Then I suppose the Republicans will use the Democrats solution -- put it on my Mastercard.
That is actually Reaganomics.
Both parties share equal blame for fiscal irresponsibility.
Reaganomics made fiscal irresponsibility a virtue.
It is all part of the republican master plan. Bankrupt the government through tax cuts to the rich, expanded military spending, and enormous transfers to contractors. Then, claim that there is no money for medicare, social security, etc., so that these programs can be eliminated. So that there will be more money to be looted by the rich.
The ultimate goal is to turn the USA into an oligarchy, where a few people own everything, and everyone else is reduced to dire poverty.
Think of Calcutta as a Republican Heaven, but where the people living in the streets are listening to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson on the radio all day.
Reaganomics made fiscal irresponsibility a virtue.
While we're on the subject of Republicans and their spend but don't tax foolishness, let's look back at the Clinton administration's noble but misguided attempts at combatting mortgage discrimination combined with the sweeping support for GLBA by progressives and former Rep. Frank's obstinance with managing Fannie and Freddie. The fact of the matter is that progressive Democrats saw dollar signs just as much their counterparts across the aisle had done, and all three of the aforementioned factors played a role in contributing to the financial crisis of 2008.
That being said and with all due respect, I have no interest in only listening to one side of the story for the glorification of your pet political beliefs. Both parties have dropped the proverbial ball. Period.
Joined: Jan 29, 2008 Posts: 5180 Location: Seattle Area
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:03 pm Post subject:
marshall wrote:
Few self-professed liberals/progressives I know consider themselves "team Democrats". People on the left seem to have more disdain for the Democratic establishment than conservative's have for "RINO"s. Few people identify with a political party, they identify with their ideals and the ideals they oppose.
It seems like I'm hearing more about that last part from self identified Democrats lately than the first; it really feels like they're voting D out of fear of the Republicans more than any real enthusiasm for the Democrats. It just kills me that they won't get serious about primary challenges, or go even further and establish an honest to god third party, it's like the left is collectively haunted by the ghost of Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign and the belief that he opened the door for W, and won't take a hard look at who they're actually electing.
Also, as a guy that socializes with actual conservatives from time to time, I can tell you that the ones I know are pretty sincere in their hatred of RINOs, "conservatives" that turn into big government enthusiasts once elected, and others perceived to have simply pandered to them. Remember that when the Tea Parties first appeared, there was real talk about whether they'd remain as a GOP faction or actually splinter off into an actual independent party; is was only once they were truly co-opted that they became just another arm of the GOP.
marshall wrote:
I also note that the Tea Party became a lot more pragmatic as soon as they got bought out. They managed to gain power by abandoning their more libertarian leaning roots and becoming a beacon of all-encompassing reactionary rage against the newly elected "secret Muslim, commie devil" occupying the oval office.
Yes, that was unfortunate. I had had high hopes that people were finally starting to see that they were choosing between wasteful, inefficient government spending coupled with hawkish rhetoric with moral pandering, and wasteful government spending coupled with semi-hawkish rhetoric with some redistribution programs. Sadly, the moment passed and the slogans and energy were hijacked by the establishment.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate Obama, from his broken promises to his escalation of W's civil liberties erosion to his crony capitalism; sadly the right, Tea Parties included, have chosen to focus on stupid things like falsely calling him a socialist or trying to link him to 60's radicalism. I get that to launch the more effective, true attacks they'd have to look in the mirror a bit, but it's still frustrating as hell for someone who thinks people really ought to be furious about Obama, but not for the reasons some of them are. The ones that aren't furious are also refusing to look in the mirror, but for other reasons altogether.
marshall wrote:
They also didn't push people to vote third party. They used the primary process to influence the Republican party into becoming more extreme from the inside out.
Exactly. The point I'm trying to make though is that they were willing to force the party to nominate riskier or in some cases impossible candidates that they considered ideologically sound over moderates with much better chances of winning. They did force the GOP to the right, but they did it by forcing them to take losses rather than tolerate moderates or candidates thought of as too establishment. That's all I'm trying to get across here, the willingness to take a loss with a candidate you want to vote for rather than getting a win with a lesser evil candidate and how that can be leveraged.
marshall wrote:
If the original Tea Party had stuck to their principles in promoting economic conservative ideals and left the reactionary faction at the back door they wouldn't have accomplished the results they had in Nov 2010.
I actually think the opposite; the reactionary faction is a turnoff to swing voters, and had they stayed true to their original ideas and not been co-opted they could have remained much more politically relevant. There are a LOT of people who may agree with the ideas of more efficient and less overbearing government but are turned off by the GOP's social conservatism and religious faction that the original Tea Party was very effective in reaching, and Ron Paul has certainly shown that there is an anti war GOP faction out there that's going mostly unheard. If they'd stuck to economics, we might be thinking that 2010 was just a warmup for 2012, now the Tea Party is considered just barely relevant, though they're still polling as *slightly* more so than OWS.
marshall wrote:
The right is more successful than the left in influencing capitol hill because 1.) they have more money behind them and 2.) the ones in control don't have principles.
Are you going to make me get out the charts showing who gets and spends what money where? Maybe some Glenn Greenwald on what Obama has really been up to? _________________ Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Reaganomics made fiscal irresponsibility a virtue.
While we're on the subject of Republicans and their spend but don't tax foolishness, let's look back at the Clinton administration's noble but misguided attempts at combatting mortgage discrimination combined with the sweeping support for GLBA by progressives and former Rep. Frank's obstinance with managing Fannie and Freddie. The fact of the matter is that progressive Democrats saw dollar signs just as much their counterparts across the aisle had done, and all three of the aforementioned factors played a role in contributing to the financial crisis of 2008.
That being said and with all due respect, I have no interest in only listening to one side of the story for the glorification of your pet political beliefs. Both parties have dropped the proverbial ball. Period.
I'm not saying that the Democrats are angels. Only saying that, if the Democrats win, then we will have less chance of losing social security, medicare, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Reaganomics made fiscal irresponsibility a virtue.
While we're on the subject of Republicans and their spend but don't tax foolishness, let's look back at the Clinton administration's noble but misguided attempts at combatting mortgage discrimination combined with the sweeping support for GLBA by progressives and former Rep. Frank's obstinance with managing Fannie and Freddie. The fact of the matter is that progressive Democrats saw dollar signs just as much their counterparts across the aisle had done, and all three of the aforementioned factors played a role in contributing to the financial crisis of 2008.
That being said and with all due respect, I have no interest in only listening to one side of the story for the glorification of your pet political beliefs. Both parties have dropped the proverbial ball. Period.
I'm not saying that the Democrats are angels. Only saying that, if the Democrats win, then we will have less chance of losing social security, medicare, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Joined: Jan 29, 2008 Posts: 5180 Location: Seattle Area
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject:
Joker wrote:
Mitt Romneys onnly chance against obama will be the religious right or left.
They're not enough on their own, he needs new blood that's excited about voting. If the GOP hadn't alienated the Hispanic vote with their anti-immigration platforms they could have been a natural fit and the real future of the GOP, or if he could figure out a way to rope in Ron Paul's faction they might put him over the top though I don't see that happening. Barring something going *really* wrong for Obama, Romney is going to need to reach out beyond the traditional GOP in order to have a chance at winning. _________________ Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
I'm not saying that the Democrats are angels. Only saying that, if the Democrats win, then we will have less chance of losing social security, medicare, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Oh, don't worry. Our current crypto-neocon president is doing a good job hastening Social Security's demise. Without the formation of new jobs, repayment of the funds that were borrowed from SS and reforms that will protect the funds it already has, the only thing Democrats will be accomplishing is the postponement of the inevitable.
As for the "Affordable" Care Act (ha, ha), the Supreme Court is already hearing the case and if they rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, there's not a damn thing a Democratic supermajority can do about it except remove the offending passages from the law or abandon the legislation entirely.
Personally, I think Vermont had the right idea in just saying to Hell with the Federal Government and enacting their own single payer system. Isn't the Tenth Amendment grand?
Joined: Apr 15, 2007 Posts: 9187 Location: Western Michigan
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The right is more successful than the left in influencing capitol hill because 1.) they have more money behind them and 2.) the ones in control don't have principles.
Are you going to make me get out the charts showing who gets and spends what money where? Maybe some Glenn Greenwald on what Obama has really been up to?
The people with the money to bet think it's more likely he's going to win. _________________ Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist
Member of the WP Strident Atheists
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt128417.html
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 Age: 24 Posts: 7593 Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:04 am Post subject:
Dox47 wrote:
Joker wrote:
Mitt Romneys onnly chance against obama will be the religious right or left.
They're not enough on their own, he needs new blood that's excited about voting. If the GOP hadn't alienated the Hispanic vote with their anti-immigration platforms they could have been a natural fit and the real future of the GOP, or if he could figure out a way to rope in Ron Paul's faction they might put him over the top though I don't see that happening. Barring something going *really* wrong for Obama, Romney is going to need to reach out beyond the traditional GOP in order to have a chance at winning.
I don't see anything going wrong for Obama but Mitt Romeny will have to really come up with a better platform then Obama which will be hard to do.
