American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 417627]Clearly, a black GOP nominee would disenfranchise democrat voters who are too dim to figure out which black candidate is the one that the Left has handpicked for the purpose of continuing the wholesale exploitation of minorities for political purposes. The Left would seek to have Justice Thomas recuse himself, due to a conflict of interests, being black and all. Further, since we all know that white, conservative men are racists due to defective chromosomes, Roberts, Scalia and Alito will have to be excused. Just to be fair, they'll leave Kennedy, who's a white guy but clearly not conservative despite being appointed by Reagan.

So the court will be comprised of Ginsberg, Sotomyor, Kagan and Kennedy who will no doubt side with the plaintiffs and bar the GOP from nominating a black candidate. If left unchecked, allowing the GOP to brazenly select a candidate, specifically for the purposes of disenfranchising democrat voters, would be tantamount to a tacit approval of individual rights, including the right to vote, for non-statist republicans and conervatives. [/QUOTE]Perhaps, a screenplay is in your future. Your sleep must be punctured by plots and sub-plots. I can see you waking up, sweat streaming down your face, screaming, "Barack, Barack, why does thou drive me to madness".

Mongers-

The blowback begins: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork[/url]

Suerte,

RH

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 417638]Mongers-

The blowback begins:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork[/url]

Suerte,

RH[/QUOTE]Blowback? Yea, right.

More like a [i]fart in a wind storm[/i].

Kathy Hochul won because third-party millionaire candidate Jack Davis, who ran twice before for the same seat as a Dem, and this time ran as a self-proclaimed but unofficial Tea Party candidate, drew 8 percent of the vote.

I suggest that Mr. Davis is and always has been a Democrat, and that he specifically ran his own self-funded campaign as an unofficial Tea Party candidate specifically to "split" the ticket by siphoning off some otherwise conservative voters, thus handing Hochul a 2 point win.

You can bet that the Republicans and the Tea Party will not let that happen in the 2012 Presidential election.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 417638]Mongers-

The blowback begins:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork[/url]

Suerte,

RH[/QUOTE]As Jax pointed out, the game-changer was Davis and his deliberate actions to defraud the voters. Nothing new for the left. No one is buying the line that it was anything else. Quite to the contrary, Hochul campaigned against Obamacare (at least the part the gutted Medicare of $500B). Not much of an endorsement of BHO. Rather, it looks like more blow back from BHO's overreaching on healthcare.

That doesn't excuse the republican of doing a shitty job educating the voters about himself and Davis' phony campaign.

No one has posted here in a while so I thought I would point out my earlier prediction Obama's poll numbers would plummet after the euphoria of Osama's death had passed and the 900 pound debt gorilla in the room made his presence known again.

The man has received warnings from all the ratings agencies that matter, even the Chinese threw in their 2 cents, that continued deficient spending is unsustainable but he still does not get it. Obama still wants to spend more than we take in on every Democratic wet dream that comes down the pike.

As we approach the 2012 election cycle the economy is stalling, unemployment is up again and ObamaCare is on the ropes and looking as if it will be heard by the Supreme Court and struck down during the middle of the cycle. What is really scary is the bag of tricks the Democrats use to push the economy in the short term have been used and the bag is empty, we are drowning in debt and no help is in site.

This is a long read.

[url]http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/[/url]

But, it's the best description I've seen recently of the life cycle associated with Obama-style progressive policies: Social Security, farm subsidies, medicaid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Obamacare, and many others. They start out as small, well-meaning, lefty-do-gooder-feel-good projects and eventually morph into unsustainable beasts.

This is what we see with Social Security, Medicaid and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac today. They are failed liberal programs. But, you can't touch them without getting viciously attacked by the left. Witness Paul Ryan's fate after trying to address medicare, or the Republican effort to include Fannie / Freddie in the Dodd-Frank talks.

Unfortunately, the author's conclusion if we don't act is inevitable. The whole thing will collapse in upon itself. It's just a matter of when.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418006]This is a long read.

[url]http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/[/url]

But, it's the best description I've seen recently of the life cycle associated with Obama-style progressive policies: Social Security, farm subsidies, medicaid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Obamacare, and many others. They start out as small, well-meaning, lefty-do-gooder-feel-good projects and eventually morph into unsustainable beasts.

This is what we see with Social Security, Medicaid and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac today. They are failed liberal programs. But, you can't touch them without getting viciously attacked by the left. Witness Paul Ryan's fate after trying to address medicare, or the Republican effort to include Fannie / Freddie in the Dodd-Frank talks.

Unfortunately, the author's conclusion if we don't act is inevitable. The whole thing will collapse in upon itself. It's just a matter of when. [/QUOTE]Sadly dude the left rarely shows any retropective evaluation on such matters. They just move on to the next socially driven agenda without any thought of the potential consequences. They just don't get it AND "THEY NEVER GET TIRED OF SPENDING SOMEONE ELSES MONEY! LOL.

Happy Mongering dude. Toymann

Perhaps the frequency of posts is inversely related to Obama's reelection chances.

One of the major problems with Congress (primarily the left but the right doesn't get a pass either) is that they have become a ruling class. They are out for themselves and their benefactors and not for the good of the nation and without true patriotic fidelity in their actions. Add to that the fact that very few of them have ever worked an honest job and still fewer have ever run a business. Because lying and deceiving have come to be accepted as qualities in a politician, black and white subjects, like accounting, have become blurred.

I doubt that many in Congress, past or present, that have voted to create these gigantic entitlement programs were completely unaware of the inevitable consequences that they set in motion or cared that there programs were unsustainable, from the start. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you commit to pay someone, who is no longer paying into the system, periodic payments of a fixed amount, to be funded out of the operating cash flow and not from the proceeds of invested funds, you will eventually hit the wall when disbursements exceed receipts. If the population grows and then shrinks, you have guaranteed that there will come a time when disbursements exceed receipts, unless you raise taxes. Similarly, I would expect that most members of congress understand that the government is one of the most inefficient organizations ever created and the byzantine operating procedures and regulation almost guarantee that something done by the federal government will be inherently less efficient than if it were done by private enterprise. Yet they will look into the camera and tell you that the government will do it better and cheaper than the private sector. Show me one example of this ever being true.

Then why would they vote for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare and the like?

*Tangent #1* I'm not saying that there isn't a moral obligation for us to care for those who can't care for themselves, but everyone of these programs is a cluster f*ck costing taxpayers far more than simple solutions that would give the recipients better results. But that is a debate for another day*end of tangent #1*

The answer is political expediency, lust for power, quid pro quo and greed. You might notice that conspicuously absent from that list of motivations are: 'for the good of the country' and 'to truly help those in need. ' You see, long ago, the ruling class discovered that there is a time warp between the pace at which things get announced and trumpeted in Washington and the time in which the negative effects of those policies are felt by the voters. By the time the unpleasant repercussions start to impact voters, the national discourse has changed, the politicians will wave off past actions like trying to disperse a fart, knowing all the time that there is very little likelihood that it will negatively impact their chances for reelection and continuing to drain the national coffers for their own personal benefit. Therefore, they get to bask in the glow of adulation from the leftist media and escape all responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

*Tangent #2* This is why members of congress, like Weiner, do the things they do with impunity."I can vote to destroy the greatest economy in the history of mankind and not be held responsible for it, therefore, I'll never get called out for send a few shots of my weiner to underage girls." You can also add in names like Murtha Cunningham (a republican, BTW) , Pelosi, Reid and countless others who have act unethically, if not illegally, who no expectation of ever being held accountable*end of tangent #2*

Further, politicians exploit the notoriously weak collective American memory and miraculously get voters to vote for tripe that has been proven to be junk many, many times. When was the last time a feckless, socialist, American-apologist ran for president and was elected, at a time a great economic hardship? 1976. What happened? It was a disaster. Thirty two years later, the American public made the same mistake trying to solve a recession with Keynesian, neo-solcialist band aids that have already been proven not to work.

Then these political scum imbue upon themselves the right to lie, dissemble and distort with impunity and so long as they belong to a certain political class, they will never be called out by the media and therefore most Americans will never know that the line of BS that they just got fed was complete crap. For instance, more than a few stated that Obamacare will cost less than doing nothing. Not only is this not true, those speaking those lines knew it to be false as it passed over their lips. Accountability? None."Pass this stimulus bill (read: 8-yr backlog of Democrat payoffs) and unemployment won't go above 8%." Accountability? None. These are pretty big whoppers that effect each and every American. For the nearly 20% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, these are very dark times, the type of which destroys people and families. Yet, not a voice is to be heard calling for the ruling class to be held accountable. No one from the mainstream media has the time to look into these matters, however, they can scramble legions of workers and dispatch them to Juneau to sift through thousands of emails sent and received by the former governor, who today is a private citizen and not a candidate for any office.

When you add the time warp to a malleable public with a faulty memory and dishonest media, you get a dangerous cocktail that almost assures making the same mistake over and over again. While that is a pretty depressing synopsis of the past, there is hope. Due in large part to the unimaginable suffering wrought upon so many Americans by this president and the Pelosi-Reid congress, Americans are getting more involved and are starting to hold elected officials accountable. As much as last November's election was a referendum on all things Obama, it was also an indication that the formerly sluggish and docile electorate is starting to keep score and demand accountability.

WW,

Your editoral was slanted as usual, nothing wrong with that, we know your politics.

I do agree with your take on Congress, but the morality and ethics of the ruling class is a direct reflection of the American culture. Just watch American tv for a few days. Consumers are max out on credit. 2nd mortgages have crushed out any equity, and graduates have student loans millstones. Single parents, drugs, high prison and criminal records. It's all about the money and of course, the fame.

So we have American presidential candidates like John Edwards, and even Newt Gingrich! And then, there is American heroes like Bart Favre, Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, and oh, no, no, no, please, it cannot be, Lance Armstrong.

So America is getting the leadership they deserve. This is 2011.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 418036]Perhaps the frequency of posts is inversely related to Obama's reelection chances.

One of the major problems with Congress (primarily the left but the right doesn't get a pass either) is that they have become a ruling class. They are out for themselves and their benefactors and not for the good of the nation and without true patriotic fidelity in their actions. Add to that the fact that very few of them have ever worked an honest job and still fewer have ever run a business. Because lying and deceiving have come to be accepted as qualities in a politician, black and white subjects, like accounting, have become blurred.

I doubt that many in Congress, past or present, that have voted to create these gigantic entitlement programs were completely unaware of the inevitable consequences that they set in motion or cared that there programs were unsustainable, from the start. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you commit to pay someone, who is no longer paying into the system, periodic payments of a fixed amount, to be funded out of the operating cash flow and not from the proceeds of invested funds, you will eventually hit the wall when disbursements exceed receipts. If the population grows and then shrinks, you have guaranteed that there will come a time when disbursements exceed receipts, unless you raise taxes. Similarly, I would expect that most members of congress understand that the government is one of the most inefficient organizations ever created and the byzantine operating procedures and regulation almost guarantee that something done by the federal government will be inherently less efficient than if it were done by private enterprise. Yet they will look into the camera and tell you that the government will do it better and cheaper than the private sector. Show me one example of this ever being true.

Then why would they vote for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare and the like?

*Tangent #1* I'm not saying that there isn't a moral obligation for us to care for those who can't care for themselves, but everyone of these programs is a cluster f*ck costing taxpayers far more than simple solutions that would give the recipients better results. But that is a debate for another day*end of tangent #1*

The answer is political expediency, lust for power, quid pro quo and greed. You might notice that conspicuously absent from that list of motivations are: 'for the good of the country' and 'to truly help those in need. ' You see, long ago, the ruling class discovered that there is a time warp between the pace at which things get announced and trumpeted in Washington and the time in which the negative effects of those policies are felt by the voters. By the time the unpleasant repercussions start to impact voters, the national discourse has changed, the politicians will wave off past actions like trying to disperse a fart, knowing all the time that there is very little likelihood that it will negatively impact their chances for reelection and continuing to drain the national coffers for their own personal benefit. Therefore, they get to bask in the glow of adulation from the leftist media and escape all responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

*Tangent #2* This is why members of congress, like Weiner, do the things they do with impunity."I can vote to destroy the greatest economy in the history of mankind and not be held responsible for it, therefore, I'll never get called out for send a few shots of my weiner to underage girls." You can also add in names like Murtha Cunningham (a republican, BTW) , Pelosi, Reid and countless others who have act unethically, if not illegally, who no expectation of ever being held accountable*end of tangent #2*

Further, politicians exploit the notoriously weak collective American memory and miraculously get voters to vote for tripe that has been proven to be junk many, many times. When was the last time a feckless, socialist, American-apologist ran for president and was elected, at a time a great economic hardship? 1976. What happened? It was a disaster. Thirty two years later, the American public made the same mistake trying to solve a recession with Keynesian, neo-solcialist band aids that have already been proven not to work.

Then these political scum imbue upon themselves the right to lie, dissemble and distort with impunity and so long as they belong to a certain political class, they will never be called out by the media and therefore most Americans will never know that the line of BS that they just got fed was complete crap. For instance, more than a few stated that Obamacare will cost less than doing nothing. Not only is this not true, those speaking those lines knew it to be false as it passed over their lips. Accountability? None."Pass this stimulus bill (read: 8-yr backlog of Democrat payoffs) and unemployment won't go above 8." Accountability? None. These are pretty big whoppers that effect each and every American. For the nearly 20% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, these are very dark times, the type of which destroys people and families. Yet, not a voice is to be heard calling for the ruling class to be held accountable. No one from the mainstream media has the time to look into these matters, however, they can scramble legions of workers and dispatch them to Juneau to sift through thousands of emails sent and received by the former governor, who today is a private citizen and not a candidate for any office.

When you add the time warp to a malleable public with a faulty memory and dishonest media, you get a dangerous cocktail that almost assures making the same mistake over and over again. While that is a pretty depressing synopsis of the past, there is hope. Due in large part to the unimaginable suffering wrought upon so many Americans by this president and the Pelosi-Reid congress, Americans are getting more involved and are starting to hold elected officials accountable. As much as last November's election was a referendum on all things Obama, it was also an indication that the formerly sluggish and docile electorate is starting to keep score and demand accountability.[/QUOTE]Calvin Coolidge got it exactly and completely in 1914.

"The normal must care for themselves".

Argento

[QUOTE=Argento; 418041]Calvin Coolidge got it exactly and completely in 1914.

"The normal must care for themselves".

Argento[/QUOTE]I agree to a point. But, I wouldn't say he got it completely right. Many of these progressive entitlement programs start with the notion that everyone will pay for themselves. You pay into social security when you're young and collect when you're old. You pay unemployment tax and can collect if you should happen to get laid off. There are other programs like this, as well, and there also are blatant handouts like Fannie and Freddie become once legislators mandate that they loan money to non-creditworthy people.

Next these programs morph into "the normal must pay for themselves and everyone else." At that point, folks begin to grumble and complain. But, there's no one in particular to grumble and complain against. The government is playing Robbing Hood, taking from the "normal" and giving to the "abnormal"

Then, you get to the point where the normal must pay for everyone else and expect nothing in return. This is what Coolidge was talking about. We see this with the social security concepts that are being bandied about even by some conservatives. Social security will be means tested. Those who make too much won't qualify. In other words, they'll just pay for everyone else and get nothing in return. They must take care of themselves. We've reached this point because these programs are such utter failures that this is the last phase before it collapses. Liberals will act aghast when anyone suggests that social security be taken away or benefits limited. But it's only because they don't realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is, in fact, a train coming at them.

Then, you get to that last stage where there's not enough in the pockets for Robbing Hood to pick. The normal are incapable of taking care of everyone else. Yet the government insists that they do, because that's what the progressives promised way back when these programs were set up. This is where Greece is today. It's where we're headed.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 418040]WW,

Your editoral was slanted as usual, nothing wrong with that, we know your politics.

I do agree with your take on Congress, but the morality and ethics of the ruling class is a direct reflection of the American culture. Just watch American tv for a few days. Consumers are max out on credit. 2nd mortgages have crushed out any equity, and graduates have student loans millstones. Single parents, drugs, high prison and criminal records. It's all about the money and of course, the fame.

So we have American presidential candidates like John Edwards, and even Newt Gingrich! And then, there is American heroes like Bart Favre, Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, and oh, no, no, no, please, it cannot be, Lance Armstrong.

So America is getting the leadership they deserve. This is 2011. [/QUOTE]Why would honest, capable people volunteer to jump into the cesspool that is American politics?

Let's look at the example of Sarah Palin. Ignore policy differences for the moment and try to clear your heads of the media distortions about this woman. She's a regular person who works hard, gets ahead and learns from her mistakes. She is principled and has a significant record of accomplishments and integrity. She is, and was, far more qualified to be president than Obama. As far as we can tell (and she's been vetted more thoroughly than any democrat (or republican for that matter) candidate for president in history) there is little or no hypocrisy between her positions and the way she leads her personal and professional lives. When she burst onto the scene, she had "future president" written all over her. She immediately connected with huge numbers of American's desirous for candidates that lead by example and do as they say. Go to youtube and watch her first two speeches when McCain announced her selection to join the ticket. She was straight-shooting and reminiscent of Reagan. My immediate impression was that we should dump McCain and put her at the top of the ticket and Palin 2012. Not because she belonged in Mensa but because she came right out and stated her conservative positions, based upon personal responsibility and American Exceptionalism.

That is exactly why she was savaged by the liberal media. They had to destroy her. They feared her. They still do. The McCain campaign then put her under lock and key and prevented her from continuing to shoot straight or defending herself, in the face of an unprecedented, coordinated attack by the media to destroy her personally and as a candidate (then and in the future). Ironically, those who were supposed to help her helped to harm her. Yet, here we are, almost three years later, and she's survived, in fact, she's thrived. She is now a likely republican 'king maker. ' During that same period of time, Katie Couric has managed to put the final nails in the coffin for the once venerable CBS news franchise.

It is important to understand what your opponent fears most, because it is indicative of its weakness and how to defeat it.

Again, looking at this example, regardless of ideology, why would people of integrity volunteer to become the personal pinatas of the mainstream media?

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418043]I agree to a point. But, I wouldn't say he got it completely right. Many of these progressive entitlement programs start with the notion that everyone will pay for themselves. You pay into social security when you're young and collect when you're old. You pay unemployment tax and can collect if you should happen to get laid off. There are other programs like this, as well, and there also are blatant handouts like Fannie and Freddie become once legislators mandate that they loan money to non-creditworthy people.

Next these programs morph into "the normal must pay for themselves and everyone else." At that point, folks begin to grumble and complain. But, there's no one in particular to grumble and complain against. The government is playing Robbing Hood, taking from the "normal" and giving to the "abnormal"

Then, you get to the point where the normal must pay for everyone else and expect nothing in return. This is what Coolidge was talking about. We see this with the social security concepts that are being bandied about even by some conservatives. Social security will be means tested. Those who make too much won't qualify. In other words, they'll just pay for everyone else and get nothing in return. They must take care of themselves. We've reached this point because these programs are such utter failures that this is the last phase before it collapses. Liberals will act aghast when anyone suggests that social security be taken away or benefits limited. But it's only because they don't realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is, in fact, a train coming at them.

Then, you get to that last stage where there's not enough in the pockets for Robbing Hood to pick. The normal are incapable of taking care of everyone else. Yet the government insists that they do, because that's what the progressives promised way back when these programs were set up. This is where Greece is today. It's where we're headed. [/QUOTE]Re-read the quote. Coolidge expected people who were normal to pay their taxes and he expressly was in favour of supporting people who were disadvantaged socially, physically and mentally. And why wouldn't you if you had an ounce of humanity. And he went to bat for these people. He was against middle-class welfare, complex support packages such as the USA has for agriculture still, against industry subsidies rife in the USA; in short he believed that such supports were a tax on the rest of the population. Non-the-less, he progressively reduced company and lower salaried workers taxation through-out his presidency precisely because he reduced the pork that really is responsible for the complex mess that the USA tax system represents. He liked transparency, was against the USA involving itself in foreign military adventures and in other country's sovereign business and believed in and supported a strong military. And when he left the presidency, the military was stronger, taxation receipts were higher and the USA was an admired country.

So pray tell after 80 odd years which political party got it wrong? In my estimation both parties should hang their heads in shame. Reagan is about the only one who tried hard to stop the shit and he got as much support as Coolidge did. Very little and grudgingly.

Argento

[QUOTE=Argento;418054]Re-read the quote. Coolidge expected people who were normal to pay their taxes and he expressly was in favour of supporting people who were disadvantaged socially, physically and mentally. And why wouldn't you if you had an ounce of humanity. [/QUOTE]Easy. Because these same people were better off before the government began "taking care" of them.

First, let's parse this out. You identified three groups. Those who are "disadvantaged" socially, physically and mentally. No one is talking about the latter two, the physically handicapped or the mentally retarded. We're talking about those who are "socially" disadvantaged.

Second, we're not talking about whether I, other citizens, or whether a church or civic group has enough "humanity" as you put it to take care of the socially disadvantaged. We're talking about whether the government should force me, you or the rest of the country to take care of the socially disadvantaged.

Third, no one is saying that the government has no role. Many others here, including myself, agree that the government's responsibility is to ensure that all individuals, including the socially disadvantaged, have [i]opportunities[/i] To better their stations. Frankly, I think you would be hard pressed to point to another country where all individuals have as many opportunities to advantage themselves as exist in the United States.

So, to get to your point: No, the government shouldn't have the right to force me to tend to the socially disadvantaged. The government should do the minimum necessary to ensure that opportunities exist for all, and then get out of the way. Doing more is self-defeating because the government does nothing well. If I read your reference to Reagan correctly, I think we agree on most of this. His goal was to reduce the size of government, which is the opposite of the current president's view. And, lest I be accused of being [i]too[/i] partisan, I will agree that George Bush the 2nd didn't do a darn thing to reduce the size of government and was not a fiscal conservative. He was a social conservative, which I don't support, either.

Speaking of our current president, here's an interesting clip. This is Obama stating that if he didn't fix the economy by the end of his first three years in office that he would be a one-term president.

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/15/flashback_obama_on_economy_in_2009_i_will_be_held_accountable.html[/url]

He's got six more months until the jig's up. But, recently I've notice how much more enlightened he's become since then. [i]He didn't realize just [u]how bad[/u] everything was when he made those statements. It's [u]still[/u] all George Bush's fault. Well, that's a little overbroad. It's all George Bush's fault except for the auto bailouts and Cash for Clunkers programs that Obama thinks he can take credit for. Oh, Americans hate ObamaCare because those mean Republicans are spreading lies and calling it ObamaCare rather than PPACA.[/i] Yadda, yadda, yadda.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418055]Easy. Because these same people were better off before the government began "taking care" of them.

[/QUOTE]In Coolidge's time, ie. 80 years ago, the quality of life for all Americans measurably improved and their tax burdens were lessened by the instigation of his policies. And that is what I am referencing. You are the one that sought to extend the polemic. So as regards Coolidge and his quote, you are simply incorrect. So if you applied the same policies today, there certainly would be a beginning to the end of the bullshit that permeates tax and social programs in the USA. But fat chance I would say. The US economy and the U$ drachma will continue their fall unless radical change comes about. So I'd be looking for a new Coolidge. That fat guy from New Jersey could be a candidate. He doesn't take too many prisoners and appears to have a point of view that is not focused on the principle of popularity.

Argento