American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Black Shirt,

I doubt if she has stretch marks since she has had so much plastic surgery every time she raises her eye brows - her stockings go up 2 inches.

[QUOTE=Esten]I was referring to the fact that Democrats now control both Congress and the Presidency, and are working to implement values they were elected on.[/QUOTE]See dude, that's the problem. They weren't elected to change values SO MUCH. They were elected because the population didn't like Bush A LOT, for the most part, not because they wanted to watch an arrogant, inexperienced man lead the country closer to socialism.

So the progressive Democrats think that their overwhelming majority means they can just go as far to the left as they want and they are finding out that's not true either!

It's the problem that both Republicans AND Democrats often make - no matter the actual political affiliation of people, MOST are closer to the center than to either extreme side of their party. And then there's all the "independents" (who wouldn't necessarily be independents if there were more than two strong parties in the country) who try desperately to find something in either party they can grab on to.

I love Pelosi saying that they are going to pass health reform no matter what - whether they have to climb over the fence, catapult in, or parachute in. Of course, health reform working WITH the Republicans would be very welcome - but Obama has already demonstrated in his SOTU address that that isn't likely to happen - they are going to keep going with their idiotic crap.

The fucking gall! When over 60% of the country now says that's not what's important now - more important to focus on jobs and the economy. When a Democratic polling organization actually came back with the astounding result that Fox News was trusted over every other news organization (51% to the next closest being 39% if I remember the numbers)

They are so drunk on misunderstanding the nature of their power that they are headed for a fall and that mandate of which you speak has already started to disappear - they just don't know it. They think that Republicans are blocking them out of spite and many on the far left think it's because Obama's black and almost all on the left think because they want to see the president fail. It's the most ridiculous self-fooling shit I've ever seen, to tell the truth.

Although I was one who didn't like many of the things Bush did, I am not anti-Republican because of that alone - the whole party has gotten away from fiscal conservatism. But I am SO thankful that they have done whatever they can to reign in such a dangerous group of people from completely ruining the US and taking us even farther from the Constitution - THAT's why Republicans are blocking Obama and I applaud them as a Libertarian.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]However, if you dispense with your preconceived notions (I. E. Bible-thumping, homophobic bigots who want old people to eat dog food) about what a conservative is [/QUOTE]Fringe elements aside, that is not how I view conservatives. I respect them and their views, I just don't agree with many of them.

[QUOTE]The bigger and more intrusive the government the smaller and more limited the personal freedom.[/QUOTE]I'll agree with that to some extent. But I'll add that the smaller and less intrusive the government, the more likely there will be inequality and abuses of power in the private sector.

[QUOTE]That said, as a moral and just society, it is incumbent upon us to take care of those that cannot care for themselves. [/QUOTE]In perfect agreement with you here.

[QUOTE]The bounty of America's greatness has enabled us, throughout our history to care for the weaker members of society (although not perfectly) [/QUOTE]Yes, and we can do better.

[QUOTE]However, the big government has encroached upon our liberties over many years and the demarcation between those that can and those that cannot fend for themselves has been artificially raised. While the stated intent of those enacting such policies may have been founded on 'good intentions,' the results have been the enslavement of millions of Americans (a constituency that is disproportionately made up of minorities) who are now dependent upon the government to survive, having been rendered unable to fend for themselves by the 'good intentions' of elitist politicians. [/QUOTE]The size of government itself should not be the focus of the debate. It's what the government is / isn't doing, vs. What the private sector is / isn't doing. It's how well an individual can provide for his basic needs.

[QUOTE]Thomas Jefferson knew a thing or two about the founders' vision for the future of this nascent country. They were was not looking to create a nanny state, they were looking to create a facilitator for the pursuit and fulfillment of individual interests which in the aggregate translate to national success. That goal has been realized and compounded daily within this great country for more than 200 years. Another great man put it this way: "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price." [/QUOTE]I think most people recognize the significance of what you describe here. Democrats do not want to do away with this. But here we are in 2010, and the fact is many people struggle to meet basic needs like shelter, food and healthcare. We see great extremes of rich and poor. How long will the system you describe take to address these issues? Shall we wait another 200 years?

[QUOTE]Reagan was also right in stating the ". Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. " [/QUOTE]The implied merit of a government "for, by and of the people" seems a bit contradictory to the preceding assertion that government is the problem.

I think we all want a government that works for the people. For everyone. And if the private sector fails in some areas, then perhaps government should step in and do something.

[QUOTE]"Not satisfied with the status quo?" That's a little broad isn't it? What is your solution? [/QUOTE]The status quo is doing little to address the inequalities and abuses of capitalism in this country. Dems want to do more. We believe this is an area where government can and should play a role. This should not be equated with abandoning the principles of individual freedom and effort.

Cheeseman:

I agree in many ways. Republicans deserve credit for sticking together and not letting anyone break free from the 'NO' block (Snowe, Collins or any of those other wishy-washy phonies) but they didn't block anything on their own. The dems had their super majority plenty long enough to get this through ('this' being the socialist health care system which is really a trojan horse for permanently installing the democrat party in power) Think about it. Dems had a super majority in both houses of congress, passed bills in both houses of congress and failed to get the bill to the president's desk.

Democrats blocked it. The greed of the dems and the special interests (for whom they exist) prevented Obama, Reid and Pelosi from slam dunking this bill while they still had a super majority.

Unfortunately (and fortunately for us in this one case) it is a common occurrence that when one party controls both the legislative and executive branches, they trip on their own dicks by trying to buy everything for everyone who ever did, will or might vote for them (what happened to the 103rd congress? They started with a lot of promise) In the current case, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression (they kept telling us) raided the taxpayer coffers and gave $787B to the unions, trial lawyers and other friends of Reid and Pelosi. There were more than 9,000 earmarks in the first major piece of legislation signed by the president who promised to end earmarks and to be the most transparent president in history (now ranked one of the ten most corrupt politicians by Judicial Watch)

This isn't 1976, there no longer exists a media monopoly controlled by the democrats that squelches differing opinions. The American people saw what was happening and didn't like it. They didn't forget and the people that stole from them continued to abuse them and told them "if you don't want this, it is because you are too stupid to know what is good for you and we will therefore ram it down your throat."

The tea parties during the August break and the three elections (which hopefully have killed Obamacare) were successful because they were not solely republican efforts, in fact each involved large numbers of independents and democrats.

The lie of the 'health care crisis' has been exposed, while there exist many problems within health care delivery as a whole, there is no crisis anywhere near the magnitude of what the dems told us. Just look at the numbers. More than 60% say that health care is not the priority, just a couple of weeks after the president failed on this issue. But we were told 15% of the nation was on life support. If that were true, I would expect more than 3:1 (across all parties) to consider it number one.

Dems still have commanding majorities in both houses, why don't they pass it?

Because they got caught in two lies. One, the lie about the crisis and two the lie about the 'solution' for the crisis.

Maybe when times were better, the American people were willing to look the other way when one party or the other gave them an uninvited quickie in the ass. Seems to me that the American backside was still stinging when they tried for put the mother-of-all strap-ons in there (sin lube) with Obamacare.

[QUOTE=Esten]The size of government itself should not be the focus of the debate. It's what the government is / isn't doing, vs. What the private sector is / isn't doing. It's how well an individual can provide for his basic needs.[/QUOTE]Size matters (at least in this case) and is germane to the subject. Wasteful government is directly related to the size of government.

[quote=]How long will the system you describe take to address these issues? Shall we wait another 200 years?[/QUOTE]Show me another country that in 200 years has gone from subsistence farming and slavery to feeding the world with a black (albeit completely unfit for office) president.

[quote=]The implied merit of a government "for, by and of the people" seems a bit contradictory to the preceding assertion that government is the problem.[/QUOTE]No contradiction. I do not see any references in any of the founding documents to creating a government that will clothe, feed and shelter the populace.

[quote=]I think we all want a government that works for the people. For everyone. And if the private sector fails in some areas, then perhaps government should step in and do something.[/QUOTE]Government cannot work for all the people if all the people work for the government. There are very few areas where it has been proven that the government can do something better than the private sector. Please feel free to site examples (education, ship building, train service-oops sorry, those just help to make my point) When I say private sector, I do not propose one with zero regulation. That is a dem fall back to warn of an unregulated private sector. While we are naming stuff, name a few industries that are currently under regulated.

[quote=]The status quo is doing little to address the inequalities and abuses of capitalism in this country.[/QUOTE]'Capitalism' is a descriptive term used for a type of economic system based upon free enterprise. It (the term and / or the system) is inanimate and cannot abuse anyone. Further, anyone can avail themselves of a myriad of opportunities for financial gain within a capitalist system.

The fact there exist 'haves' and 'have nots' is a function of human nature. There is no where else on earth where 'have nots' are provided with more opportunities to become haves.

[quote=]Dems want to do more. We believe this is an area where government can and should play a role. This should not be equated with abandoning the principles of individual freedom and effort.[/QUOTE]I believe that 'evening the playing field' and maintaining freedom are mutually exclusive

My mother was born in 1938. She was born in Maryland. She lived on a subsistence farm with 11 other brothers and sisters. They were poor. This was not an uncommon manner of living for the time, but it was becoming less common.

My grandmother passed away almost exactly a year ago. She was 92. She was born only 21 years before my mother. I have pictures of her family life. Pictures of their little house on the farm, with all the family (20-some-odd people gathered around) dressed in real-live hick clothes. She grew up in Arkansas.

The one thing I can guarantee is that there is almost NONE of that kind of poverty in the US. I'm talking about people who live in wood shacks that hardly keep out the wind, grass roofs, no electricity, no running water. Barefoot mostly. Walk to school miles to the nearest schoolhouse. So on and so forth.

In my grandmother's time, many, many people, at least everyone outside of the cities and towns, lived that way.

The descriptions of the existence of my mother and grandmother remind me so very much of what I see when I go to Paraguay, particularly in "el campo." When I see how my wife's family live. The only difference, in my opinion, is the work ethic that my other and grandmother had. Their families were Scots-Irish immigrants and worked their sorry asses off. As did everyone. To survive.

No we have poor people who live in projects given to them by the government. We have poor mothers who are given money to continue to support their children while their fathers disappear and don't take care fo them. Many of these places are dirty and falling apart. Of course, they still manage to have TVs and usually cars.

You know what? My folks would NEVER have lived that way! As poor as they were, they were proud. They cleaned and cared for what little they had. They did everything they could to be better than their parents. They would work two, three jobs if necessary to make money. They would find a way to get ahead, not sit on their asses and take their welfare checks.

My grandmother and her family were democrats. My grandfather was big in Arkansas politics. In fact, he was a pilot also and flew JFK during some of his campaining in 1959.

They would have been horrified to think that someone would give them a handout. Particularly the government.

Now, so many people believe that they are owed something. Life just shouldn't be so difficult, they say. The government should do something, they say.

As was previously stated, it wasn't government programs that got US citizens out of living life like Paraguayans do today. It was the hard work and determination of those US citizens, working themselves out of poverty.

Funded by those "evil capitalists", by the way.

Esten (and other Democrats who come down here and think they understand what poverty means) have you ever travelled outside of the "enclaves of decency" here in Buenos Aires? Do you live down the road from a family that lives in a leaky, crumbling brick house with no TV, no running water and stolen electricty? The eldest being a grandmother of 60-something who works as a maid to help feed her kids and their kids? Have you guys sat down with people living like I described above in Paraguay?

THAT'S POVERTY. It's ignorance because they don't have to live like that, but they have no hope because they don't have a government who will get out of their way and provide them opportunities! They have a government and a ruling class that keeps them purposefully ignorant so that they provide the votes that are needed to keep the government in power - because they are ignorant enough to believe the promises that government will get them out of their poverty.

"Great extremes of rich and poor." Give me a break! What you see are a lot of wealthy people, one helluva lot of people that can afford way more than the basic neccessities of life, and a fairly small percentage that can't afford even the necessities of life.

Look at the real poor countries in this world and THAT's where you see the extremes. You see wealthy people who have contacts from the past, or contacts with the government, and suck every dime they can out of their advantageous situations. You see a vast number of poor people who don't really have the basic necessities. You see a small percentage of people in the middle.

So what exactly is it that you consider a necessity? Food, shelter, clothing and education are what I consider necessities. Anything else is a luxury that one should have to work for. You aren't in a good enough job? Work harder, train more, do what you have to do to make more money. You don't want to work that hard and think that you should be entitled to my money so you can have more than the basics? Kiss my rear-end.

People in the US have very little concept of what poverty is, and how far the US has come in the last HUNDRED years (much more the last two hundred, for sure) pulling itself out of poverty by hard work and common sense, not by letting the government solve its problems.

[QUOTE=Facundo]Also, I believe, Cristina has a plan to capture a larger voting block in the city of Buenos Aires (they usually lose the city to the opposition) How will they try to win the city of BA?

Argentina is the only Mercosur country that has opened its doors fully to citizens of Mercosur countries. Over the past 4 years, Argentina has aggressively and efficiently processed and given residency to about 1 million citizens from various Mercosur countries. Probably half of these immigrants are voting adults. I believe, given the whispers out there, the National Government will at the beginning of 2011 offer citizenship to these people.

Over the past 3 months I've been asking myself why has the National Government restructured and streamlined the two agencies that deal with immigration, the Department of Immigration and the Registry of Persons. As I've mentioned before, I've never seen such a yeomen effort in making these two agencies work smoothly and process people rapidly such that they will have their residency and DNI in record time. The only answer I have is; the National Government will offer citizenship to them and since most of them reside in Buenos Aires they will end up voting for he Government that has given them not only citizenship but also survival monies and food (there are numerous benefits that immigrants receive with only temporary residency. They receive a lot more with residency and the DNI) It's a cynical observation, but this government will do whatever to win.[/QUOTE]This isn't a new concept, and in fact it is essentially the same strategy the Democrats will employ via "Immigration Reform" to win the 2012 elections in the USA.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten]But here we are in 2010, and the fact is many people struggle to meet basic needs like shelter, food and healthcare. We see great extremes of rich and poor.[/QUOTE]Esten, where do you live in the USA where you see the abject poverty to which you have referred? I've lived and traveled in a number of parts of the USA, and I'm always impressed with the American standard of living. Lots of quality housing, mostly late model cars on the roads, etc. Even the "poor" people in the USA can typically afford a car, flat screen TVs, cable TV service, etc.

The fact is that the vast majority of both American citizens and illegal immigrants in the USA live pretty well, especially in comparison to the [u]real[/u] poverty in many other countries as described by El Queso.

This sounds like more Democrat "rabble rousing" BS, similar to John Edwards proclaiming that homeless veterans were sleeping under bridges.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]This isn't a new concept, and in fact it is essentially the same strategy the Democrats will employ via "Immigration Reform" to win the 2012 elections in the USA.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]As we have seen in the health care debacle, the left is willing to do anything (even go against a significant majority of Americans) in order to force its political agenda on the people.

While the left (those creating and shaping policy, not the sheep within the population who believe whatever they say) will trot out heart-wrenching stories about people denied health care or those victimized because they are living in the shadows (I. E. illegal aliens) they care not for those people, they care only for advancing their agendas, to the detriment of Americans, the Constitution and our country.

Leftists love to use this argument: "we are saving the [insert whatever sad-sack constituency here] from [insert horrible circumstances or affliction here] and this is the only way to do it and if you oppose us, it just proves that you are racist scum and want everyone except white males between the ages of 35 and 65 to die!

This is a particularly rancid form of corruption in that it allows politicians to drape themselves in good intentions while knowingly harming the very Constitution, which they swore to defend. What is worse is that they start to believe their own bullsh*t and get on their high horses to 'solve' their made up crises with fabulous solutions which just happen to have the byproduct of furthering their political agendas. This type of corruption is in the DNA of democrat politicians. The liberal masses have a similar DNA flaw in that they believe everything these corrupt officials tell them (no matter how many times they have been proven wrong)

You can be certain that there are absolutely no good intentions (just phony 'good intentions') at the heart of American leftists' 'immigration reform' efforts. Just as all of the left's health care efforts are designed to install the left in a permanent position of power so too are their efforts regarding immigration. These efforts have only one goal, create 20 million new democrat voters.

You will soon hear about the "illegal immigration crisis" whereby millions of people living in the shadows are denied [insert any 'entitlement that the non-producing members of our society depend upon - health care, education, human rights, etc] by racist republican policies. You will hear that this crisis will bankrupt America if we don't act fast, that criminals (that's what you call people who break the law don't you?) shouldn't be sent back to their own countries, that the only solution is to make all these criminals citizens and then we'll lock the door and only allow legal immigration in the future.

It is all BS. Reagan, whom I hold in very high regard, messed up on this issue. I hope we learned and don't make the same mistake again.

Disclaimers:

1. I have always maintained that corruption is an equal opportunity employer and continue to hold that opinion. However, the type of corruption above is usually specific to leftists.

2. I am a huge fan of legal immigration (although not Christina's type) The issue in the US is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Great post, Queso. I subscribe to exactly this same thinking.

If I may try to state it more succinctly: Poverty is relative.

It's relative to what others in different countries have and don't have.

It's also relative to what our ancestors had and didn't have.

If you think about poverty in either of these two ways, you quickly come to the realization that we, in the U. S. really don't have any pressing issues with poverty. Sure, there are folks who go hungry, but this is a very, very small percentage of people -- less than 1%.

The only way anyone can claim that we have a significant poverty issue in the U. S. Is to look at incomes relative to others. This, then, gets back to a person's view of the role of government:

A. Is government's role to equalize the incomes between the well-off and the less well-off? Or.

B. Is government's role to simply ensure that it's citizens have the basic necessities -- food, shelter, education, access to the judicial system, etc. -- and then let economic Darwinism take its course?

Obviously, most folks' views fall somewhere between these two extremes. But, if you can get a sense of whether they stand closer to A or B, you can pretty well predict which way they'll vote.

Personally, I abhor the idea that government's role should be viewed through the prism of Scenario A. That said, however, I also understand that government needs to have a role here. If the have-nots view their situation as hopeless, society will become unstable.

For that reason, government should have an indirect role in equalizing the incomes between the haves and have-nots. It shouldn't be involved in income redistribution to any great extent, at least in my view. Instead, government's role should be to ensure that there are opportunities for the have-nots to get ahead -- not guarantees that they'll get ahead, and certainly not a car in every garage and a flat screen on every wall -- but [I]opportunities[/i] to advance. Whether individuals take advantage of them is their choice, and their fault when they fail to do so. Likewise, there are going to be those who do their level best to take advantage of their opportunities but still fail. Life sucks. Beyond ensuring that sufficient opportunities exist and that the rules aren't unfairly slanted in favor of one side or the other, the government should have very little role in trying to promote the idea of a "fair share" between the haves and have-nots.

So sayeth Stan, at least.

Thanks Stan;)

BTW - you did include another necessity that I was taking for granted, that most real poor in truly poor countries do not have access to - a functioning legal system.

Let me understand the view being expressed here. Because we've come a long way, and are much better off than many other countries, there's no need to try and be better.

Is that it?

Needless to say, this non-progressive view is not shared by many people on the left. But not surprising from the 'screw the poor' right.

I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't). But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job. At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.

You have to be one cynical person to believe that politicians only look at this issue as a political opportunity, that politicians are never motivated by decent human values. That's just as bad (and inaccurate) as being naive as to think that politicians are only selfless public servants.

Stan I liked your post. Redistribution of wealth should be limited. But some people think we can and should do a little more than we are now, that's all.

Esten, in the lion's den
(that's a joke)

You'll be perfectly safe, ask Miami Bob.

[QUOTE=Esten]Let me understand the view being expressed here. Because we've come a long way, and are much better off than many other countries, there's no need to try and be better.[/QUOTE]Cute parlor tricks won't work here. Read my posts (believe me, they are worth it) I am a subscriber to 'continuous improvement' in all aspects of individual, corporate and government life.

[quote=]Needless to say, this non-progressive view is not shared by many people on the left. But not surprising from the 'screw the poor' right.[/QUOTE]Wrong. The left isn't interested in continuous improvement, it looks to level the playing field by bringing down the successful, not elevating the unsuccessful.

I am the poster child for screw the poor right. My business has imploded from the global economic meltdown (thanks in large part to the Left) but that has not prevented me from continuing to do my part in helping those worse off than me.

[quote=]I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't) But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job.[/QUOTE]The other comments here are accurate. However, Esten is right, we can do better. However, my idea is better is teaching these folks to fish, not giving them a fish.

[quote=]At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.[/QUOTE]The statistics are not consistent across all nations. Our poverty line would be pure affluence in hundreds of countries on the planet. We hold ourselves to a higher mark, and we should.

[quote=]You have to be one cynical person to believe that politicians only look at this issue as a political opportunity, that politicians are never motivated by decent human values. That's just as bad (and inaccurate) as being naive as to think that politicians are only selfless public servants.[/QUOTE]I hate to burst your bubble, but the proof is in the pudding. It isn't cynical, it is realistic.

[quote=]Stan I liked your post. Redistribution of wealth should be limited. But some people think we can and should do a little more than we are now, that's all.[/QUOTE]Redistribution, no matter the magnitude is wrong and hurtful to both the aggrieved and the 'beneficiary.' Sometimes in order to teach a man to fish, he needs some motivation. Hunger seems to do the trick.

Wild walleye,

Is that free drinks you are offering, I am willing to be the moderator.

Anything else free?