place that deleverages wall street and starts closing the open door from China. The message I took away from the Republicans this year is that everything comes to down to cutting taxes, attacking Iran and limiting abortion. Surely, that's not a fair interpretation, but I think it's what a lot of voters took away as well. Rather then change our minds, I believe Boehner and McConnell will continue doing what they've done.
Not only do Democrats not understand what people are asking nor do the people know what they want.
DeleteI didn't say that is why Obama was elected. It' goes far beyond that. It begins with the 15 second uninformed people who listen to the spot and say right on. The negative attack ads, the lies etc.
As a side note the ads run by politicians do not have to be truthful and they must be run at the lowest rates charged and can not be changed amended or caveated by the TV stations. The PAC ads are pretty much the same but have to pay the going rate.
My position is why raise taxes on anyone if your not going to address the problem. The problem is fiscal restraint. Why give them more money to waste. Until they come up with a plan to curb spending first, no tax increases should be considered.
We have first hand experience at taxing first and cutting later. The reduction in spending never occurs or it is a sham cut like cutting spending on the war in Iraq. The money was borrowed so how is that cutting spending when there was no budget to begin with.
The open door to China will remain as long as we continue the free trade agreement policies. This needs to change. It will piss the world off including China but what choices are there? If that happens the Chinese will flood the world with clone products of everything they make for us from computers to auto parts to destroy our corporations. We have given them all of our technology and now we must pay the price for that stupidity. We need to deleverage the Federal Government. That means cutting people in the Federal Government.
"The problem is fiscal restraint. Why give them more money to waste. Until they come up with a plan to curb spending first, no tax increases should be considered. "
DeleteAnd we have just as much experience with cutting taxes first and talking about paying for it later. What you want Lou, is fiscal sanity, and if you are honest, the Republicans have done nothing on this. They have cut taxes, nothing more. I will concede your point about taxing first and cutting later, but will you ever concede the Republicans are the party who TALK restraint and do nothing more?
Cut people in government. This is another generic tired saw. If you are talking about the massive growth of homeland security and billions of dollars thrown into that black hole, I have some agreement. If you are talking about the rest of the employees, the wailing far exceeds the actual growth. As a percentage of the workforce, we are not seeing a massive growth of government. True, there are more government workers, however, the population is also larger and it is really only at the federal level that we are seeing growth. Again, whole numbers are up, but as a percentage of the population and workforce, not so much.
When I said there is no path without pain, I meant it. Your last para is accurate. If we start to protect our people here at home, China will punish our multinational corps. Are we to choose defending them over our people? I certainly know how those "who pay the bulk of the taxes" would feel about that. You hate spending, you hate high taxes, you hate regulations and you hate slackers. There is nothing wrong with that. However, what I keep chiding you on is that I believe you continue to vote for people who care about nothing BUT their wealth, country be damned.
I can't say the Dems are better, and I'm not saying they are better. Though they have an enormous opportunity right now to go Teddy Roosevelt on our enormously, spiritually and morally bankrupt way of living, they won't.
LOL,
ReplyDeleteWas hoping a change in administrations would be a change for the good. Business as usual hasn't worked for the last 4 years.
Bought a new gas grill. Made in America for 700.00. Plain jane, no bells, no whistles version but a lifetime guarantee. Skipped the 300.00 Chinese equivalent. I prefer made in America in my Ford escape.
In any case history proves you correct to date but I had the hope and change thing going. I don't think that Romney's sole focus was on wealth but wanted to truly fix things. He isn't a polished liar I mean politician as Obama is as demonstrated by his comments about 47% not voting for him. As it turns out, he was correct as people are focused on themselves and not the good of the country.
Waiting to address will do nothing but increase the pain later. The current batch of polished liars have proven that time and time again so we go Forward with no plan.
Listening to the spin today on MSNBC has grown nauseating. I will admit, I take enormous pleasure in the fact that Karl Rove has twice gone down in flames. As for the rest, I'm over it. I say to them STFU and get on with showing me you won't waste what you have.
DeleteI scrolled back up awhile ago and saw that post about your brother. Every family in America has a version of that story. Prior to becoming a nurse, I did very well for myself with nothing but a GED, better then everyone in my immediate family anyway. I won't tell my story again, but I was very proactive in bettering myself throughout my life and am comfortable right now with a moderate step on retirement savings. My older sister is like your brother and will be dependent on safety nets when she is no longer able to work. She is an intelligent person, but a fiscal disaster.
Your brother and my sister represent a meme of America that has pervaded the entire culture, from person to business to government. You will spit coffee at your computer screen laughing at this next statement, but I believe the election of Reagan marked the exact point when we decided as a nation that we can simply pretend reality is whatever we want it to be. Shortly after the start of the Reagan Revolution (and rejection of Jimmy Carter) we heard that greed is good and from there, things went surreal.
Of many things I agree with in Carter's speech regarding what he called a crisis of confidence, he said this, "What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends"
Even I will admit that Jimmy Carter was not the right man to solve that despite absolutely nailing what the problem was. While I admire many things about Jimmy Carter's character, he was a weak POTUS and when he told America what it's problem was, he was sent packing. I look around today Lou and I feel like nothing has changed since that moment. We suffer from the exact same overconsumption and complete lack of meaning and the same attitude that MORE vindictiveness rather then less is what we need to set things straight; a belief that if we crash the country in the interest of making my sister and your brother pay for their stupidity, we will be best served.
No real solution forward will happen without some degree of trust. We can't both punish stupidity and climb out of the hole as a nation with people like me and you feeling no pain. That's galling, but it's reality. I'm willing to take my share of the pain, but not when those who have profited and abetted are allowed to stroll away with billions in unearned wealth. I'm optimistic, but not massively so.
DeletePresident Obama, claiming his election "majority" was a vindication of his fiscal policy, held firm Friday to his intention to include tax hikes for America's top earners in any negotiations with Congress to pull the nation back from the so-called "fiscal cliff."
The president, in his first remarks from Washington since winning a second term, urged officials to "get to work" on the issue as he invited congressional leaders to the White House next week. He said he's open to "compromise," but did not appear to budge on what has been a central disagreement over the last two years -- whether to extend the Bush-era tax rates for everyone, or to let them lapse for households making more than $250,000.
Seems not only Congress is tied to their ideological dogma.
"I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced," Obama said Friday. "This was a central question during the election ... and on Tuesday night, we found out that a majority of Americans agree with my approach."
While Obama did not explicitly mention the $250,000 threshold, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney later said the president would veto any bill that extended the current rates for that group. Carney also announced that Obama will hold a press conference next Wednesday ahead of the meeting with Hill leaders.
A good president or bad president is determined solely by the advisers he surrounds themselves with. Carter chose poorly, as has Obama. Obama's refusal to move to the center will likely follow him into the history books. You are quite right. Little has changed since Carter. Congress unwilling to compromise as is this President. The I want it it's mine is a failing of both congress and the president. The president did not win an expanded mandate for social engineering or increased deficit spending. His share of the popular vote is less than in 2008, and he lost a couple of big states North Carolina and Indiana that he carried last time. He mysteriously claims a mandate. He is destined to be the president of his party and not the nation.
The successful presidents or so historians claim Clinton, Reagan compromised for the good of the people. Looks like we will see none of this in the coming 4 years. The stage is set.
Me, the fiscal cliff is preferable to the bickering and anger generated by the attitude of the president and congress. We will feel the pain if not this year, soon after as neither is willing to address the debt without the smoke and mirrors and the facade of doing something to correct the past largess of our government.
While you are optimistic, I'm the opposite as proven today on the stage of no compromise. The mandate I earned it, I want it and I will have it. The president is the perfect representation of the American people today unwilling to compromise for the good of all holding fast to his ideological dogma at the expense of being the president of a few when he could be the president of all.
I seen an exceptional amount of talk dedicated to explaining why Obama doesn't have a mandate. Me Thinks the crowd doth protest too much. Mandate or not, the country chose to shrink the Republican influence in the senate and they chose to send farther right candidates packing. We can blame voters for not being smart enough, we can blame Obama for being more negative (a laughable claim at best), we can blame all sorts of things and say that Obama won nothing. Nonetheless, I don't believe he has really hid anything when he ran as candidate. He certainly hasn't delivered to his base and as has been said many times, there is damn little he diverged on from Bush.
DeleteWhether the country handed Obama a mandate or not, they chose to shrink the numbers against him in the Senate and Congress. Given how tough it is to unseat an incumbent of any party, that is at the least, a bit of a rebuke of the Republicans. In this country Lou, we cling bitterly to multiple falsehoods, two of the bigger ones being that Republicans are a party of fiscal restraint, and that the Democrats do nothing but tax and spend. Since 1980, reality does not support the dogma. Obama was a spender, but he was not a taxer. Republicans simply cut taxes AND spent their asses off and refuse to take an ounce of responsibility.
As you and others have said, Congress has much to do with controlling the spending and in that light, the Republicans cannot even begin to suggest they have been fiscally conservative. Generically, right of center folks will concede "both" parties are guilty, but what they continue to believe is that it is only Democrats. Look at a map of spending and plenty of Red states take back far more money then they send. Democrats are what they are, but they do not claim the mantle of being fiscally conservative like the Republicans do, yet, by people right of center, they are the only ones who apparently need to be held to a standard.
Whether Obama was handed a mandate for some grand vision of his is irrelevant to me. That a person like Elizabeth Warren got elected says to me that people are tired of how Republicans have been doing things in the Senate and Congress. Whether Obama can do anything useful with that remains to be seen.
The Repub party of past is exactly what you describe. Reagan, spent lavishly on the military and out spent the Russians ending the cold war, Was it worth it, I would say yes.
DeleteClinton actually had some fiscal restraint and compromised with congress to accomplish good things.
Bush spent lavishly on Iraq and Afghanistan, was it worth it? No, nothing good has come from it.
Obama spent lavishly on welfare, the wars, nothing good has come from it. Will it change, not likely, will good come from it? Not so far, maybe it will change in the next 4 years.
Max you tend to generalize and say all, I tend to look at the individual. For all the failing of Bush, he did have some high points. i.e. his Medicare changes although the magic of numbers from the CBO looked good, like the PPACA it was not funded properly and we are paying the price. Bush was not a fiscal conservative.
As far as the Repub's of today, will they be fiscal responsible or like past Repub's, we can hope, time will tell. The Dem's make no noise that they want to reduce spending or balance the budget.
You can't spend your way out of a recession nor can you tax your way to prosperity. Still holds true today.
Government is just to big and consumes to much wealth.
Was it worth it to outspend the Russians? Well, look at the influence of the military that was left behind. Even in the election we just had, there was a difference in thought on what military spending should be. I believe the Soviet Union would have fallen regardless as it was based on a corrupt system. Reagan sped that up, but it is undeniable that we are still paying the debt from strategy today.
DeleteI paint with a broad brush in this case Lou because collectively, the Republicans are fiscal disasters. Does Bush the individual deserve all the blame for cutting taxes but not cutting a dime of spending? As for the wars, I blame the entirety of America as much as I blame Bush and his neocon cabinet. There was a bloodthirst after 9/11, and he fed it. Obama's Afghanistan surge certainly wasn't worth the cost, but if he holds to his word, both wars will end on his watch.
This may just be petty semantics, but I am incensed to keep hearing Republicans say, "There is nothing wrong with our message, we are the party of small government and fiscal restraint." It's bullshit as they are neither. Nor, for that matter, was Reagan. They are the party of low taxation, that is undeniably true. They are also the party that seeks to end human welfare, except for unemployment benefits when they are a majority party. But when it comes to cutting taxes and then cutting spending in ares where there is massive spending such as subsidies to big agra, big oil and the military, they won't cut anything. Military spending means local jobs and you won't find a single legislator of either party who will cut that.
I believe you and I are in total agreement that much of our spending comes from allowing outside influence to control the agenda. However, continuing to endlessly debate that one party or the other is "better" because their platform claims one thing while they do something entirely different does not help. In fact, I believe it's exactly what people like Rove continue to bank on us doing while the influence of special interest remains unchecked. I would not have voted for Obama if my choice would have been on the ticket here and I just because I voted for him, I do not buy Democratic spin. If more people like you would openly call out the Republicans for being complete frauds, kinda like David Frum has, perhaps that party would change.