American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Avatar2005; 416605]If believing in America, the greatness of her legacy and the potential greatness of her future fall into your definition of hate, then I am guilty as charged. If you wouldn't mind, please cite some specifics of the 'hate' you believe that I have articulated.

WW:

I'm currently working on a documentary about the wave of Expats that have come to Argentina.

The most interesting common thread I've found from conducting interviews over the last few months is this:

"You can take an American out of America. But you can't take America out of an American!"

This is evidenced by the entrepenurial spirit I've seen in so many. Starting busineses. Working hard. And realizing their own version of the American Dream! [/QUOTE]The American Dream is still alive, but more elusive than ever. Wealth and power are increasingly controlled by a small minority - the rich elite - very wealthy individuals, Big Business and Wall Street. The rich have become richer and more powerful; they pull the strings as to who get loans and good paying jobs. Meanwhile the poor and middle class struggle even more.

Free market capitalism is turning this country into a Plutocracy.

Vote Republican and say bye-bye to the dream. Their policies enrich and empower the plutocrats. Some people mistakenly think the prosperity will "trickle down"; unfortunately what we have seen is that the plutocrat cares first and foremost only about their own profit and prosperity.

Democracy, governed by election cycles, forces political leadership to focus on legislature on a short-term basis. Political stalemate becomes the norm, any significant legislature that require long-term planning usually dies out before becoming reality or gets reversed by the incoming regime. Meanwhile, Big Business is controlling the political landscape, while misleading Americans into the illusion that they all can have the American dream if they would just spent every future dollar they have. Ideology is for the most part, propagnda.

Like the unrest and upheavals in the Middle East, there will be a time when the ignored and rejected class in America will take to the "streets" and demand to be heard. America tries to preach democracy to the four coners of the world, so it is astonishing to hear that we should try to prop up Khadaffi.

[QUOTE=Esten;416614]The American Dream is still alive, but more elusive than ever. [/quote]Agreed. Govt interference in private industry is making it more difficult to succeed.

[quote=]Wealth and power are increasingly controlled by a small minority[/quote]Agreed. Many of them are liberals serving in the US Congress who are dead set against any of us making real money and being able to survive, independent of their vision of government.

[quote=]- the rich elite - very wealthy individuals, Big Business [/quote]Esten says "blah, blah, blah. Hate the rich, hate the companies that employ Americans, blah, blah, blah"

[quote=]and Wall Street.[/quote]The denizens of which primarily donate to liberal candidates and causes.

[quote=]The rich have become richer and more powerful; they pull the strings as to who get loans[/quote]Like Chris Dodd and the other friends of Angelo (primarily liberals)

[quote=]and good paying jobs.[/quote]Although, once they got their waiver from Obamacare, McDonalds is looking to hire 50K new employees. Gee, I wonder why they are willing to hire after being exempted from massive, costly regulation whereas they weren't hiring while subject to it?

[quote=]Meanwhile the poor and middle class struggle even more.[/quote]Primarily because other than the above-mentioned, burger-flipping positions, there aren't any jobs!

[quote=]Free market capitalism is turning this country into a Plutocracy.[/quote]Markets can't be free if they are over regulated. Jobs won't be created if new hires are too expensive.

[quote=]Vote Republican and say bye-bye to the dream.[/quote]Based upon all of the information that you have provided thus far?

[quote=]Their policies enrich and empower the plutocrats.[/quote]I'm sorry, must have nodded off for a sec. Which party is massively expanding the govt?

[quote=]Some people mistakenly think the prosperity will "trickle down"; unfortunately what we have seen is that the plutocrat cares first and foremost only about their own profit and prosperity.[/QUOTE]Individuals are unlikely to buck human nature and ignore their own self interests. That doesn't make them bad, does it? I know that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I am not surprised that you get confused when branching out beyond monosyllabic words. Therefore, it is completely understandable that you have confused the concept of plutocracy with crony-capitalism, through which your beloved liberal politburo members are doing exactly what you accuse those in the free market of doing. What you leave out is that your ruling class is the only one with the power to actually effectuate it in the real world.

I know this is a long shot but do you think you could ever provide a substantive post?

You are so bereft of original thought that you should considering profiting by regurgitating the ideas of others. Maybe you should write bumper sticker slogans.

Esten. Ever hear of George Soros? He bought and paid for the liberal smear media and bloggers here, just follow the money. He does not live here but just can't wait to screw up our country. But I guess you consider him some type of hero.

Black Shirt. Guess you totally missed the run up to the 2010 elections. American's were in the streets long before the Middle East uprisings, demanding an end to all knowing, all seeing, all controlling government, reduction in taxes and in the size of the government which was reflected in the 2010 mid-term elections where liberal democrats took a whipping.

While I am very disappointed in the Republican performance in the 2011 budget crisis, they did at least come up with a budget for 2011 six months after it was due at the end of September. Might I add the Democrats, who controlled significant majorities in the Senate and the House as well as the White House, punted the budget twice, once before the mid terms and then after.

One of the tasks MANDATED to the House and Senate is to pass a budget each year and the Democrats with majorities in both chambers FAILED TO COMPLETE THE BUDGET WHILE FINDING TIME TO PASS EVERY OTHER HAIR BRAINED PIECE OF LIGISLATION DURING THE LAME DUCK SESSION.

Charlie Rangel's excuse for failing to pass the budget was 'JUST DID NOT GET AROUND TO IT'.

Now the liberal democrats are again beating the scare tactic drums because it is all they have being totally bankrupt on both ideas and morals. All they got is the Republicans are going to kill the children, kill the old people, and now the latest the Republicians are going to kill the women.

Esten, Black Shirt, this speaks volumes about your party. Nuf Said!

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416624]Meanwhile, Big Business is controlling the political landscape, while misleading Americans into the illusion that they all can have the American dream if they would just spent every future dollar they have. [/QUOTE]Black Shirt, I strongly agree with your post, except for the sentence above. There's no conspiracy. There are individual businesses that push for their particular tax loopholes. And, as Esten implies, the wealthy who, for example, push for ways of getting around the death tax. And there's an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants that help them do it. Both political parties are to blame. But the Democrats are the bigger offenders. Democrats are responsible for pushing up tax rates so that they can say that they're punishing the rich and the corporations. And then they promote loopholes like percentage depletion for the oil and gas industry (LBJ) or exemption from income tax for companies that set up in the Virgin Islands (Charles Rangel). Democrats are two faced, and this exercise has made our economy much less efficient than it would be otherwise. It's given us one of the highest marginal tax rates on business in the world, but because of loopholes, certain big businesses actually pay a pittance in taxes. The little guy just starting out or who doesn't let his business decisions revolving around tax avoidance loses out.

At least once in a while the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, come along with someone like Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich or Paul Ryan who wants to cut out the loopholes and level the playing field. And use part or all of the savings to cut marginal tax rates.

As to businesses who persuade the public to spend every future dollar to pursue the American dream, that is indeed a problem. But more of the blame lies with politicians than business and again the Democrats are the bigger offenders. There are Republicans proposing solutions that would increase our savings rate.

As Doppelganger says, the ignored and rejected are taking to the streets, witness the Tea Party.

Tiny and Doppel beat me to the punch on pointing out that BS was right about people taking to the streets (how else are they going to get to the polls?) he is just wrong about who is taking to the streets and that to which they are objecting.

One of the major fallacies of US liberalism is the trope about income disparity. While Esten bellyaches that the poor are paralyzed by the income gap, the truth is that most productive poor people spend little or no time worrying about the 'haves' and most of the time working and figuring out how to put food on the table. The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. Even the unproductive poor in America are provided with free healthcare (don't even try to refute this fact. They are) and assistance for housing and food (something like 50 million Americans on food stamps). What the productive and potentially productive members of the financially challenged want is opportunity. An opportunity to get ahead through hard work is a hell of a lot more meaningful to them than having the government steal more money (that they will never see) from some rich guy.

Further, when you look at the portion of society chronically dependent upon the government (right where the left wants all of us to be) you'll still see more 60" 1080p flat screens than you can at a BestBuy. What is their motivation to take to the streets and vote? They are getting subsidized housing, free money to use at the grocery store and free healthcare. Sure, if you ask them if they want to loose all these freebies, they will say 'no. ' But they aren't working for or earning any of them. Something earned by an individual is inevitably more meaningful to him than a similar item bequeath to him.

Conversely, only about half of American citizens, who have attained the age of majority, pay any income taxes at all. While the greatest tax burden falls on those earning in the top 20% of Americans, the squeeze is felt by everyone (everyone who pays taxes, that is). In fact, the squeeze is probably felt more keenly by the folks earning less than $100k. While they pay lower marginal rates, they have considerably less disposable income than their wealthy counterparts. So they miss it when it disappears. As the government grows exponentially and takes more from its productive citizenry to finance its insatiable appetite, eventually the people being robbed will say enough is enough. That is exactly what happened last fall. It is what is continuing to happen now. What does it tell you that a significant majority of the US wanted the government shut down?

Talk about taxation without representation. The ultimate version of this took place in the last congress where 50% of the American public had absolutely no representation within the legislative or executive branches of government. You know what came of it? The people paying the bills got pissed. They voted and they got results (outcome of the election not necessarily the performance of these new repubs) and feel empowered to finally have a chair at the table (considering that they paid for the table, the chairs and the building that houses it).

Esten can continue to beat that dead horse ad nauseam (can't imaging he'll ever stop) but it won't make it true.

"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit, that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches. I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.

"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.

I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.

A variety of situations could ignite a critical mass in the EEUU ($10 dollars a gallon might be one). In the 60s it was Viet Nam, but that was because the youth didn't want to die in a fucking jungle for nada (no 9/11, no Bin Laden, no hate mongering except for the cold war and we weren't fighting Russia). Now 20% of the population is facing foreclosure and nothing happens because it's not affecting the youth (thanks to an unregulated free-for-all on Wall Street). The baby-boomers are too tired and scared to start burning banks down on Wall Street, and the up and coming yuppies are buying up the repos. Meanwhile, China owns all our debt and Walmart is their 7th largest trading partner because we don't make anything. How long can that last? The fact that so many Republicans took seats in the last election is because the economy sucks and half the American public lack critical thinking skills. They rely on their churches, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck to tell them how to vote (against themselves). IMHO.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416653]"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit,[/quote]Agreed, if you are referring to the 11th Congress and those that preceded it. If you are speaking of the current Congress (the 112th) , I'd have to say that you are a little hasty in pronouncing judgment. While I too am concerned about their future performance, they have only been in office for around 90 days. They came up short on the cuts that they were supposed to get. Let's hope they do better and deliver on the 2012 budget (where there is a much bigger opportunity to cut).

Going into the 2010 midterms, congressional approval ratings were at their all-time low. The historic outcome of the midterms seemed to indicate that Americans were starting to pay attention to Congressional races and holding its members responsible for the condition of the country.

For the longest time (at least during my lifetime) district voters, regardless of party, tended to vote to reelect their representatives in both houses despite the low congressional approval numbers. You would hear the sentiment "throw the bums out" or "they are all thieves" and then they would go to the polls and reelect aforementioned bums and thieves. Ostensibly the reason for this apparent disconnect was that 'they' really felt those feelings about other members of congress and not specifically their members. Finally it seems that voters are starting to grasp that being good at bringing home pork might not be the best measure of one's representatives and that congressional behavior, as it relates to expanding the scope, reach and expense of government, is the responsibility of all members, including their own.

[quote=]that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches.[/quote]They are the Ruling Class. For far too long, they have not served the interests of America and her people but have served their own.

[quote=]I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. [/quote]I think that there are two distinct measures of commitment: the commitment of the elected officials to deliver as promised and the commitment of the voters to hold said elected officials accountable for their actions in Washington. For example, I believe that if the 112th Congress does not deliver cuts of a magnitude, previously unimaginable by the press, the newly empowered voters will unleash their wrath upon them.

[quote=]Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.[/quote]By this do you mean newbies to Congress who proclaim to be reformers going in to effectuate change and before long they are settling into the easy going lifestyle of American legislators, maintaining the status quo? If so, I couldn't agree with you more. One of the things that most bothered me about the 104th Congress. While they initially did some good in restoring fiscal restraint, many of them got too comfortable in Washington and lost thier way.

[quote=]"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on.[/quote]You lost me here. Consumerism is definitely the primary driver of the US economy.

Public transportation is excellent and widely available in many places throughout the country. Where it is not available it isn't viable on its own and obviously hasn't had a patron saint or two in the government to overcome (throw money at) the fact that it is unsustainable in that particular market. This is in large part due to the individual preferences of Americans. We like to drive our cars and if we are driving our cars, we can fit into buses and trains. Why should we be forced to use or pay for transportation modalities we neither want nor utilize?

Eating a diet consisting of Nacho flavored Doritos, Dinty Moore Stew and Twinkies, procured at your local 7-11, is a personal choice. The fact that many consume diets like this. Despite potential health implications and the fact that a much more healthy diet could be purchased from a full fledged grocery store for much less money. Is indicative of poor personal decisions. That's it. You can't legislate away stupidity and ignorance. Look at Esten (sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation).

[quote=]Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin?[/quote]I'm pretty sure that the Cro-Magnon figured out how to beat off, so I doubt America started or invented any of it. That said, the relative American wealth has enabled us many luxuries, of our own individual chosing.

[quote=]Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. [/quote]Yes, time to clean up.

[quote=]Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.[/quote]You can consider that rich. Hell, you can consider anyone making over $75K rich if you want. However, I suspect that most people making $300k, especially those with families, don't think that they are rich. Doing well? Yes. Rich? No.

[quote=]Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.[/QUOTE]We're just two peas in a pod.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416654]I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.[/QUOTE]Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416656]A variety of situations could ignite a critical mass in the EEUU ($10 dollars a gallon might be one). In the 60s it was Viet Nam, but that was because the youth didn't want to die in a fucking jungle for nada (no 9/11, no Bin Laden, no hate mongering except for the cold war and we weren't fighting Russia). Now 20% of the population is facing foreclosure and nothing happens because it's not affecting the youth (thanks to an unregulated free-for-all on Wall Street). The baby-boomers are too tired and scared to start burning banks down on Wall Street, and the up and coming yuppies are buying up the repos. Meanwhile, China owns all our debt and Walmart is their 7th largest trading partner because we don't make anything. How long can that last?[/quote]We're going to find out, aren't we?

[quote=]The fact that so many Republicans took seats in the last election is because the economy sucks and half the American public lack critical thinking skills.[/quote]Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

[quote=]They rely on their churches, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck to tell them how to vote (against themselves). IMHO.[/QUOTE]I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own.

A return to the Clinton era tax structure on the super rich (the top 3%) was reasonable and necessary during such an economic downturn. But the Repbulicans vowed to eliminate unemployment insurance before Christmas if they didn't continue to get their $500 billion dollar tax break, per year. Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.

You are obviously a smart person and a good writer Walleye, and are what I think of as one of the "true believers." I'll elaborate more on that another time. It's not negative.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416659]We're going to find out, aren't we?

Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416660]Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.[/QUOTE]HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined [u]TOTAL[/u] cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, [u]AND[/u] the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416658]Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?[/QUOTE]Now you're trying to tell other folks how they should spend their money. That's pretty popular among the many value mongers on this board, but I would resist the temptation. Their time with a porn star may be far more meaningful than the dozens of chicas they could nail in Columbia or Thailand for three weeks, especially since they don't have three weeks to do it.

The other side of the question about who is "rich" is this: About a year ago, we had someone on this board claiming he was too poor to afford health care in the US under the current system. He claimed that the recent rate increase he received had simply made a health insurance policy unaffordable and that he was forced to decline to renew his policy. He further claimed that ObamaCare was a necessity because people like him were priced out of the market.

At the time he was posting all this, he was simultaneously posting that he was on a two-week or one-month junket to Buenos Aires, where he was paying for pussy, going out to Hippopotamus, etc, and asking for help fixing his iPhone. So, he could afford airfare, hotels and apartments, P4P chicas, an iPhone, etc, but he was too poor to afford an increase in health insurance. If I recall correctly, the increase was something like $500, but my memory on the amount is a bit hazy.

So, don't tell me this guy is "poor" and that I should be paying for his insurance. I've got little time for those who claim that poor, ignorant Americans are being taken advantage of by insurance companies or even banks, who are "forcing" them to take loans. Or, that corporate America always figures out how to stick it to the little guy. The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here. The only time these folks take to the streets is when they can get three weeks off by protesting that their collective bargaining "rights" are in jeopardy, and when the union doctor will give them a note so they get paid for protesting. The only other time is when you threaten to close the border or, god forbid, actually check whether they're here legally. The average joes who are content to collect unemployment or welfare want nothing to do with the street unless someone is seriously threatening to cut off the gravy train.