# American primary, presidential and legislative elections - the 2012 preview



## Almaviva

A traditionally Republican district in the state of New York held by Republicans for 40 years had special elections this week for a House opening. They elected a Democrat who campaigned on claims that the Republicans are trying to gut Medicare. A while ago the opposite had happened in a senatorial race for the traditionally democratic Kennedy district, where the winning Republican candidate rode the wave of discontent with the health care legistlation.

What do these diametrically different events say, if anything, about Obama's chances at reelection and the composition of Congress in 2012? Opinions?

This thread should also provide a venue to discuss the Republican primaries for the presidential election: who might be Obama's opponent in 2012, and what would be the odds for each Republican candidate and for Obama?

The elections will be in everybody's mind, more and more from now on - at least in the Americans' minds, but since our elections do get widely publicized around the world, our friends from accross the pond might want to debate the issue as well (or, they'd be welcome to start their own country-specific or region-specific political thread).

So, in anticipation of the fact that the elections may generate more and more threads, as a house keeping measure I thought that we might keep one long thread for these American electoral debates that would encompass all upcoming US elections: Republican Primaries, Presidential, and Congressional. Since the special election in the state of New York is the breaking news of the day in political media, I thought that starting by what has just happened would be a nice entry point.

Here are two paragraphs with some simple ground rules:

Politics is a hot topic and tempers may flare up, therefore I encourage members to discuss these important issues in a *civil *manner and in full compliance with our *Terms of Service*, that is, debating ideas but not the person who is putting forward the ideas, or the person's posting style. The usual arguments in a debate - such as pointing out that someone is using a fallacy, asking people to back opinions with data and links, questioning the validity of an idea, etc., are all valid forms of participation. What is not allowed are direct personal attacks (ad-homs, name-calling) or criticisms of the tone employed, etc. For example, you can say that someone is using a straw-man, but you can't criticize the *person *for being disingenuous, and this includes all other style-related criticisms such as saying that someone is being condescending or arrogant or prejudiced. You can say that an *idea *is wrong or an *opinion *is non-factual but you can't say that the *person* defending the idea or expressing the opinion is ignorant or misguided, etc. *Please also keep sarcasm to a minimum.* It's just not helpful, and here in Talk Classical we can do better than that. When agreement is at all impossible, members may want to agree to disagree. Members should also try their best to avoid reacting equally offensively to comments that they perceive as offensive. The remedies for these are two-fold: the member should report the offensive post to the moderators, and/or use the Ignore function, but should refrain from fanning the flames even more by reacting strongly. While we do take into account the fact that a provocation is a more serious violation of the TOS than a reaction to a provocation, the former doesn't completely excuse the latter.

Consistent with my latest moderation style, I'll try to keep my hands off as much as possible (as a moderator, that is; of course I reserve to myself the right to participate of the debate as well, in my capacity as a member), but may post some generic warnings (non-member specific) from time to time to try and rein in the discussion if it starts to derail. One useful way to realize that I'm posting something while "wearing my moderator hat," will be the fact that I intend to change the font color to red in those occasions, while my posts for which I'm "wearing my member hat" will be written with the usual font color. Violations of the TOS will be dealt with by private messages, and it is our policy that any moderation action that a member is not content with is to be handled privately as well, either by PM'ing me, or PM'ing the site adminstrator Krummhorn, or using the Contac Us form. Making of these private communications something public is a big no-no and may invite further administrative action.

In spite of these two paragraphs above which may sound a bit ominous  I must say that I'm issuing these warnings just to be proactive, because the hands-off approach and the PM communications have been working great. We have been able to solve conflict in a productive way with no consequences for the parts involved, and my intention is to keep it like this. I fully trust our members to be able to keep up with these rules, like it's been the case for the last several weeks.

So, friends, debate at will, as long as you remain the civilized and cultured bunch with whom we have always had the pleasure of interacting.


----------



## Vaneyes

Local assessment of Senator Scott Brown's falling stock...

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110525/OPINION/105250313/-1/NEWSMAP

Distant assessment of Tiffany Man, and other stuff...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...he-tiffany-scandal-rocking-the-republicans.do

Here we go again. Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/rudy_giuliani_leads_in_gop_presidential_ZiiRCnKibVjYRBVqyhe2tO


----------



## Almaviva

I can't believe it! Giuliani didn't win any delegates in 2008. Isn't this enough evidence that he can't succeed?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Almaviva said:


> I can't believe it! Giuliani didn't win any delegates in 2008. Isn't this enough evidence that he can't succeed?


I think his campaign theme should be Chumbawumba's Tubthumper.


----------



## Almaviva

Governor Perry of Texas is jumping in the race. Any thoughts about his chances?


----------



## Vaneyes

Strange brew by both parties. How did your politicians vote?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/28/mysterious.fund/index.html

Find out before *you* vote, at The US Congress Votes Database...

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/


----------



## Vaneyes

Rolling Thunder gives Ms. Palin good vibrations, as well as, “There’s no better way to see D.C. than on the back of a Harley! Whether you’re riding the open road or the frozen tundra, you’re celebrating a free spirit. What could be more American than that?”


----------



## science

I think Sarah Palin is a fascinating phenomenon. Fox News has turned against her, and I'd guess talk radio has as well (though I don't know), but she's going to get a certain number of votes as long as she stays in the primary. I don't think it'll be enough to win, but a certain segment of the GOP voters will support her, and the actual winner will in effect be the winner among the other segments of the GOP. In other words, Palin's candidacy is likely to lead to a better (from my perspective) GOP candidate. 

I really look forward to this GOP primary. I do not believe the candidates are so weak; that's just the media priming the "come from behind underdog" narrative. At this point they're all at least as well known as Obama was in 2007. 

But I am extremely disappointed in Huckabee's decision not to run. It seems to me that he would've been a decent president.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> I think Sarah Palin is a fascinating phenomenon. Fox News has turned against her, and I'd guess talk radio has as well (though I don't know), but she's going to get a certain number of votes as long as she stays in the primary. I don't think it'll be enough to win, but a certain segment of the GOP voters will support her, and the actual winner will in effect be the winner among the other segments of the GOP. In other words, Palin's candidacy is likely to lead to a better (from my perspective) GOP candidate.
> 
> I really look forward to this GOP primary. I do not believe the candidates are so weak; that's just the media priming the "come from behind underdog" narrative. At this point they're all at least as well known as Obama was in 2007.
> 
> But I am extremely disappointed in Huckabee's decision not to run. It seems to me that he would've been a decent president.


I see the Palin and Huckabee caricatures as stigmas, not assets. Same for Bachmann and Tiffany Newt.

T-Paw looks like the fundamentalist frontrunner, immediately losing the gay, lesbian, and most women votes, so unless he's born again again, he's not going far.

As you suggest, a bolt from nowhere could have a better showing. But is the GOP receptive to such a thought, again, and for the big chair, instead of the little? Ms. Palin's Obama-borrowing clearly hasn't worked--"Here's a little news flash, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these past few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington élite then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion."


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> I see the Palin and Huckabee caricatures as stigmas, not assets. Same for Bachmann and Tiffany Newt.
> 
> T-Paw looks like the fundamentalist frontrunner, immediately losing the gay, lesbian, and most women votes, so unless he's born again again, he's not going far.
> 
> As you suggest, a bolt from nowhere could have a better showing. But is the GOP receptive to such a thought, again, and for the big chair, instead of the little? Ms. Palin's Obama-borrowing clearly hasn't worked--"Here's a little news flash, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these past few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington élite then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion."


Could this Perry guy from Texas be the bolt from nowhere? It's a serious question, I don't know anything about him or about his chances.

In my opinion Palin is just in it for the money. She'll sell more books, etc. She is not a serious candidate - a female The Donald.


----------



## samurai

Almaviva said:


> I can't believe it! Giuliani didn't win any delegates in 2008. Isn't this enough evidence that he can't succeed?


You're forgetting the size of this man's ego and hubris! :scold:


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> Could this Perry guy from Texas be the bolt from nowhere? It's a serious question, I don't know anything about him or about his chances.
> 
> In my opinion Palin is just in it for the money. She'll sell more books, etc. She is not a serious candidate - a female The Donald.


Perry's a fundamentalist, close to the memory of W, a friend of Ted Nugent, etc. I don't see him as their bolt.

The Sarah. heh heh


----------



## Vazgen

> "Here's a little news flash, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these past few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington élite then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion."


Every political candidate since Jimmy Carter has used the strategy of portraying him- or herself as an outsider candidate, someone on the side of the American people in the fight against the entrenched Washington bureaucracy. It's a tired old tactic, and it gets surreal when establishment figures like Bob Dole or John Kerry tout the glorious era of change that their presidency would usher in for the common man.

The Sarah Palin who delivered the "news flash" about her outsider status was only chosen as McCain's running mate because of her willingness to toe the Republican party line on such issues as abortion, energy policy, and corporate regulation.

-Vaz


----------



## mmsbls

I think Perry could be a serious candidate. He is a strong conservative with Tea Party like policies. He is a governor and has written a recent book about how Texas is doing the right things to be great. Like most candidates he is lying about his record (or at least what he has accomplished in Texas). 

Right now I think he and Pawlenty have the edge. Pawlenty would appeal more to conventional conservatives and Perry would appeal more to Tea Partiers.


----------



## Vaneyes

The Sarah, what's she up to?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55905.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/30/sarah-palin-is-on-tour-but-to-where/


----------



## Vaneyes

Vazgen said:


> Every political candidate since Jimmy Carter has used the strategy of portraying him- or herself as an outsider candidate, someone on the side of the American people in the fight against the entrenched Washington bureaucracy. It's a tired old tactic, and it gets surreal when establishment figures like Bob Dole or John Kerry tout the glorious era of change that their presidency would usher in for the common man.
> 
> The Sarah Palin who delivered the "news flash" about her outsider status was only chosen as McCain's running mate because of her willingness to toe the Republican party line on such issues as abortion, energy policy, and corporate regulation.
> 
> -Vaz


Wasilla didn't have the same charm as Plains and Hope. The Sarah eventually realized that. Roque without roots, or on-the-road rogue, appears to be current. And she must've caused heart palpitations for her ex-running mate, by recently purchasing a house in AZ.

Who's pulling GOP strings now? And specifically, for the current bus tour to nowhere? Are the Rovians out? I would find it odd again if the Rovians were still in, and ready to embrace a rogue who so blatantly turned on them.

Steve Schmidt not long ago...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/02/mccain-manager-predicts-palin-could-prove-catastrophic/


----------



## Vaneyes

mmsbls said:


> I think Perry could be a serious candidate. He is a strong conservative with Tea Party like policies. He is a governor and has written a recent book about how Texas is doing the right things to be great. Like most candidates he is lying about his record (or at least what he has accomplished in Texas).
> 
> Right now I think he and Pawlenty have the edge. Pawlenty would appeal more to conventional conservatives and Perry would appeal more to Tea Partiers.


It'd be ironic if "the bus tour" actually goes somewhere, and T-Paw's offered the second seat he was (supposedly) dumped from in '08.

A Palin likie for Perry today...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-palin-bus-tour-20110531,0,3373379.story

"This isn't a campaign bus. This is a bus to be able to express to America how much we appreciate our foundation and to invite more people to be interested in all that is good about America and to remind ourselves we don't need to fundamentally transform America. We need to restore what's good about America."

- The Sarah, May 30, 2011


----------



## science

Vaneyes said:


> Perry's a fundamentalist, close to the memory of W, a friend of Ted Nugent, etc. I don't see him as their bolt.


Wow - that actually sounds like a description of the perfect GOP candidate. If he can pass as a fundamentalist Christian, and has ties to oil and defense, all he needs is patriotic swagger and the ability to persuade the John Birch types that he'll take steps toward dismantling the welfare state while assuring the others that he won't hurt Medicare. The media will love him, he'll unite the Tea Party and the money, and he'll cruise like Reagan 1984.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Rogue is Vogue"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/rogue-is-vogue-what-is-sarah-palin-telling-us-the-note.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-of-sarah-palin/2011/05/30/AG9mpNFH_blog.html

"I compare myself to Barack Obama, not any other of the Republican candidates. First of all, I want to say that I like Sarah Palin a lot; we're friends. And I don't consider her a competitor; I consider her a friend."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/163875-bachmann-palins-not-a-competitor

And Breaking News--The Sarah to meet with The Donald tonight...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/palin_to_meet_with_trump_in_nyc_Jn9C9lHhAOntrE8oGAkUkJ


----------



## Vaneyes

What did The Sarah and The Donald talk about?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...t-did-Sarah-Palin-and-Donald-Trump-talk-about

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-trump-20110601,0,5439542.story?track=rss

Update on The Sarah's, er, Safari Investments AZ house.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/sarah-palin-arizona-house_n_869578.html#s282472


----------



## Vaneyes

The Sarah clarifies with her employer FOX News that she's still playing at it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-fox-20110601,0,948521.story

"Palin Poaches Mitt's Moment"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/02/palin-poaches-mitts-moment/


----------



## Guest

Yesterday we found out that, rather than the auto industry paying back all of the bailout money, it looks like the taxpayers got stiffed to the amount of $14 billion.

Now it looks like we may very well be heading for a double-dip recession. Unemployment is bad, housing prices are still tanking. You all can spend all the time you like discussing all the problems that the GOP has going into 2012, but there is one problem they don't have, but Obama does - this crappy economy. They passed a budget in the House - regardless of its merits, at least they passed one. Democrats didn't pass one last year, and this year the Senate has overrun the deadline to pass one, and there doesn't appear to be one coming down the line.

Easiest question the GOP can ask going into 2012 - "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"


----------



## Guest

Oh, and Obama just (very quietly) signed into law again the Patriot Act. Didn't candidate Obama talk about repealing it?

And he now has us in an increasingly pointless conflict in Libya. What's the exit strategy? I'm not even sure what our purpose is there, other than to play whack-a-mole with Qaddafi. And are we supporting this "Arab Spring" so that the victors can then turn around and perform virginity checks on women? How exactly is Obama's foreign policy better than Bush's? Thanks to Obama, it now looks like even less progress will be made in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

So where is the outrage at Obama? A pointless war in the Middle East that doesn't have Congressional approval. Renewing the Patriot Act. Gitmo still open. Economy continuing to tank. Housing prices continuing to drop and unemployment still high after all that we were told the Stimulus package would do to help us.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Oh, and Obama just (very quietly) signed into law again the Patriot Act. Didn't candidate Obama talk about repealing it?
> 
> And he now has us in an increasingly pointless conflict in Libya. What's the exit strategy? I'm not even sure what our purpose is there, other than to play whack-a-mole with Qaddafi. And are we supporting this "Arab Spring" so that the victors can then turn around and perform virginity checks on women? How exactly is Obama's foreign policy better than Bush's? Thanks to Obama, it now looks like even less progress will be made in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
> 
> So where is the outrage at Obama? A pointless war in the Middle East that doesn't have Congressional approval. Renewing the Patriot Act. Gitmo still open. Economy continuing to tank. Housing prices continuing to drop and unemployment still high after all that we were told the Stimulus package would do to help us.


I think he talked about prosecuting Cheney and W with war crimes, too. As we know, once a candidate becomes the real thing, campaign rhetoric has been retired.

The economy is a big hole that O'Bama is still in. Even in the next four years it'll be tough to crawl out of it. That's just how much damage Cheney & W did. It hadn't bottomed when Cheney & W's time was up.

I say bring them back to face war and economic crimes.

The stink-hole of the Middle East will remain for any party.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Easiest question the GOP can ask going into 2012 - "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"


Let's forget for a moment that the GOP was still in charge when the financial crisis hit. But if you're looking to hear from a disappointed Obama voter, listen up.

No one I know really thought Obama was going to change things drastically in Washington. But even by our meager expectations, he hasn't accomplished much. What we really needed was to rebuild the regulatory infrastructure that was put in place after the Depression to keep Wall Street on a tight leash. But after Reagan's raiders rewrote the tax code and Clinton's centrists reduced the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be watching the wheelers and dealers, the financial system basically became a roulette wheel. Now the banks are still the unwieldy concerns they always were. And who does Obama have in his cabinet? Summers and Geithner, Clinton's goons, who were in a large part responsible for the policies that led to the meltdown and who should both be in prison right now. But let me get this straight, the GOP would regulate the financial industry any tighter than they ever have?

As far as the "middle class" Obama kept talking about on the campaign trail, they don't have much to thank him for. Did he declare a moratorium on foreclosures or sign an employee Bill of Rights? Far from it. When BP soaked the Gulf Coast in crude, did he freeze their assets and send in the Army Corp of Engineers? Nope. He let BP take care of the mess, following the same let-industry-regulate-itself philosophy that basically caused the mess. And wouldn't the free-market-loving GOP do the same?

When an economy is based on consumer spending, stimulus packages work. It was the Republicans who opposed more such packages, and the economy only saw minor improvement as a result. But all the Republican deficit-fearmongering had the Obama Administration agreeing to major cuts in social spending, including slashing unemployment benefits. The reality is that this just further disadvantages the very people whose spending is supposed to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I'm disappointed in Obama. But it's because I'm an old New Deal Democrat who still believes in progressive values. If you'd like to tell me exactly how a GOP victory in '08 would have had us all living high on the hog by now, please do so.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Let's forget for a moment that the GOP was still in charge when the financial crisis hit. But if you're looking to hear from a disappointed Obama voter, listen up.
> 
> No one I know really thought Obama was going to change things drastically in Washington. But even by our meager expectations, he hasn't accomplished much. What we really needed was to rebuild the regulatory infrastructure that was put in place after the Depression to keep Wall Street on a tight leash. But after Reagan's raiders rewrote the tax code and Clinton's centrists reduced the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be watching the wheelers and dealers, the financial system basically became a roulette wheel. Now the banks are still the unwieldy concerns they always were. And who does Obama have in his cabinet? Summers and Geithner, Clinton's goons, who were in a large part responsible for the policies that led to the meltdown and who should both be in prison right now. But let me get this straight, the GOP would regulate the financial industry any tighter than they ever have?
> 
> As far as the "middle class" Obama kept talking about on the campaign trail, they don't have much to thank him for. Did he declare a moratorium on foreclosures or sign an employee Bill of Rights? Far from it. When BP soaked the Gulf Coast in crude, did he freeze their assets and send in the Army Corp of Engineers? Nope. He let BP take care of the mess, following the same let-industry-regulate-itself philosophy that basically caused the mess. And wouldn't the free-market-loving GOP do the same?
> 
> When an economy is based on consumer spending, stimulus packages work. It was the Republicans who opposed more such packages, and the economy only saw minor improvement as a result. But all the Republican deficit-fearmongering had the Obama Administration agreeing to major cuts in social spending, including slashing unemployment benefits. The reality is that this just further disadvantages the very people whose spending is supposed to stimulate the economy.
> 
> Yes, I'm disappointed in Obama. But it's because I'm an old New Deal Democrat who still believes in progressive values. If you'd like to tell me exactly how a GOP victory in '08 would have had us all living high on the hog by now, please do so.
> 
> -Vaz


If you are an old New Deal Democrat, then this is familiar ground. FDR had a recession within the depression, and it took over a decade and a World War to finally get the country out of that financial mess. So that is what we have to look forward to?

All you are asking for is a return to the same tired Keynseian policies that don't ever work. All these "stimulus" packages do is take money from producers and shuffle it around to those who will re-elect you. You have to create new growth in the economy. It isn't more government jobs that are going to save us - and those are the only kinds of jobs this president knows how to create.

And your arguments are the same ones that Carter used against Reagan. Carter also claimed he inherited the bad economy, didn't know it was as bad as it was, and the GOP is only going to lead us down the path to further destruction. Except that isn't what happened. Reagan was elected and set in motion a massive economic recovery.

So the question again is, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? And do you have any hope that re-electing the same guy is going to result in you being better off 4 years from now?"

I'd guess that >50% will say no to both.


----------



## Vaneyes

GOP wants to cut back on food stamps. That's smart, since their constituents are the heaviest users. More votes for Obama.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> If you are an old New Deal Democrat, then this is familiar ground. FDR had a recession within the depression, and it took over a decade and a World War to finally get the country out of that financial mess. So that is what we have to look forward to?


Um, well, did Roosevelt create the Stock Market Crash? The unregulated free market has its ups and downs, and unfortunately, that particular fall left millions of families with nothing. If you're going to settle for welfare capitalism like FDR, at least remember the welfare part: put people to work and keep them from starving until the factories need them again.



> And your arguments are the same ones that Carter used against Reagan. Carter also claimed he inherited the bad economy, didn't know it was as bad as it was, and the GOP is only going to lead us down the path to further destruction. Except that isn't what happened. Reagan was elected and set in motion a massive economic recovery.


:lol:

This is what that commie rag _Inc. _has to say about the Reagan economic legacy:

_In the past, the government financed its deficits mostly by selling bonds to American investors. This time it has borrowed from the rest of the world. The result: by the end of 1987 the United States had completed a fast transition from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor, owing foreign investors roughly $400 billion. What made the borrowing possible was high interest rates, which themselves may have been caused by the big deficits (see "On Deficits and Interest Rates," page 3). With foreigners happy to snap up high-yielding American assets, the dollar remained high, making imports cheap and damaging the competitive position of U.S. manufacturers. We therefore ran up huge trade deficits and provided overseas investors with ever-increasing quantities of dollars to lend us._

I think this is what you meant to say: Reagan was elected and cut the ribbon on the shakedown of the little guy that continues to this very day. Every administration since Reagan's has continued to decrease responsible regulation on market forces, and remove what little protection the working citizen has left against the predatory power of corporate America.

I must have missed where you pointed out what GOP candidates would do to "create new growth in the economy." Still got faith in the power of the free market? How very quaint.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Um, well, did Roosevelt create the Stock Market Crash? The unregulated free market has its ups and downs, and unfortunately, that particular fall left millions of families with nothing. If you're going to settle for welfare capitalism like FDR, at least remember the welfare part: put people to work and keep them from starving until the factories need them again.
> 
> :lol:
> 
> This is what that commie rag _Inc. _has to say about the Reagan economic legacy:
> 
> _In the past, the government financed its deficits mostly by selling bonds to American investors. This time it has borrowed from the rest of the world. The result: by the end of 1987 the United States had completed a fast transition from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor, owing foreign investors roughly $400 billion. What made the borrowing possible was high interest rates, which themselves may have been caused by the big deficits (see "On Deficits and Interest Rates," page 3). With foreigners happy to snap up high-yielding American assets, the dollar remained high, making imports cheap and damaging the competitive position of U.S. manufacturers. We therefore ran up huge trade deficits and provided overseas investors with ever-increasing quantities of dollars to lend us._
> 
> I think this is what you meant to say: Reagan was elected and cut the ribbon on the shakedown of the little guy that continues to this very day. Every administration since Reagan's has continued to decrease responsible regulation on market forces, and remove what little protection the working citizen has left against the predatory power of corporate America.
> 
> I must have missed where you pointed out what GOP candidates would do to "create new growth in the economy." Still got faith in the power of the free market? How very quaint.
> 
> -Vaz


Show me the economic system that beats it without bankrupting its country. We don't really have a free market here. The problems lie where government inserts itself. Remember that one of the biggest problems at the heart of the housing crisis were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Everybody is asking what GOP candidate could get us out of this crisis. But lest we forget, we on the right were making that same point about Obama in 2008. We said he had no experience, no particular skills that suggested he was good at anything other than campaigning. Where were his skills that suggested he would know how to pull the country out of this economic crisis? And that proved true. He doesn't know what he is doing. His only solution to any problem is to throw money at it. Spend, spend, spend. Who care if we are running up trillion dollar deficits. Who cares if we have maxed out our credit at over 14 trillion. Who cares if housing prices are continuing to drop. Who cares if unemployment is still high. Just throw more money out there, and then demonize anybody who suggests we should cut any of this spending that we can't afford. Yeah, how irresponsible to say we should stop spending $1 trillion more than we earn.

Face it, Obama is a failed president. And failed presidents lose. It is that simple. It doesn't even matter who runs against them. And right now, it is actually good that the GOP doesn't have a clear frontrunner. Democrats are scrambling around trying to attack anyone and everyone who might possibly run, wasting money and resources, and drawing money and free press to any potential GOP candidate. They all have only one target. Obama has a whole field of opponents right now. A big difference between Obama and FDR - FDR kept congressional control to help push through his agenda for quite some time. Obama lost it halfway through his first term, and has lost most elections since his own. With the exceptions of a few house races (2 in New York, 1 in PA), the victories have been incredibly lopsided in favor of the GOP. We are supposed to be awed that Democrats won 2 seats in New York, when the GOP won Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat and the New Jersey governorship, not to mention toppling such liberal icons as Russ Feingold.

With the way this economy is going, flirting very dangerously with a double dip recession, housing prices continuing to drop, when we were sold a bill of goods that was supposed to stop all these problems, this election is going to be a referendum on Obama's presidency, and so far he doesn't have much to run on. And that is why right now all he is running on is attacking the GOP, rather than touting his own policies. The Health Care Bill is a non-starter. Its popularity, never very high, has only gone down since it was passed. His stimulus package has been a joke. And those are his two biggest pieces of legislation. Most of his other policies are resurrections of Bush era policies, and you all remember what kind of approval ratings those won Bush by the end of his presidency.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Show me the economic system that beats it without bankrupting its country.


Um, Norway?

It's not perfect, but its benign, democratic socialism contradicts the notion that we have to choose between predatory capitalism and some totalitarian hellhole that calls itself socialism.



> We don't really have a free market here. The problems lie where government inserts itself. Remember that one of the biggest problems at the heart of the housing crisis were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


The problem, as anyone who hasn't been living in a cave in Chechnya for the last decade should understand, is that government is supposed to be regulating industry and checking its excesses.

This didn't happen in high finance, where everyone wanted to milk the lucrative mortgage debt market before it ran dry. Businesses were bundling mortgage-backed securities, overrating them for the pension fund market, then betting against their performance with derivatives instruments. It was a scam, pure and simple, and if Congress or the SEC had been able to shut it down, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Would you like to let me know how the GOP's glorious free-market philosophy would deal with such brazen shenanigans?

It also didn't happen in the oil drilling industry, where the regulators at the Minerals Management Service were having coke parties with industry bigwigs instead of overseeing the standardization of safety procedures in drilling operations. When the crude hit the fan in the Gulf of Mexico, it was just business as usual for an industry accustomed to pretending to regulate itself. And how, pray tell, would the GOP's laissez-faire perspective have prevented such a disaster?

I'm not trying to be partisan about this. Democrats like Chris Dodd have a lot to answer for in the financial crisis. But it's the principle of government regulation we're talking about. It can prevent the kinds of upheavals and disasters that free-market capitalism leads to.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Um, Norway?
> 
> It's not perfect, but its benign, democratic socialism contradicts the notion that we have to choose between predatory capitalism and some totalitarian hellhole that calls itself socialism.
> 
> The problem, as anyone who hasn't been living in a cave in Chechnya for the last decade should understand, is that government is supposed to be regulating industry and checking its excesses.
> 
> This didn't happen in high finance, where everyone wanted to milk the lucrative mortgage debt market before it ran dry. Businesses were bundling mortgage-backed securities, overrating them for the pension fund market, then betting against their performance with derivatives instruments. It was a scam, pure and simple, and if Congress or the SEC had been able to shut it down, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Would you like to let me know how the GOP's glorious free-market philosophy would deal with such brazen shenanigans?
> 
> It also didn't happen in the oil drilling industry, where the regulators at the Minerals Management Service were having coke parties with industry bigwigs instead of overseeing the standardization of safety procedures in drilling operations. When the crude hit the fan in the Gulf of Mexico, it was just business as usual for an industry accustomed to pretending to regulate itself. And how, pray tell, would the GOP's laissez-faire perspective have prevented such a disaster?
> 
> I'm not trying to be partisan about this. Democrats like Chris Dodd have a lot to answer for in the financial crisis. But it's the principle of government regulation we're talking about. It can prevent the kinds of upheavals and disasters that free-market capitalism leads to.
> 
> -Vaz


Norway has a population of 5 million, compared to 300 million in the U.S. Things aren't nearly as tough for a country that much smaller.

I love how companies are just so evil in your eyes. Demonize the opponent, and then attack them. And when was the last time we had anything like laissez faire economic policies? Right, a little deregulation recently and all of a sudden the government does nothing to regulate industry and banking. Yeah, mortgage backed securities were probably a dumb thing. But only if the original mortgages were bad ideas in the first place. Lets not forget that you had the government pushing for more mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, and GSE's like Fannie and Freddie being more than happy to oblige. FHA loans used to be a small percentage of total home loans, now they are over 40%. That's because traditional home loans look for somewhere in the ballpark of 20% down, whereas FHA loans now only require ~3.5%. So everybody is going FHA. And these loans are going to people who can't afford them, because the government said that the disadvantaged had a right to purchase more home than they could afford. Hell, they were even selling houses to people with no money down.

Based on results, I'd stack 1984 up against 2012 any day of the week. What things did Reagan get criticized for? High deficits? With what Obama is giving us, I think we'd all trade them in for Reagan's deficits. Trade deficits? How many jobs are fleeing our shores under Obama?

You attack nebulous predictions and straw men. You forecast what you believe Republicans would do, and use that as justification to urge not electing them to power. But what we have are the actual facts of what Obama has done. We already know the economic problems started before he came to office. But he came to office promising he knew what to do to fixt the problem. Now, over 2 years after he was sworn in, things are worse, not better, like he promised. We're not faulting him for the origin of the crisis. We're faulting him for the failure of his policies to do anything to end the crisis, like he said he would. Instead, he wasted himself on a stimulus package that, based on their own predictions, did nothing. We are at or above the unemployment numbers his team of economic advisors predicted had the stimulus plan NOT been passed. How come we aren't hearing anymore about how many jobs have been "created or saved," like that statistic can even be measured? Passing thousand+ page bills without anybody reading them doesn't seem to be a very useful way of governing. In contrast to the health care bill, the Patriot Act, originally signed into law by Bush, actually HAS become more popular the more people get to know it. Why, even Barack Obama, who swore he would do away with it, has just signed it yet again into law.

Right now, for Democrats, it is the 1980 election all over again. All we need now is for people to start comparing the misery index from 2008 to the misery index in 2011.


----------



## Guest

This is a link to the historical misery indexes in this country, up until 2010, the second year of the Obama administration.

From 2001 to 2007, Bush had an average misery index of 7.89. Then in 2008, it jumped up, as predicted, to 9.61. In Obama's first year, it actually dropped a bit to 8.92. But then in 2010, it jumped again to 11.29. Currently, the most recent inflation rate data I could find was 3.16% in April of this year. Today we learned that the unemployment rate increased to 9.1%. That gives a current misery index of 12.26. The last president to have a double digit misery index was George H. W. Bush, at 10.52 in 1988. Remember how he did in that election? Reagan had double digit misery indexes in his first term, but they were trending down consistently, from 20.76 in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, to 11.81 in 1984, the year of his re-election. He cut it nearly in half.

And you know things are only going to get worse if we hit a double-dip recession and get our credit rating downgraded by both S&P and Moodys.

So what regulation is going to get us out of this mess? Democrats like to paint these major economic downturns as symptoms of out of control laissez faire capitalism. But that is nonsense. Hoover was hardly laissez faire - Harding and Coolidge, maybe, but not Hoover. Hoover instituted a lot of regulations and government intrusions. He had large government work projects. Ever wondered why it is called the Hoover dam? And other problems, like ill-conceived tariffs (hardly the tool of the laissez faire capitalist), served to greatly exacerbate the problem. Bush 43 was also hardly an economic conservative. Other than tax cuts, his record is not that different from most Democrats. No Child Left Behind? Medicare drug prescription plan? Department of Homeland Security? How much new bureacracy did he institute?


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Norway has a population of 5 million, compared to 300 million in the U.S. Things aren't nearly as tough for a country that much smaller.


Okay. But you asked what _system _works better. Now you're moving the goalposts.

Can you give me an example of a capitalist system that works? Or, like I keep asking and asking, how will the GOP get us out of our mess? How could they have avoided it in the first place?



> I love how companies are just so evil in your eyes. Demonize the opponent, and then attack them.


Doc, I'm not _demonizing _them if I'm describing the fraud and malfeasance that they committed. These companies engaged in predatory lending, they rated the resulting securities unreasonably high to make them attractive to investors, then hedged their performance with derivatives to profit from the deception. This is conscious, forthright, criminal behavior, and we have the legacy of deregulation to thank for it. Likewise, oil companies bought off regulators and avoided having to spend money on disaster plans and expensive safety equipment. The result was a catastrophe that could have been avoided if the industry had been responsibly regulated.



> Right now, for Democrats, it is the 1980 election all over again. All we need now is for people to start comparing the misery index from 2008 to the misery index in 2011.


Well, the perception and the reality are two different things. Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan adviser and Treasury Department economist under Bush Sr., puts it like this:

_As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies._

But according to Doc Mike, the stimulus was "a joke." Who should I believe? Hmm. Let me think.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Okay. But you asked what _system _works better. Now you're moving the goalposts.
> 
> Can you give me an example of a capitalist system that works? Or, like I keep asking and asking, how will the GOP get us out of our mess? How could they have avoided it in the first place?
> 
> Doc, I'm not _demonizing _them if I'm describing the fraud and malfeasance that they committed. These companies engaged in predatory lending, they rated the resulting securities unreasonably high to make them attractive to investors, then hedged their performance with derivatives to profit from the deception. This is conscious, forthright, criminal behavior, and we have the legacy of deregulation to thank for it. Likewise, oil companies bought off regulators and avoided having to spend money on disaster plans and expensive safety equipment. The result was a catastrophe that could have been avoided if the industry had been responsibly regulated.
> 
> Well, the perception and the reality are two different things. Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan adviser and Treasury Department economist under Bush Sr., puts it like this:
> 
> _As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
> 
> According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies._
> 
> But according to Doc Mike, the stimulus was "a joke." Who should I believe? Hmm. Let me think.
> 
> -Vaz


Were Bartlett to still espouse his former ideas, I might care, but seeing as he is a born-again Keynsian, his latest comments carry less weight.

You have evidence of oil companies buying off regulators? Tell me, how many major oil spills do we have each year? I understand this most recent incident brings the issue front and center, but just as a single airplane crash doesn't mean the whole industry is guilty of criminal malfeasance, the failure of one oil rig does not call into question the entire industry. And please, oil drilling is one of the most scrutinized industries there is. They are an easy target for politicians.

I don't know what plan a GOP candidate would put out, because there is, as of yet, no GOP candidate. But I do know that Paul Ryan's budget plan got a lot more praise from Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission than Obama's own pathetic budget, which he seems to have quietly retracted, after completely ignoring suggestions from the commission. So how many more special commissions is Obama going to appoint to help him solve problems, only to completely ignore them?

Let us not forget that the bankind deregulation that you rail so much against was passed under Clinton.

But I find it quite funny that you attack the Reagan administration in defense of the Obama administration. And most of the tax "cuts" referred to are no such thing. Most of it is money give aways, not true cuts. Giving reimbursements to people above and beyond what they actually paid in incom tax. That is not the same as a tax cut. That is a welfare payment. You aren't giving a person their own money back. You are giving them someone else's money, whether it is someone wealthier, or some Chinese individual, whose money we have borrowed.

Yes, the stimulus was a joke. What did it do? Is the economy better off? Is unemployment declining? Is inflation on the rise or is it falling? Are gas prices higher or lower than this time last year? Are housing prices stabilized or climbing? Are foreclosures up or down? Exactly what tangible benefit have we had from the stimulus plan? And now we find out we have a projected net loss of $14 billion from Obama's auto industry bailouts. Where is the elusive benefit from the stimulus that I seem to be missing? Please enlighten me.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Tell me, how many major oil spills do we have each year? I understand this most recent incident brings the issue front and center, but just as a single airplane crash doesn't mean the whole industry is guilty of criminal malfeasance, the failure of one oil rig does not call into question the entire industry. And please, oil drilling is one of the most scrutinized industries there is. They are an easy target for politicians.


They're an easy target because the industry is only pretending to regulate itself. Look at the disgraceful record of Texaco in Ecuador: 17 million gallons of crude polluting pristine forests. Months prior to the BP leak, a tanker crashed into two barges in Port Arthur, Texas, and half a million gallons of oil got dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil is still leaking into the Gulf from the site of a Taylor Energy platform that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan way back in 2004. Just this March, the Matterhorn Seastar platform sprung a leak and gushed oil into the Gulf, and a tanker dumped hundreds of tons of fuel oil into the South Atlantic after running aground on Nightingale Island. Shall I go on? Let's face it, even a good day in the oil industry is a bad day for the environment. "One of the most scrutinized industries there is"? Um, not even close.



> I don't know what plan a GOP candidate would put out, because there is, as of yet, no GOP candidate.


Fair enough. I just wanted to know whether the conservative, free-market perspective has any solution to our woes, or whether shouting _Obama bad!_ over and over is going to spur economic growth.



> Let us not forget that the bankind deregulation that you rail so much against was passed under Clinton.


And your point is what? I already said his boys Summers and Geithner were responsible for ruinous deregulatory folly. But it's only because I'm not trying to make it a partisan issue. Whether it's Phil Gramm pushing for repeal of the Glass-Steagall financial regulations or Larry Summers testifying against the need for regulation of credit default swaps, deregulation is a bad idea.



> Yes, the stimulus was a joke. What did it do?


Feel free to believe Republican dogma if you'd like, but Moody's Mark Zandi long since published an analysis of the stimulus and its effects. Economists realize that government spending stimulates the economy, but right-wing think tanks and policy centers get big bucks for making you believe that tax breaks for the rich and corporate are the key to recovery. It's funny that you mention Hoover, because it seems he could have avoided prolonging the Depression by engaging in deficit spending after the crash:

_As the Depression worsened, banks and other businesses collapsed and poverty stalked the land, and the American people began to blame Hoover for the calamity. The homeless began calling their shantytowns "Hoovervilles." Demands rose for greater government action, especially direct relief payments to the most impoverished of the millions of unemployed. Believing that a dole would prove addictive, sapping the will of Americans to provide for themselves, Hoover adamantly opposed direct federal relief payments to individuals. He was also a firm believer in a balanced budget, unwilling to plunge the federal government into massive debt through a welfare program. _

It's clear to anyone with a working knowledge of American history that fiscal frugality is not a responsible reaction to economic upheaval.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> It's clear to anyone with a working knowledge of American history that fiscal frugality is not a responsible reaction to economic upheaval.
> 
> -Vaz


 Really? Well then why, with all the deficit spending FDR committed the country to, did the depression continue on for over a decade, and why was there a second recession within the depression? How do your Keynsian ideals square that fact? Or the fact that, with this recession, Bush actually began the ridiculous government spending to try and "stimulate" us out of our problems? TARP was his baby. So your speculation that Hoover could have avoided prolonging the Depression (your assertion that he did, but at what point are you actually going to attribute any of it to FDR?) by Keynsian policies is only that - speculation. That is like the scare tactic of claiming that Obama's stimulus was needed to prevent us from being worse than we would have been. And now that things are bad, they just claim, well, it could have been worse, had it not been for our actions. You expect us to believe that? There is no way they could know what it would have been like without the stimulus. All we know is that they passed the stimulus, and things are worse than pre-stimulus. Any claim that the stimulus prevented a worse scenario is pure speculation.

You can rail all you like about GOP fiscal policy, but the bottom line is this: Obama came in claiming he was the man to help get the economy back on track and keep unemployment down. Currently, unemployment is up, the economy is not doing so well, and potentially headed for a double-dip recession, home prices continue in their freefall, inflation is on the rise, our national debt is up to $14 trillion, we are facing trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, gas prices are soaring, the president is investing in oil exploration in Brazil, but not in the U.S. (if it is so bad for the environment, why would it be better off the coast of Brazil as opposed to off the coast of the U.S.?), we are playing whack-a-mole with Qaddafi in the Middle East for who knows what reason, and the only accomplishment that Obama has had that has been met with approval is the killing of bin Laden, and that looks like it was made possible by enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration.

So again, please tell me how the Obama administration has made the country better? What has he accomplished that earns him a second term? Don't tell me what Hoover did. Don't tell me what Reagan did. Tell me what Obama has done, because although I don't know who the GOP candidate will be, I do know it won't be Hoover or Reagan.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Really? Well then why, with all the deficit spending FDR committed the country to, did the depression continue on for over a decade, and why was there a second recession within the depression? How do your Keynsian ideals square that fact?


Once again, doesn't the very fact that the Great Depression was so terrible and long-lasting make you question the free-market ideals that produced it? It seems odd to be so critical of FDR for his supposed inability to dig the nation out of the economic mess, and never address the fact that the boom of the Twenties led to the bust that created the Depression. And far from the "socialist" that right-wingers claim FDR was (another piece of ahistorical nonsense repeated on Obama), Roosevelt instituted policies geared toward salvaging a version of capitalism before conditions got so dire a revolution was inevitable.

Doc, have you ever heard of the WPA? I have paving stones on my street that still bear plaques that read ERECTED BY WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION. When millions of people are out of work, government spending has to keep them fed and housed until the factories need them again. FDR's administration funded the agency aggressively during his first term, contributing to a marked decrease in unemployment. Then, in the face of bad press by right-wingers fearful of the political advantage of his job-creation tactics, FDR was advised to scale back the program after winning reelection in 1936. The result of the decrease in government spending was the recession of 1937.



> So again, please tell me how the Obama administration has made the country better? What has he accomplished that earns him a second term? Don't tell me what Hoover did. Don't tell me what Reagan did. Tell me what Obama has done, because although I don't know who the GOP candidate will be, I do know it won't be Hoover or Reagan.


I already voiced my displeasure with Obama, so I'm not sure why you expect me to defend his record. If you're desperate to keep bashing Obama, be my guest. But I've asked you several times what free-market solutions you could present to this economic mess, and so far you've ignored me.

-Vaz


----------



## Almaviva

> Everybody is asking what GOP candidate could get us out of this crisis. But lest we forget, we on the right were making that same point about Obama in 2008. We said he had no experience


Dr. Mike, you keep saying that Obama had no experience therefore his administration has failed, implying then that had we voted for the GOP in 2008 we'd be doing better now. Come again, you think we should have voted for that old fool McCain who said that the fundaments of our economy were sound, with his VP being that ignorant woman Sarah Palin? Yes sure, we'd have fared a lot better under them [rolling eyes]. And this, after 8 years of GOP rule that was driving us into the ground. You say that we liberals keep blaming the Bush administration and you have rightly pointed out that this is becoming old. I'd say that blaming Obama's lack of experience is getting old as well. After all, the man has had 2 years and a half of the best experience one can get: administering the most powerful country in the world. So when we get to the 2012 election we'll have a sitting president with 4 years of experience in the White House versus a GOP candidate who has never administered the country. The experience argument may backfire on you.

I believe that Vaz has a point when she asks what alternative is the GOP proposing. Assuming that just any GOP candidate will do better than Obama is a partisan point. This is not a given. Bush's administration was a disaster for the country in multiple levels. Just being affiliated to the GOP doesn't make of someone automatically a good president.

I'm not a registered democrat. I'm a left-leaning independent. In our presidential elections, I've always at least *considered* the Republican candidate, I don't automatically support the Democratic candidate. I *will* look into what the GOP has to offer in 2008, but just like Vaz, I'm really skeptical that the alternative you guys will come up with will be any better than a more seasoned Obama after four years of learning-on-the-job.

Was the learning-on-the-job a good idea in 2008? Probably not, which has been proven by some blunders of the Obama administration. The alternative, however, was terrible. That McCain/Palin pair... sorry. No way.

About the stimulus, I know it's a hypothetical, but I guess we'll never know, because we don't have the data about what would have happened without it. Maybe we'd have had a complete meltdown and a catastrophic economic crisis. Maybe with the stimulus we only got a bad crisis but not a catastrophic one. Maybe after the extreme mismanagement of the Bush administration all that we could have done was to turn a catastrophic situation into a bad one.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, you keep saying that Obama had no experience therefore his administration has failed, implying then that had we voted for the GOP in 2008 we'd be doing better now. Come again, you think we should have voted for that old fool McCain who said that the fundaments of our economy were sound, with his VP being that ignorant woman Sarah Palin? Yes sure, we'd have fared a lot better under them [rolling eyes]. And this, after 8 years of GOP rule that was driving us into the ground. You say that we liberals keep blaming the Bush administration and you have rightly pointed out that this is becoming old. I'd say that blaming Obama's lack of experience is getting old as well. After all, the man has had 2 years and a half of the best experience one can get: administering the most powerful country in the world. So when we get to the 2012 election we'll have a sitting president with 4 years of experience in the White House versus a GOP candidate who has never administered the country. The experience argument may backfire on you.
> 
> I believe that Vaz has a point when she asks what alternative is the GOP proposing. Assuming that just any GOP candidate will do better than Obama is a partisan point. This is not a given. Bush's administration was a disaster for the country in multiple levels. Just being affiliated to the GOP doesn't make of someone automatically a good president.
> 
> I'm not a registered democrat. I'm a left-leaning independent. In our presidential elections, I've always at least *considered* the Republican candidate, I don't automatically support the Democratic candidate. I *will* look into what the GOP has to offer in 2008, but just like Vaz, I'm really skeptical that the alternative you guys will come up with will be any better than a more seasoned Obama after four years of learning-on-the-job.
> 
> Was the learning-on-the-job a good idea in 2008? Probably not, which has been proven by some blunders of the Obama administration. The alternative, however, was terrible. That McCain/Palin pair... sorry. No way.
> 
> About the stimulus, I know it's a hypothetical, but I guess we'll never know, because we don't have the data about what would have happened without it. Maybe we'd have had a complete meltdown and a catastrophic economic crisis. Maybe with the stimulus we only got a bad crisis but not a catastrophic one. Maybe after the extreme mismanagement of the Bush administration all that we could have done was to turn a catastrophic situation into a bad one.


Obama may have occupied the White House for the last 2 1/2 years, but that doesn't mean he has gained any experience. Simply sitting in the chair is not synonymous with actual ability. By your logic, Bush 43 is a better candidate than Obama, because he held office for two terms, as opposed to Obama's one. There is nothing in Obama's record that suggests he has learned anything that would result in us being better off than we now are. Even the issue that seemed so big for him back during the '08 election - the U.S. perception worldwide - hasn't really budged. The world doesn't really love us any more now that Obama is in office than when Bush was there. He is just as much an empty suit now as he was in 2008. And Democrats in Congress look no better. In the midst of all of these financial troubles, they refused to pass a budget last year when they controlled both the House and Senate, and now the Democrat-controlled Senate is ignoring its mandated obligation to pass a budget this year.

And your only argument for Obama is, well, it might have been a whole lot worse. If you have a financial advisor that comes in and loses half your fortune for you, do you continue to employ him when he comes back to you and says, well, it could have been worse, I could have lost the other half as well.

You don't know that McCain would have been worse. He at least had done more in office than simply plot out his next election. Obama has never occupied an elected office any longer than he needed to run for the next office higher up. His entire political career has been composed of non-stop campaigning. He doesn't know how to do anything else - certainly not running an economy. And all your complaints about Palin fall flat. How much power does Biden hold? How much has Biden done that Palin couldn't do? He's a joke. You know that Obama isn't serious about a deal to raise the debt limit because he sent Biden out to negotiate.

I laughed at pathetic attempts by the Obama campaign in '08 to claim that his running his presidential campaign constituted experience that would make him capable to be the president. And now I am laughing nearly as hard that you think two years of failed policies and an increasingly gloomy economy constitutes experience above and beyond anything any GOP candidate could bring. Romney and Pawlenty both have executive experience that Obama never had. Did 12 years experience (8 as VP, 4 as president) make any difference when H. W. Bush ran against Clinton?


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike said:


> Did 12 years experience (8 as VP, 4 as president) make any difference when H. W. Bush ran against Clinton?


Maybe not, but it was you that brought the 'experience' factor into the game.



DrMike said:


> We said he had no experience, no particular skills that suggested he was good at anything other than campaigning. Where were his skills that suggested he would know how to pull the country out of this economic crisis?


----------



## emiellucifuge

> Even the issue that seemed so big for him back during the '08 election - the U.S. perception worldwide - hasn't really budged. The world doesn't really love us any more now that Obama is in office than when Bush was there.


I advise you to check this:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=6&response=Favorable&mode=chart

See for yourself.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Maybe not, but it was you that brought the 'experience' factor into the game.


The point is that it is a given that anybody running for the first time for president will have no experience as president of the United States. That has never been what was talked about when referring to experience with Barack Obama. The man had no significant experience in his political life. He went from Illinois government to Senator to President in no time at all. What significant legislation did he put forward in Illinois? In the U.S. Senate? What committees did he chair? What executive experience did he have? It seems to me that, prior to his running for president, about all anybody knew of this guy was that he gave a pretty good speech at the Democratic National Convention in '04.

I'm sure I'm going to be labeled racist for this, but let's face it - the main reason Obama was elected was because he was black. There was no impressive resume. No overabundance of examples of leadership. No significant legislation authored. There is a reason governors tend to do better in presidential elections than senators and congressmen - governors have to lead and wield executive power. They can't just swim with the rest of the fish. They can't just vote present. Unfortunately, we had to choose between two senators in 2008, but at least one of them had a resume you could actually look at and get some idea of how much he knew about issues.

And all of those deficiencies that we said Obama had have now become glaringly obvious. Is he a smart man? No doubt. I would defy anybody who said he wasn't smart. But is he presidential material? Capable of managing this nation? I think his record speaks for itself, and it doesn't speak favorably.

I have yet to hear any of you list off the good things he has done that merit a second term. I have heard hypotheticals about how much worse McCain would have been, but McCain lost, and McCain isn't running again. Then I heard criticisms of Hoover and Reagan - both of whom are dead, so I don't think they will be Obama's opponents. But so far I haven't heard about the plusses in Obama's column. As the incumbent, you will be scrutinized on your record. No more playing the outsider. And you just look pathetic if, as the incumbent, you keep blaming the last guy who was in office before you. Nobody wants to hear the president making excuses and blaming the other guy.

Come on, now, where is the policy record that the Dems will be waving in front of us to show what good they have done since Obama was elected? They have already been rejected in the House. They stand a real chance of losing the Senate, with all the Democrats retiring. Now they have Weinergate to contend with. The momentum is just isn't in their favor. Sure, they will parade around the recent House victory in New York, but really, what does that mean? The GOP lost a traditional Republican seat in New York in a special election before last year's midterms as well, and it turned out to be a fluke, because the GOP went on to near record gains.

So tell me what Obama has to show for his first term in office. I'm still waiting to hear it.


----------



## Vaneyes

emiellucifuge said:


> I advise you to check this:
> http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=6&response=Favorable&mode=chart
> 
> See for yourself.


Damn! Kenya zoomed out of nowhere to take the lead.


----------



## Almaviva

> Obama may have occupied the White House for the last 2 1/2 years, but that doesn't mean he has gained any experience.


I'm finding it hard to believe that you actually think that this is a valid position. Do you seriously think so? Wow.


> The world doesn't really love us any more now that Obama is in office than when Bush was there.


Not true. There are many polls abroad indicating better perception of the USA under the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. Not that I think that it matters that much, but this fact can't be denied.


> If you have a financial advisor that comes in and loses half your fortune for you, do you continue to employ him when he comes back to you and says, well, it could have been worse, I could have lost the other half as well.


Pretty funny (I mean it, I'm not being sarcastic). But I'm not going this far. All that I'm saying is that when people say the stimulus didn't curb unemployment as much as expected (although we did add jobs), I'm just speculating that maybe unemployment would have been A LOT worse without the stimulus. This is valid for the bailout of the auto industry as well. People now bitch and complain about the treasury losing money. I wonder what would have happened to the ENTIRE economy if those major employers that control an industry that is structured in a domino effect (dealers, part suppliers, etc) had failed. We might be seeing an economic meltdown that would have made the Great Depression look like a cakewalk. The subsequent depression might have made the Treasury lose a lot more than 14 billion dollars.

The truth is, Dr. Mike, that if a Republican president had passed these measures, we might be on the opposite side of these arguments. You might be telling *me* that the action was necessary otherwise the consequences would have been terrible (this reminds me of the Republicans who thought that the Romney health care proposal was fine while it came from a Republican governor, and then suddently when Obama proposed a very similar plan, it suddenly became the most misguided thing in their views).

That's different from your financial advisor analogy.

The more correct analogy would be that your financial advisor would call you in advance and tell you: "look, your situation is very serious with this and that that you've done before you hired me. Now you have only two options: either you take radical action and then we'll be able to spare half of your assets, or you lose them all if you don't do anything."

Then, you wouldn't be very likely to fire him after he managed to save half of your assets.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Okay, DrMike I take your point.

The more I read about US politics (and I have been reading a lot, as US citizen I will be eligible to vote in 2012), the more i think its just a bipartisan deadlock. Both sides spewing rhetoric, no viable alternative for voters. Here in Holland Ive heard the term 'fact free politics' used a lot recently, well, that describes it.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I'm sure I'm going to be labeled racist for this, but let's face it - the main reason Obama was elected was because he was black.


Oh, so, you think that the disaster that the Bush administration was had little to do with the GOP defeat, huh? It's gotta be because the opponent was black. Right.


> So tell me what Obama has to show for his first term in office. I'm still waiting to hear it.


Hey, as far as I'm concerned, he's got the Affordable Care Act with which I agree a lot more than you do. For you it's a liability but for me it's an asset. Oh, let's not forget that he got bin Laden.


----------



## emiellucifuge

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/


----------



## Vaneyes

emiellucifuge said:


> http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/


Damn! I got tired clicking. More votes for Obama.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> So tell me what Obama has to show for his first term in office. I'm still waiting to hear it.


Um, well, I'm still waiting to hear any conservative, free-market strategy for getting us out of our fiscal slump. How many times does this make that I've asked for such?

Your mention of Weinergate _(sic)_ has persuaded me that your posts rely almost exclusively on hyperbolic, partisan talking points and contain very little substance. Your erroneous claims about the Great Depression and the economy during the Reagan Administration demonstrate a willful disengagement from historical fact. "Obama was elected was because he was black" isn't a statement that can be judged on any rational basis or supported with anything except your own sentiments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's the best thing I can say about your "argument," such as it is.

-Vaz


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> Oh, so, you think that the disaster that the Bush administration was had little to do with the GOP defeat, huh?


I wish the USA could return to the economic fundamentals prevailing during that disastrous time.

It would be an improvement over the current situation (as it presents itself).


----------



## Almaviva

Meanwhile, here is one of the prospective GOP alternatives:

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/palin-flubs-explanation-paul-revere-ride-215549982.html

"In the video, which was taken at Boston's Old North Church, Palin gives a bizarre version of Revere's 1775 ride. Addressing an unknown person, Palin remarks:

_He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free._

A couple of things are wrong with that interpretation, but one central main point seemed to be lost on Palin: Revere wasn't warning the British about anything. Indeed, he was warning the Americans about an impending British attack--as his celebrated historical catchphrase "The British are coming!" made abundantly clear."

This woman who had to switch colleges not less than five times to be able to graduate with some sort of soft major thinks she can do better than a Harvard and Columbia graduate. Right.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I wish the USA could return to the economic fundamentals prevailing during that disastrous time.
> 
> It would be an improvement over the current situation (as it presents itself).


I'd rather say that those economic fundamentals were what landed us on the current situation.
Do you mean to imply that Bush's era was an era of fiscal responsibility? I certainly don't see it this way.


----------



## Vazgen

Almaviva said:


> "In the video, which was taken at Boston's Old North Church, Palin gives a bizarre version of Revere's 1775 ride."


_And as Hawthorne's famous poem describes, Revere rode that ol' reindeer through Lexington and Chicago so that the kids, all those kids, y'know, could enjoy Christmas._

-Vaz


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> I'd rather say that those economic fundamentals were what landed us on the current situation.


...which has proven to be (assurances to the contrary) a further deterioration from those prior conditions.


Almaviva said:


> Do you mean to imply that Bush's era was an era of fiscal responsibility?


No- but Obama's record-breaking deficit-spending is irresponsibility on linear amplification, I believe.

Dr. Mike riffed extensively about the "misery index," which was informative (to those who are receptive to informational input). However, let me add another "micro" perspective. I can't speak for the country- but I can talk about my home state- New Jersey- due to the fact that I have access to some statistics that allow me to discuss the following with something approaching expertise, relating as it does to some of the things I do professionally. Last year, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY WORKING LIFE, per-capita income in this state DECREASED. I don't know how extensively this drama is playing out in other states, but it's playing out HERE... and it isn't pretty.


----------



## Vazgen

I'd be "receptive to informational input" if it came in the form of a free-market alternative plan to deficit spending during recessions or depressions. What should Obama have done to right the economic ship, if stimulus spending is such a "joke"? For that matter, what should FDR have done with millions on the bread lines?

How many more times do I have to ask this?

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> I'd be "receptive to informational input" if it came in the form of a free-market alternative plan to deficit spending during recessions or depressions. What should Obama have done to right the economic ship, if stimulus spending is such a "joke"? For that matter, what should FDR have done with millions on the bread lines?
> 
> How many more times do I have to ask this?
> 
> -Vaz


Go read Amity Schlaes' "The Forgotten Man" to get an idea about how government intervention can often stall the economy from righting itself. As long as the government increases uncertainty - talk about putting their foot on the neck of companies, threats to increase taxes, increase regulation, add new healthcare requirements - businesses don't invest. Why do you suppose that the Dow Jones has rebounded to about where we were before the financial crisis, and yet unemployment is on the rise, and economic indicators suggest we may be approaching a double-dip recession?

The reality of the matter is that recovery comes from the private sector, not from the government. We got out of the great depression when FDR finally realized that his policies were at odds with private sector industry, and finally allowed them to grow, rather than punish them. A decade of government programs didn't get us out.

And blindly adding to our debt at reckless rates also won't help us. If Bush era policies were behind the crisis, and Bush ran deficits in the hundreds of billions, how does running deficits in the trillions improve the situation? If FDR's policies were the answer, are you saying that we should settle in for a decade of bad economic forecasts? Reagan used free-market options, and he got us out of recession, whereas the policies of Carter dug us in deeper. We had a minor recession right after 9/11, and pro-growth policies boosted the economy until the housing bubble burst. In contrast, Bush 41's increasing taxes didn't save us from a recession.

You want to corner me in with some financial plan, but there is no candidate yet, so that is pointless. I am not running for president. But the Ryan budget was scored by the CBO as being better for the long-term condition of our economy than the Obama budget. And he actually acknowledges the fact that Medicare needs fixing.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Dr. Mike riffed extensively about the "misery index," which was informative (to those who are receptive to informational input). However, let me add another "micro" perspective. I can't speak for the country- but I can talk about my home state- New Jersey- due to the fact that I have access to some statistics that allow me to discuss the following with something approaching expertise, relating as it does to some of the things I do professionally. Last year, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY WORKING LIFE, per-capita income in this state DECREASED. I don't know how extensively this drama is playing out in other states, but it's playing out HERE... and it isn't pretty.


Yes, in economic crises income goes down, we know we are in the middle of an economic crisis, not only here, but across the world. However, you don't believe that Obama has caused the crisis, do you? Actually it started before he got elected.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> The reality of the matter is that recovery comes from the private sector, not from the government. We got out of the great depression when FDR finally realized that his policies were at odds with private sector industry, and finally allowed them to grow, rather than punish them. A decade of government programs didn't get us out.


But all you've been demonstrating is that you're not knowledgeable enough about the facts of the Depression or the Reagan years to understand the "reality of the matter." FDR's spending did employ people, had them involved in many worthwhile projects throughout the USA, and kept them from starving until WWII came along and the factories needed them again. What, I'll ask again, should Roosevelt have done? Should he have just addressed Americans and told them there's nothing to be done until our wonderful economic system recovers and sees fit to employ them again? They should have spent the decade sucking it up?

I'll point out again that the Depression was a direct result of the vagaries of an economic system based on nothing but profit motive. And the fact that it took _another World War_ to get the economy going again doesn't give us pause when we consider whether our economic system shouldn't perhaps be geared toward meeting human needs instead of paying dividends to shareholders?



> You want to corner me in with some financial plan, but there is no candidate yet, so that is pointless. I am not running for president.


I'm just asking for any right-winger to tell me what Obama is supposed to do to get the country out of its slump, if deficit spending and stimulus packages don't work. Is he even supposed to do anything at all, or (again) just tell people to sit tight until the next economic cycle? Great strategy you've got there.

-Vaz


----------



## Couchie

The Republicans have not proposed anything useful or shown any signs of wanting to work constructively with Obama because they have no interest in economic recovery occurring before 2012, in fact such would be disastrous for their party. They are doing their best to delay recovery so in 2012 they can point and say that no recovery has taken place, elect us instead please.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Palin could beat Obama in 2012." Who said that? He's back!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/164765-howard-dean-warns-palin-could-beat-obama-in-2012


----------



## samurai

When Republicans such as Paul Ryan and his cohorts say they merely want to "fix" Medicare or any of the other progressive social welfare programs started in this country by the Democrats, watch out! After all, they did everything in their power to oppose these very programs when they were first proposed by FDR and LBJ. 
A la Michael Moore, I'd like to ask these great "patriots" how many of them would be willing to give up their government run health and medical coverage plans? I guess if the hoi polloi such as myself could receive it, they'd be screaming that it's "socialized medicine' or some such claptrap. What hyprocites!
Let them and their rich friends take on some of the "sacrifice" and "fiscal responsibility" that they're so quick and adept at prescribing for the rest of us. Yeah, that'll be the day when hell freezes over and pigs can fly.


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> "Palin could beat Obama in 2012." Who said that? He's back!
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/164765-howard-dean-warns-palin-could-beat-obama-in-2012


That's a rather ridiculous position from Dean. Has he noticed the percentage of absolute rejection that Palin got? Something like 65% of Americans say they'd never vote for her for president. Pray tell, how would she win? Since when can someone be elected with 35% of the voters??? The Republicans wouldn't be crazy enough to pick her, since this would be the easiest way to hand the victory to Obama on a plate. She is not a real candidate. She just wants to sell books and make money.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I'm sure I'm going to be labeled racist for this, but let's face it - the main reason Obama was elected was because he was black.


A white guy can hardly get elected these days, what with all the advantages women and black people enjoy. And CEO? Forget it.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> The Republicans have not proposed anything useful or shown any signs of wanting to work constructively with Obama because they have no interest in economic recovery occurring before 2012, in fact such would be disastrous for their party. They are doing their best to delay recovery so in 2012 they can point and say that no recovery has taken place, elect us instead please.


Please, the Democrats were walking around with a swagger after Obama was elected, holding pointless meetings where Obama liked to point out "we won." They didn't allow GOP input on anything. Then they lost control of the House in 2010, and all of a sudden, it is the GOP that is supposed to be helping out? The Democrats are doing nothing. For 2 years, they have refused to put forward a budget. In two years, the GOP is the only party to put forward a budget, and it is the Democrats who refuse to come to the table to work something out. Yours is still the party mostly in power, and thus it is incumbent on your party to actually put forward something. The GOP has put out a budget. They passed it. Democrats won't even write one.

We need to cut corporate tax rates, eliminate tax loopholes. We need to expand oil exploration. We need to get rid of the new Obama health care plan before it really starts to bankrupt us, because it doesn't pay for itself. Government spending needs to be cut - across the board. That even means some defense spending cuts. Entitlement programs need to be reigned in. Allow people who want to to opt out of Social Security and create private accounts. Put an end to corporate welfare. If a company is pathetic enough to not put out a product that people want to buy, it isn't the job of the American taxpayer to subsidize them. Especially not if it means buying the companies and handing them over to unions.

Tax cuts got us out of a recession when Reagan did it. And our economy boomed after Bush cut taxes, even with 9/11. But most important, we have to stop telling businesses how much new burdens we are going to heap on them, and then still expect them to add new jobs.

For all the tough talk of these pro-government programs, you guys seem to forget - they aren't working. Yeah, yeah, you can sit there and say it would have been worse if Obama didn't do what he did, but the fact is things are worse than they predicted they would be, so by their own estimates, they have failed. In contrast, Reagan's policies succeeded. He started with a higher misery index than Obama did, and he successfully brought it down every year in his first term. Obama has raised it. He is failing. And you guys will contrive any excuse to claim that this is the only effective way to get us out of our mess. When there is absolutely no evidence it is working. Unemployment went up, then dipped a little below 9%, and now is back up over 9% - heading the wrong direction. And that is only for people still looking for jobs. If you factor in total unemployment, we are well over 10%. Our economy is not growing at the rate it needs to be to get out of this. Home prices are still dropping. Will one of you please tell me what indicators I am missing that suggest that Obama's strategy is working?

Lest you forget, the onus is on the incumbent to put forward the plan. Democrats ran in '06 and '08 as merely reactionary to the GOP. And they won, because what the GOP was doing wasn't working. What was Obama's big plan that he put forward in '08, other than raise taxes?


----------



## Almaviva

> Tax cuts got us out of a recession when Reagan did it. And our economy boomed after Bush cut taxes, even with 9/11.


Why am I not surprised? The old GOP mantra. Tax cuts, the remedy for the common cold, AIDS, bad breath, body odor, and the economy. Hey, maybe we should make the taxes go down to zero across the board. What a great idea! Who needs taxes? They are a communist concept! They are governmental interference! Surely the economy would rebound with zero taxes! Why o why in the last 3,000 years of civilization nobody ever came up with this brilliant idea? Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! And re-elect Republicans! Great, all our problems are solved! Happiness for all, without taxes!


----------



## Couchie

Man, conservatives cling to across-the-board tax cuts like its a religion. So you cut the tax rate to Corporation X. The next quarter, Corporation X has a few extra million on their bottom line to play around with. Do you:

a) Start new projects and hire Americans
b) Start new projects and hire, more cheaply, non-Americans
c) Increase dividends to restore your pre-recession stock price, and yes, you do happen to hold a large amount of company stock
d) Give yourself a nice bonus and buy a summer house in Bermuda
e) Invest it in China, what else?
f) Add it to your already large cash reserve

Now maybe DrMike can explain why all the corporate executives are going to pick (a).


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Why am I not surprised? The old GOP mantra. Tax cuts, the remedy for the common cold, AIDS, bad breath, body odor, and the economy. Hey, maybe we should make the taxes go down to zero across the board. What a great idea! Who needs taxes? They are a communist concept! They are governmental interference! Surely the economy would rebound with zero taxes! Why o why in the last 3,000 years of civilization nobody ever came up with this brilliant idea? Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! And re-elect Republicans! Great, all our problems are solved! Happiness for all, without taxes!


Compared to the Democratic party's panacea of raising taxes on the "rich?" Oh, and add new government spending programs that run our debt into the stratosphere. Yeah, that works. Please. I can at least point to an example of where tax reductions worked to get us out of a recession. What do you have for your ideas as proof? Oooh, FDR worked wonders, if you don't mind a decade-long slump. So is that the sort of future we should expect from Obama's policies? He already seems to be heading for the double-dip. What from his policies is going to avert that?


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Man, conservatives cling to across-the-board tax cuts like its a religion. So you cut the tax rate to Corporation X. The next quarter, Corporation X has a few extra million on their bottom line to play around with. Do you:
> 
> a) Start new projects and hire Americans
> b) Start new projects and hire, more cheaply, non-Americans
> c) Increase dividends to restore your pre-recession stock price, and yes, you do happen to hold a large amount of company stock
> d) Give yourself a nice bonus and buy a summer house in Bermuda
> e) Invest it in China, what else?
> f) Add it to your already large cash reserve
> 
> Now maybe DrMike can explain why all the corporate executives are going to pick (a).


You are absolutely right - they are going to do what earns them the most money - just like everybody else on this planet. 
Am I to believe that Couchie looks for ways that he can not earn as much as possible? And so they will go with the option that is most financially beneficial. So if the U.S. keeps corporate tax rates high, why not take their money elsewhere, where it earns them more? The object is to make the U.S. the most enticing for their business. You can see it in a microcosm here in the U.S. What states are seeing the biggest increase in jobs, and what states are seeing job flight? Ohio and Michigan and California, where taxes are high and unions have huge influence, are hemorrhaging jobs. Southern states are increasing, because tax rates are low and they are right-to-work.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> We need to cut corporate tax rates, eliminate tax loopholes. We need to expand oil exploration. We need to get rid of the new Obama health care plan before it really starts to bankrupt us, because it doesn't pay for itself. Government spending needs to be cut - across the board. That even means some defense spending cuts. Entitlement programs need to be reigned in. Allow people who want to to opt out of Social Security and create private accounts. Put an end to corporate welfare. If a company is pathetic enough to not put out a product that people want to buy, it isn't the job of the American taxpayer to subsidize them. Especially not if it means buying the companies and handing them over to unions.


Finally you propose a plan, even if it's merely a garbled mishmash of right-wing radio talking points. I love how we're supposed to pander to the corporate powers that be, and expect them to save us from economic disaster by giving them tax breaks and promises of lower regulation. You might not realize that the corporate tax rate is only a fraction of what it was fifty years ago. I assume another of the things that you don't know about the Reagan years is that they rewrote the tax code in 1985 and shifted the tax burden to the average Joe.

But I'm amused to notice you're corporate-unfriendly when said corporations are highly unionized: and how many jobs will Americans lose when the car manufacturers go under?



> Tax cuts got us out of a recession when Reagan did it. And our economy boomed after Bush cut taxes, even with 9/11.


Once again, you persist in making ahistorical claims about recent American history. You even keep venting scorn on Roosevelt, even when you've been told exactly how you're wrong in your thinking about the economic realities of that era. Capitalism put us in the toilet in the 30s, and Roosevelt's social spending kept people from starving until capitalism saw fit to employ them again. You seem to prefer the revisionist narrative of the Depression, regardless of its lack of coherence. Those right-wing think tanks and shock jocks are sure earning their pay!

First off, the only thing that alleviated the recession caused by Reagan's policies in the early 80's was the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates, which were extremely high. Since interest rates are low now, that's not an option. And after 9/11, the Bush Administration ramped up government spending in the national-security area, and that's what caused the economic turnaround.

Regardless of what the corporate mouthpieces like the Cato Institute want you to believe, tax cuts, particularly for corporations and the wealthy, don't help the economy.

-Vaz


----------



## emiellucifuge

I thought the object was for everyone to have an equal opportunity for a decent life?

Having more business in itself is not necessarily a good thing. And the end-results of capitalism are well-documented. Growing divide between rich and poor, greater percentage of wealth in the hands of an ever decreasing percentage of people.

You have a lot of faith in the markets, that what is profitable must be good. Do you believe the markets are perfect?


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> You are absolutely right - they are going to do what earns them the most money - just like everybody else on this planet.
> Am I to believe that Couchie looks for ways that he can not earn as much as possible? And so they will go with the option that is most financially beneficial. So if the U.S. keeps corporate tax rates high, why not take their money elsewhere, where it earns them more? The object is to make the U.S. the most enticing for their business.


My entire point was that with the extra cash you've just given companies _already in the States_, there's no guarantee they're going to use it to expand business here, and in fact, you would appear to agree that it is probably not in their best interest to do so. You want to attract more business here? Across-the-board tax cuts to established companies _will not achieve that_. The money retained by maintaing the higher tax rate could be better spent on actually attracting new business, such as through venture/entrepreneurship incentives, which have the potential to hire large amounts of new people, rather than give extra money to already-rich blue chips which have either no reason or no desire to expand business here.



DrMike said:


> You can see it in a microcosm here in the U.S. What states are seeing the biggest increase in jobs, and what states are seeing job flight? Ohio and Michigan and California, where taxes are high and unions have huge influence, are hemorrhaging jobs. Southern states are increasing, because tax rates are low and they are right-to-work.


This is simply a lie, as Table C on this page reveals: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm. 
Also I'm sure you're aware of the countless differences between states, trying to link an effect to a single factor across them is a fool's errand.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*I realize that we are, to a certain extent, talking past one another...*

... but, for the purpose of expounding a little bit on my previous point, I'd like to continue:

When the Unemployment situation in America worsened, and in light of the fact that it remains historically bad (and by that, I mean worse than it's ever been, since I entered the workforce some three decades ago), I shared with close friends a 'check-list' of things to look for, to indicate that things could conceivably turn around. Near the top of that check-list, I advised people to look for healthy upward spikes in real income, because when pulling out of a prolonged Unemployment situation, employers tend to first add more hours to the people currently working- to see if an incipient recovery is "for real," and then add workers only after it was clear to them that the situation has improved.

What's actually happening, at least in my region, is something very different- and again unprecedented. The fact that income _declined_ says something pretty ominous, I think. I believe that for the first time since I can remember, the pool of all right, serviceable and competent people who have become unemployed is exerting a downward pressure on the wages of those who are employed. What David Ricardo taught us about the Price of Labor nearly two centuries ago is being proven correct, again- that is to say... it follows the same laws as commodities- more costly when scarcer, cheaper when more plentiful.

For Americans of less than retirement age, this puts the relevance of chronic Unemployment in a realm that we've never visited. For people who've has an uninterrupted career in the workforce, Unemployment, even spiky-high double-digit Unemployment, was something that happened to the other guy. Now, however, wage-suppression means that the effects of chronic Unemployment are more relevant to a larger number of people than they ever have been.


----------



## science

I think your analysis is close to correct, but I don't think we can look at the US economy in isolation anymore. The US worker's wage is being hurt by the availability of cheap labor in other countries. 

The unions knew what they were doing when they opposed trade deals.

I support those trade deals, because I believe they do more good than harm, but creative destruction does hurt people who find themselves in its way, and that's a lot of the US working class right now. 

I'd say, the best thing we could do - what I believe we will in fact wind up doing - is spreading the benefits of trade around a bit more evenly through higher personal income taxes on the folks who are enjoying the biggest benefits right now.

For political reasons, we probably can't have an honest discussion about it, but first will come credit downgrading, then entitlement cuts, and then a political revolution.


----------



## Vaneyes

More on The Sarah's Paul Revere...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/sarah-palin-paul-revere-defends-herself-/1


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ... but, for the purpose of expounding a little bit on my previous point, I'd like to continue:
> 
> When the Unemployment situation in America worsened, and in light of the fact that it remains historically bad (and by that, I mean worse than it's ever been, since I entered the workforce some three decades ago), I shared with close friends a 'check-list' of things to look for, to indicate that things could conceivably turn around. Near the top of that check-list, I advised people to look for healthy upward spikes in real income, because when pulling out of a prolonged Unemployment situation, employers tend to first add more hours to the people currently working- to see if an incipient recovery is "for real," and then add workers only after it was clear to them that the situation has improved.
> 
> What's actually happening, at least in my region, is something very different- and again unprecedented. The fact that income _declined_ says something pretty ominous, I think. I believe that for the first time since I can remember, the pool of all right, serviceable and competent people who have become unemployed is exerting a downward pressure on the wages of those who are employed. What David Ricardo taught us about the Price of Labor nearly two centuries ago is being proven correct, again- that is to say... it follows the same laws as commodities- more costly when scarcer, cheaper when more plentiful.
> 
> For Americans of less than retirement age, this puts the relevance of chronic Unemployment in a realm that we've never visited. For people who've has an uninterrupted career in the workforce, Unemployment, even spiky-high double-digit Unemployment, was something that happened to the other guy. Now, however, wage-suppression means that the effects of chronic Unemployment are more relevant to a larger number of people than they ever have been.


CTP, it's true that this is a bad crisis and we may never recover entirely from it - meaning, we'll never see the same levels of income and employment rates - and when resources start to be scarce as well, things may become even worse. We all see it. What I don't understand, is what exactly you mean by bringing our attention to these undeniable facts, in the context of our presidential and legislative elections. Do you mean to say that the worsening situation of the entire planet, with more and more pressure on the economies of developed countries, is being caused by this administration (in power for 2 years and change -while these problems are being slowly moving in this direction for a while, and in function of multiple forces)? I'd see your post as better placed in the American economy vs. Chinese economy thread, because what you're talking about is due to global trends and events, not to what party holds the White House.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

The sitting President, rightly or wrongly, has always ben afforded great credit when economic times are good, and singled out for blame when times are bad. In order for this to not happen for the 2012 election, Team Obama is going to have to make a "this time, it's different" argument. It's not the easiest argument to make, in a results-oriented society... (particularly when specific results were explicitly promised).

That ain't to say it can't be done- Team Obama will have roughly a one-billion (with a *B*) dollar campaign "war-chest," [and incidentally, since that time, we don't hear much about the corruption of the electoral process by excessive monies, these days] but the electorate will be called upon to buy that which has never been successfully sold before.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> The sitting President, rightly or wrongly, has always ben afforded great credit when economic times are good, and singled out for blame when times are bad. In order for this to not happen for the 2012 election, Team Obama is going to have to make a "this time, it's different" argument. It's not the easiest argument to make, in a results-oriented society... (particularly when specific results were explicitly promised).
> 
> That ain't to say it can't be done- Team Obama will have roughly a one-billion (with a *B*) dollar campaign "war-chest," [and incidentally, since that time, we don't hear much about the corruption of the electoral process by excessive monies, these days] but the electorate will be called upon to buy that which has never been successfully sold before.


Good point. It remains to be seen whether the opposition will really be able to propose a credible alternative. We may see the GOP take over the White House, and then 4 years later with the economy doing even worse, it goes back to the Democrats. I think there is only one direction for the economy these days: down. If this remains the decisive factor, then we'll have the two parties playing a game of musical chairs.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Good point. It remains to be seen whether the opposition will really be able to propose a credible alternative. We may see the GOP take over the White House, and then 4 years later with the economy doing even worse, it goes back to the Democrats. *I think there is only one direction for the economy these days: down.* If this remains the decisive factor, then we'll have the two parties playing a game of musical chairs.


Carter argued the same thing. Turns out, he was wrong.

Obama was wagering that this recession would be like every other one we have had since the Great Depression - a very limited duration. And it turns out that the actual "recession" portion was just that. But the growth that always seemed to follow all the other recessions has not yet emerged. Money seems to be back in the banks, but people aren't spending. Unemployment is high, and one of the reasons for that quite arguably is that businesses are waiting to see just what awaits them in the future. Small businesses, which are the biggest sectors for job growth, are trying to decide if it is worth it to increase their number employed over 50 and have to take on all the new costs that the President's health care plan will add on - unless, that is, they can get on Sebelius' good side and get a waiver, like so many in Nancy Pelosi's home district (more than 20% of all waivers thus far have gone to her district - seems kind of disproportional, doesn't it?). Energy costs are also going up, and if the administration has its way, they will likely go higher, especially if the cap-and-trade plan ever gets passed. Not very likely, but as long as Democrats control the White House and at least one half of Congress, there is still a chance.

And lets face it - as long as unemployment is bad, housing will be bad. People out of work, or scared that they might be out of work, aren't going to go make a big investment like a house. And people with no income will continue to default, no matter how often they are allowed to refinance.

Again I ask - where are the signs that things will be getting better? What are the policies instituted by Obama that will reverse the latest trends of unemployment heading up and the risk for a double-dip recession? What evidence do we have that the QE2 did anything? I know that the GOP is not blameless, but there is only so long that you can continue to play that sorry, tired tune. Because really a lot of these problems are the result of multiple administrations kicking various cans down the road. And every administration that comes along promises to solve those problems, and are held accountable if they don't make the progress they promised. So this is not partisanship to ask what the Obama administration has done to improve the situation. Every other administration gets asked the same thing. How much did we have to hear about your side complaining about Bush's "jobless recovery?" What ever happened to turnabout is fair play? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Does Obama not have to claim responsibility for any of his actions?


----------



## Vaneyes

Frequent flyer Santorum is ready to lead.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/06/santorum-now-a-presidential-candidate/?hpt=hp_t1


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Um, well, I'm still waiting to hear any conservative, free-market strategy for getting us out of our fiscal slump. How many times does this make that I've asked for such?
> 
> *Your mention of Weinergate (sic) has persuaded me that your posts rely almost exclusively on hyperbolic, partisan talking points and contain very little substance.* Your erroneous claims about the Great Depression and the economy during the Reagan Administration demonstrate a willful disengagement from historical fact. "Obama was elected was because he was black" isn't a statement that can be judged on any rational basis or supported with anything except your own sentiments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's the best thing I can say about your "argument," such as it is.
> 
> -Vaz


Your right, my reference to an incumbent member of Congress sending inappropriate pictures and comments to women he couldn't even confirm were of legal age is merely hyperbolic and of very little substance, especially when that Congressman just spent the last week lying and blaming others for his own actions. Remember when the GOP congressman quit after a picture of him on Craig's List surfaced? The Democrat, though, won't. Do you know how to tell when a Democrat really is guilty of a sexual or inappropriate scandal? He'll repeatedly assert that it is all a distraction and that he needs to get back to the business of the American people (and, one assumes, emailing around his genitals).


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> Your right, my reference to an incumbent member of Congress sending inappropriate pictures and comments to women he couldn't even confirm were of legal age is merely hyperbolic and of very little substance, especially when that Congressman just spent the last week lying and blaming others for his own actions. Remember when the GOP congressman quit after a picture of him on Craig's List surfaced? The Democrat, though, won't. Do you know how to tell when a Democrat really is guilty of a sexual or inappropriate scandal? He'll repeatedly assert that it is all a distraction and that he needs to get back to the business of the American people (and, one assumes, emailing around his genitals).


From what I've heard/seen of Congressman Weiner, he seems like he's smarter than sending lewd pictures of himself on his _official_ twitter account. At least that Craigslist person tried to hide it a little bit at least.


----------



## Guest

Question to all those who have cited the recently passed health care "reform" as one of the high points of Obama's administration - if it is such a great thing, and will help us solve our problems with health care, why is the HHS Secretary granting so many waivers, particularly to unions and member of Nancy Pelosi's district (20% of all waivers have gone to her district, which is only 1/435th of all total congressional districts)? Seems that many proponents (unions, Pelosi's constituents, as she was the Speaker of the House when it passed) are fine with it, so long as they don't have to participate. I'd be interested to see how many of those who got waivers made significant campaign contributions to Democrats. Is that why the administration wants a law instituted that requires all those who receive federal grants and contracts report the political contributions they made? So they know who to give money and favors to?


----------



## Guest

Aksel said:


> From what I've heard/seen of Congressman Weiner, he seems like he's smarter than sending lewd pictures of himself on his _official_ twitter account. At least that Craigslist person tried to hide it a little bit at least.


Umm, go check the latest news. He confessed to not only sending the main picture that has been discussed, but also several others for quite some time. Nope, he's just as stupid as every other politician who engages in these ridiculous activities.


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> Umm, go check the latest news. He confessed to not only sending the main picture that has been discussed, but also several others for quite some time. Nope, he's just as stupid as every other politician who engages in these ridiculous activities.


Waddayaknow. Andrew Breitbart was right for once.


----------



## Guest

Another question - the much discussed stimulus package. So many have argued that the only problem is that it wasn't big enough, and that another one will get us out of our rut. We were told how so much of it would go to "shovel-ready" jobs. Then later we were told by Obama himself that that was kind of misleading, as there weren't so many "shovel-ready" jobs as we were told, just waiting to get going and stimulate the economy. So what do we have to show for the money that went to "shovel-ready" jobs? And does anybody have the latest tally of how many jobs were "created or saved" by the stimulus? Haven't heard that figure in a while (not since last year's "Summer of Recovery"). What is the evidence that it worked? Conservative ideas are blasted, so what is the evidence here that nearly $1 trillion in "stimulus" spending worked, considering that unemployment is now higher than Obama's team of experts led us to believe it would be? Let me get this straight - the stimulus package didn't do what it was forecasted to do, and that is proof that we simply needed to spend more? How does that leap of logic occur? And if $1 trillion isn't enough, exactly how many trillions of dollars will it take to cure all our problems? And where would one come by a few extra trillion? Is that why the president wants the debt ceiling increased by $2 trillion, without any cuts (a clean vote on raising the debt ceiling)? Have we now stumbled on some more "shovel-ready" jobs that we need to fund immediately?


----------



## Vaneyes

Unfortunately the stimulus package most discussed was Congressman Weiner's. Okay, okay, he's lusted, he's sinned, he's lied (He did not have Twitter relations with that woman?), now let's get on with running the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/06/new.york.weiner/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Your right, my reference to an incumbent member of Congress sending inappropriate pictures and comments to women he couldn't even confirm were of legal age is merely hyperbolic and of very little substance, especially when that Congressman just spent the last week lying and blaming others for his own actions. Remember when the GOP congressman quit after a picture of him on Craig's List surfaced? The Democrat, though, won't. Do you know how to tell when a Democrat really is guilty of a sexual or inappropriate scandal? He'll repeatedly assert that it is all a distraction and that he needs to get back to the business of the American people (and, one assumes, emailing around his genitals).


FACTS show that Republican politicians have had more sexual/ethical scandals than Democratic politicians.
They're both bad, but Republicans (the so-called party of family values) are even worse.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> FACTS show that Republican politicians have had more sexual/ethical scandals than Democratic politicians.
> They're both bad, but Republicans (the so-called party of family values) are even worse.


Anthony Weiner tweeting pictures of his weiner (sorry, but too much to pass up).
John Edwards having an affair with Rielle Hunter while wife is sick with cancer.
Elliott Spitzer involved with prostitute.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski.
Ted Kennedy and the infamous parties at the Kennedy compound.
Barney Frank hired a male prostitute for sex, then hired him onto his staff, and the male prostitute then turned tricks in Frank's apartment.
James McGreevey had an affair while governor of New Jersey.
Gary Condit's affair with Chandra Levy.
Congressman Melvin Jay Reynolds convicted of sexual misconduct.
Congressman Gerry Studds had sex with a male teenage House page.
Congressman Frederick Richmond arrested for soliciting sex from a minor.
Governor Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year old while mayor of Portland.
Congressman Allan Howe, arrested for solicitation.
Congressman Joseph Waggoner, arrested for solicitation.
Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice.

But I guess it is only bad with Republicans, because only they believe in family values. Democrats are above all that? That's news to me. Why do so many Democrats campaign with their families all around them?


----------



## Vaneyes

Since 1990, Republicans own 26 of 30 federal political sex scandals in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Since 1990, Republicans own 26 of 30 federal political sex scandals in the U.S.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States


So that justifies Democrats? Are you excusing Weiner because Democrats don't do it as often (or aren't caught as often)? Rep. Chris Lee flexed his muscles on Craig's List, and Boehner booted him. Weiner shows his weiner (and apparently a whole lot more), and he won't resign? And he goes on a huge media tour, and lies directly into the camera? He specifically said that his account was hacked, that this was a prank. Of course, the whole thing started to unravel as he came up with various excuses to not call the cops, and then couldn't say that the photo wasn't of him, as if most of us have lots of pictures of us in our BVD's floating around out there that we can't track them all. If you want a guy that stupid as part of the Democratic congressional delegation, a proven liar with zero credibility, then we'll take him in a district that is starting to lean more and more conservative.


----------



## Guest

The biggest impact, though, is that Weinergate derailed the Democrats when they thought they were starting to gain some traction against the GOP and the Ryan budget plan. They were riding a high after winning a traditional GOP House seat in a special election (the seat vacated by Lee, after his Craig's List photo op), and their demagoguing Republicans as wanting to push granny off of a cliff (literally, that was a commercial aired in New York during that special election). And now the news is that a Democratic Congressman from New York has been involved in phone and internet sex and sending lewd pictures of himself to women, then lying about it in front of the media. So now they are back on the defensive.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Anthony Weiner tweeting pictures of his weiner (sorry, but too much to pass up).
> John Edwards having an affair with Rielle Hunter while wife is sick with cancer.
> Elliott Spitzer involved with prostitute.
> Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski.
> Ted Kennedy and the infamous parties at the Kennedy compound.
> Barney Frank hired a male prostitute for sex, then hired him onto his staff, and the male prostitute then turned tricks in Frank's apartment.
> James McGreevey had an affair while governor of New Jersey.
> Gary Condit's affair with Chandra Levy.
> Congressman Melvin Jay Reynolds convicted of sexual misconduct.
> Congressman Gerry Studds had sex with a male teenage House page.
> Congressman Frederick Richmond arrested for soliciting sex from a minor.
> Governor Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year old while mayor of Portland.
> Congressman Allan Howe, arrested for solicitation.
> Congressman Joseph Waggoner, arrested for solicitation.
> Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice.
> 
> *But I guess it is only bad with Republicans*, because only they believe in family values. Democrats are above all that? That's news to me. Why do so many Democrats campaign with their families all around them?


Did I say that? *I said that both are bad* but Republicans are worse, just a sheer statistical concept: more scandals. Read on:

Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY): Resigned hours after a news report that the married Congressman, who strongly promotes family values, had sent a shirtless picture of himself flexing his muscles to a woman via Craigslist, along with flirtatious emails. He did not use a pseudonym or a false email address, but relied on his congressional email for all communication.

Mark Souder, Representative (R-IN): Resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted extramarital affair with a female staffer. Famously, he and the staffer had made a public video in which they both extolled the virtues of abstinence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3

Chip Pickering (R-MS) On July 16, 2009 it was announced that his wife Leisha had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against Elizabeth Creekmore Byrd, a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5The lawsuit claimed that the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings' marriage and his political career.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6

Samuel B. Kent, Federal District Judge in Texas: Appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990. Accused of sexually harassing two female employees. He was impeached for abusing his authority and imprisoned for 33 months for obstruction of justice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-7

John Ensign, Senator (R-NV): Resigned his position as Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with Cynthia Hampton, the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign.[9] Under investigation, he resigned his seat in Congress 20 months early.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-9 In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-10

Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY): Arrested for drunk driving. Under questioning, he admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-12

Randall L. Tobias, Deputy Secretary of State (R) and former "AIDS Czar" appointed by George W. Bush: Stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-14 He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-15

Larry Craig, Senator (R-ID): Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minneapolis airport men's room in June 2007, on a charge of homosexual lewd conduct. Senator Craig had previously stated that "people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-16

Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL): Resigned when accused of sending sexually explicit emails to underage male congressional pages.

Jeff Gannon (R) a.k.a. James Dale Guckert, a.k.a. "Bulldog": Admitted to White House press conferences as a journalist without proper vetting, and was allowed to ask such sympathetic questions that _The Daily Show_ referred to him as "Chip Rightwingenstein of the Bush Agenda Gazette." Records show he was admitted to the White House numerous times even when there were no press conferences. He later admitted to being a $200/day gay prostitute.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-18

Brian J. Doyle, (R) Deputy Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was indicted for seducing what he thought was a 14-year-old girl on the Internet; she was actually a sheriff's deputy. On November 17, 2006, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, 10 years of probation, and was registered as a sex offender.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-19

Jack Ryan, Senate candidate (R-IL): During divorce proceedings in 2004, his wife Jeri Ryan accused him of forcing her to go to public sex clubs and described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20Ms. Ryan is better known as Seven of Nine from the TV show _Star Trek: Voyager_.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21

David Dreier, Representative (R-CA): Voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-22

Ed Schrock, Representative (R-VA): Aggressively fought against gay rights programs, but dropped out of his third term race after he was discovered soliciting sex from a male prostitute and finally admitted that he himself was gay.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-23

Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA): Failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-24

Steven C. LaTourette, Representative (R-OH): Elected in 1994 and had voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. He himself had a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, while he was married.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-25

David Vitter, Senator (R-LA): Took over former Senator Robert Livingston's House seat in 1999, who resigned following revelations of an extrmarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated: "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well ..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...he_United_States#cite_note-nl.newsbank.com-26 Vitters' name was then discovered in the address book of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey. He admitted his adultery and withdrew from the 2003 gubernatorial race for governor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ls_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CNN_2007-27

Richard Gardner (R): While he was running as an Assembly candidate in Las Vegas, NV, in 2002, it was revealed that Gardner pleaded guilty in 1988 to three counts of molesting his two daughters. He had also run for office in California.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-28

Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA): His affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-29 Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-30

Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994: Admitted in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern Callista Bisek, while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-34

Henry Hyde, Representative (R-IL): Was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the House managers who directed the inmpeachment case against Bill Clinton. In 1998, it emerged that he himself had an affair some years earlier, which he dismissed as a "youthful indiscretion" despite being 41 years old at the time of the affair.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-35

Bob Barr, Representative (R-GA): Called for the impeachment of Bill Clintonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-36 But his own sexual hypocrisy was later alleged by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, who claimed that Barr's second wife said he was cheating on her.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-37

Robert Livingston, Representative (R-LA): Famously called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but resigned after his own extramarital affair was revealed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-38

Dan Burton, Representative (R-IN): Speaking of the affairs of Republican Robert Packwood and the unfolding affair of Democrat Bill Clinton, Burton stated: "No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties ..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-39 In 1998, Burton was forced to admit that he himself had an affair in 1983 that produced a child.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Indy-Fact-40

Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Representative (R-ID): While aggressively calling for the resignation of Bill Clinton,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-41 she admitted to her own six-year affair with a married rancher during the 1980s. She explained the difference by saying it was all right since she was single and a private citizen at the time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-42

Robert Packwood, Senator (R-OR): Was forced to resign his office after 29 women came forward with claims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assaults. His vehement denials of any wrongdoing were eventually contradicted by his own lurid diaries boasting of his sexual conquests.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-43

Ken Calvert, Representative (R-CA): Arrested for soliciting a prostitute for oral sex in his car. The champion of the Christian Coalition once said "We can't forgive what occurred between the President and Lewinsky."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-45

Clarence Thomas, Judge (R): Supreme Court nominee accused by Anita Hill and others of sexual harassmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-47

Arlan Stangeland, Representative (R-MN): Was found to have made hundreds of phone calls to a female lobbyist. Though he denied any romantic involvement, he lost his re-election bid.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48

Donald "Buz" Lukens, Representative (R-OH): Resigned before facing an investigation that he fondled a Washington elevator operator.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49

Dan Crane (R-IL) censured July 20, 1983 in the Congressional Page sex scandal for having sex with under age congressional pages.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_the_United_States#cite_note-ReferenceA-60

Jon Hinson (R-MS) US Congressman charged with oral sodomy of a male Library of Congress employee.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-61

Robert Bauman (R-MD): U.S. Congressman charged with attempting to solicit sex from a 16-year-old male prostitute.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_States#cite_note-Russakoff-WaPo-4Oct1980-62

Thomas Evans (R-DE): U.S. Congressman went golfing in Florida with nude model and lobbyist Paula Parkinson, who suggested her techniques were "tactile." Lost his 1982 re-election bid.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-63

Harold Carswell (R): Was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court (1970) by Richard Nixon, but was not confirmed after publication of a 20-year-old speech: "I yield to no man ... in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy." He was also alleged to be hostile to women's rights,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-64 and was later arrested for making homosexual advances in a men's washroom.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-65

John Schmitz (R-CA) an outspoken Christian and John Bircher, Schmitz admitted to having a second family, but refused to accept or support the two children he produced. He lost the next election.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-74

Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC): The noted segregationist and onetime Ku Klux Klan member fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with 15-year-old African American who was employed by the Thurmond family.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-75

Warren Harding, President (R): While married to his wife Florence, he supposedly had affairs with Carrie Phillips, Francis Russell and Nan Britton.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-78


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Did I say that? *I said that both are bad* but Republicans are worse, just a sheer statistical concept: more scandals. Read on:


No, but the simple fact that you made the statement in the first place implies that you are rationalizing Weiner's behavior. Rather than just accepting his situation in and of itself as a horrible thing, you start off by saying, "Yes, but you guys are worse." Did the one cause the other? Did increased bad behavior by Republicans drive Weiner to do what he did? If so, I can see what relevance it would be. But the "everybody else is doing it" rationalization is just that. Or why else did you immediately compare his actions to Republicans? I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the better choice? If their actions are no better than Republicans, just not statistically as frequent, then what is the point in referencing such things, unless you do think they impact on their ability to function in their elected office? Vote for Democrats - we don't have as many sexual scandals as Republicans!

Personally, I'd like to see every politician who screws around quit. Number one, it is about honor. They have disgraced their party, their constituents, and the office. I know people will be people, but I still think that we should at least try to hold our elected officials to a higher standard - what with the kind of power we entrust to them. Second, it is about credibility. I don't really trust a man to tell me the truth if he can't tell his wife the truth, or bridle his passions. I think Vitter should be gone. I think it is the honorable thing to do. Weiner and Vitter, not resigning, are not concerned about their constituents. They are concerned about themselves. Just like their despicable actions that got them into their situations, this is just a continuation of their narcissism and selfishness.


----------



## Guest

And it is good to see that the leftwing media isn't above ridiculing a person's religion to increase the chances for their candidate.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/268884/newsweek-portraying-romney-dancing-lunatic


----------



## emiellucifuge

I agree with you DrMike, it is unacceptable and these politicians should resign. The fact remains, more republicans commit these scandals than democrats. And that while they campaign on family values.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> I agree with you DrMike, it is unacceptable and these politicians should resign. The fact remains, more republicans commit these scandals than democrats. And that while they campaign on family values.


You think it is some special circumstance, but I think it is simply another side of the same coin. Politicians pander to their base. For the GOP, that includes higher moral standards, and so that is how they portray themselves. But Democrats do the same thing. They represent themselves as holding to the ideals of their base so they can get elected. Did John Edwards really have credibility as champion of the poor living in his lavish mansion? Does Al Gore really represent a climate warrior, with his multiple mansions and flying around the world in private jets? When Democrats talk about Republicans cutting taxes at the expense of the poor and the middle class, what does it say that Charlie Rangel has been avoiding paying his taxes, or that our current Treasury Secretary himself was a tax cheat up until he was nominated to the position?

The problem isn't sex scandals - that is merely one of the symptoms. The problem is over-inflated ego, narcissism, and, most importantly, hypocrisy. And the underlying problem is that too many dishonorable, shameless people are put in positions of power. So much so that now people almost assume that most politicians are liars and screw around. I don't want people who screw around making the biggest decisions in this country. What if it hadn't been leaked by the media? What if someone tried to blackmail him? We already know that he wasn't above lying to cover up this scandal. What else would he have been willing to do? I don't think anybody who has ever cheated on their taxes should have a position of power, especially not over the taxes of the nation.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its true. I am disillusioned.


----------



## Guest

http://langerresearch.com/uploads/1124a2_2012_Politics.pdf
Uh-oh - this latest ABC/Washington Post poll released today shows real problems for Obama. For one, once again, his disapproval rating outpaces his approval rating. Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy by a margin of 19 points. And he now looks vulnerable against the GOP. For all polled, Obama and Romney polled even. But among likely voters, Romney leads him by 3 points.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*In the "remind me not to say that again" department...*



Aksel said:


> From what I've heard/seen of Congressman Weiner, he seems like he's smarter than sending lewd pictures of himself on his _official_ twitter account. At least that Craigslist person tried to hide it a little bit at least.


Oopsie.

However (more to the point, and to clear up misconceptions on both sides of this ledger)- I've little doubt that Weiner, like Spitzer and Clinton before him, is formidably intelligent. It's really not about raw brainpower- it's about selfishness, self-indulgence, and placing one's _id_-motivated desires at the forefront.

Plato (and perhaps Socrates before him) used to assert that to _know_ the good was to _do_ the good. I think those who give credence to that proposition might wish to reconsider. C.S. Lewis makes the entirely persuasive counter-argument that if you add knowledge and problem-solving ability to a corrupted nature, then you merely succeed in creating _a more clever devil_...


----------



## Aksel

You Americans have such exiting political scandals. At least the aftermaths of them. Ours are so boring.


----------



## Guest

Interesting statistic - unemployment has been 9% or higher for 23 of the last 25 months. Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for 20 of those 25 months.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Interesting statistic - unemployment has been 9% or higher for 23 of the last 25 months. Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for 20 of those 25 months.


As a scientist, you know very well that you are talking about a mere correlation, not causality, thanks to a number of other factors that may have caused the high unemployment members.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> No, but the simple fact that you made the statement in the first place implies that you are rationalizing Weiner's behavior. Rather than just accepting his situation in and of itself as a horrible thing, you start off by saying, "Yes, but you guys are worse."


Dr. Mike, you used this fact to attack Democrats in general, in your own words: "Do you know how to tell when a Democrat really is guilty of a sexual or inappropriate scandal? He'll repeatedly assert that it is all a distraction and that he needs to get back to the business of the American people (and, one assumes, emailing around his genitals)." However, when one merely *reacts* to your statement by basically saying - he who is without sin should cast the first stone - you say "Or why else did you immediately compare his actions to Republicans?" So, it's OK when you do it, but not OK when I do it? I showed to you that if you want to attack Democrats for sexual scandals, then you need to clean up your own party first. I did not make *any* statement about whether or not I agree with what Mr. Weiner did (for the record, I don't agree). I merely pointed out to the fact that if you want to use *this* kind of behavior as fodder for attacking the Democrats, your position is sort of weak since your own party displays even more of the same. Fair, no?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, you used this fact to attack Democrats in general, in your own words: "Do you know how to tell when a Democrat really is guilty of a sexual or inappropriate scandal? He'll repeatedly assert that it is all a distraction and that he needs to get back to the business of the American people (and, one assumes, emailing around his genitals)." However, when one merely *reacts* to your statement by basically saying - he who is without sin should cast the first stone - you say "Or why else did you immediately compare his actions to Republicans?" So, it's OK when you do it, but not OK when I do it? I showed to you that if you want to attack Democrats for sexual scandals, then you need to clean up your own party first. I did not make *any* statement about whether or not I agree with what Mr. Weiner did (for the record, I don't agree). I merely pointed out to the fact that if you want to use *this* kind of behavior as fodder for attacking the Democrats, your position is sort of weak since your own party displays even more of the same. Fair, no?


I use this event because it is the most recent, it is occurring as campaigns are ramping up, and as Democrats are facing other bad news on the economy. And because the comments Weiner made were eerily similar to what Bill Clinton said during the Lewinsky scandal - that this is all just a distraction, and he needed to get back to the business of the American people. Two instances of Democratic politicians involved in a sex scandal saying similar things. I made no suggestion that only Democrats engaged in such activities, only that their denials seem to follow a similar pattern.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> As a scientist, you know very well that you are talking about a mere correlation, not causality, thanks to a number of other factors that may have caused the high unemployment members.


Ah, so I can just say that the financial problems starting at the end of the Bush administration were merely correlative, not causative? So tell me, when will Democrats own the results? Only good outcomes will be claimed by them? All bad results must be from Bush, all good results from Obama? Please. The fact is that Christine Romer, while acting as a chief economics advisor to Obama, predicted that the stimulus package would keep unemployment no higher than 8%. In reality, it has been 9% or greater for the last 23 of 25 months. Can you please let me know when we are allowed to start holding Obama accountable for his actions? The stimulus was supposed to give us immediate benefits - hence the term "stimulus." All you guys seem to be able to claim is that, well, at least we didn't go into depression. So I'll ask again - what are the actions taken by the president that should reverse the trends we are seeing? What has he done, or what has he proposed, that should reverse our condition? And when can we expect to start seeing some positive effects from his policies? Before November 2012? Or should we just take his word that good times are just around the corner - so long as we give him a second term in office? Happy days are here again? Ask yourself the question - are you better off now than you were in December 2008? Do you believe you will be better off in November 2012 than you were in November 2008? If the answer to either is no, then why should Obama be re-elected.

By the way - how is that campaign pledge of his coming, to cut our deficit in half before the end of his first term?


----------



## Guest

Hmmm, President Obama has discontinued his daily economic briefings. Well, that makes sense, seeing as how the economy seems to be the number one topic on everybody's minds. Could that have something to do with his second economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, resigning?

And that ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Americans now trust the GOP more than Obama over economic matters. Obama's approval rating on economic matters has plummeted 16% since he took office. Most people don't believe we are in recovery. James Carville thinks Obama is hurting himself, talking about a recovery like it was a _fait accompli_ while most people don't believe we are recovering. It makes him look out of touch, like when Bush 41 seemed oblivious about the recession at the end of his term that likely lost him the '92 election.


----------



## Guest

TMZ has emails from Weiner to pornstar Ginger Lee, with Weiner coaching her to lie to the press about their sexting one another. At one point, Weiner offers her the services of his PR staff to help her know how to mislead anybody who asked her about their online relationship.

And Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball on MSNBC, suggests that Weiner's wife bears some of the blame, because she may have known this was going on, so it is partly her fault. What?!?!


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> TMZ has emails from Weiner to pornstar Ginger Lee, with Weiner coaching her to lie to the press about their sexting one another. At one point, Weiner offers her the services of his PR staff to help her know how to mislead anybody who asked her about their online relationship.
> 
> And Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball on MSNBC, suggests that Weiner's wife bears some of the blame, because she may have known this was going on, so it is partly her fault. What?!?!


Don't read too much of that stuff, now.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Hmmm, President Obama has discontinued his daily economic briefings. Well, that makes sense, seeing as how the economy seems to be the number one topic on everybody's minds. Could that have something to do with his second economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, resigning?
> 
> And that ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Americans now trust the GOP more than Obama over economic matters. Obama's approval rating on economic matters has plummeted 16% since he took office. Most people don't believe we are in recovery. James Carville thinks Obama is hurting himself, talking about a recovery like it was a _fait accompli_ while most people don't believe we are recovering. It makes him look out of touch, like when Bush 41 seemed oblivious about the recession at the end of his term that likely lost him the '92 election.


Times are tough, following Cheney/Bush's Republican Credit Card Economics.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Times are tough, following Cheney/Bush's Republican Credit Card Economics.


Right. Never mind that Obama, in July of 2009, said that he would claim responsibility for the economy and that he would get us out of the mess. According to the polls, people are holding him responsible. So, as is typical, you are continuing to direct any responsibility away from Obama and deny that he should be held accountable for any of his actions. Does it help that he has cut out his daily economic briefings? Is that part of his strategy to win the future?


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> OBAMA BAD
> 
> OBAMA BAD
> 
> OBAMA BAD


That's certainly food for thought.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Not our fault
> Not our fault
> Not our fault


Two can play at that game.

Great line from Peggy Noonan -the best line against Obama and Democrats going into the next election - They made it worse.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Ah, so I can just say that the financial problems starting at the end of the Bush administration were merely correlative, not causative? So tell me, when will Democrats own the results? Only good outcomes will be claimed by them? All bad results must be from Bush, all good results from Obama? Please. The fact is that Christine Romer, while acting as a chief economics advisor to Obama, predicted that the stimulus package would keep unemployment no higher than 8%. In reality, it has been 9% or greater for the last 23 of 25 months. Can you please let me know when we are allowed to start holding Obama accountable for his actions? The stimulus was supposed to give us immediate benefits - hence the term "stimulus." All you guys seem to be able to claim is that, well, at least we didn't go into depression. So I'll ask again - what are the actions taken by the president that should reverse the trends we are seeing? What has he done, or what has he proposed, that should reverse our condition? And when can we expect to start seeing some positive effects from his policies? Before November 2012? Or should we just take his word that good times are just around the corner - so long as we give him a second term in office? Happy days are here again? Ask yourself the question - are you better off now than you were in December 2008? Do you believe you will be better off in November 2012 than you were in November 2008? If the answer to either is no, then why should Obama be re-elected.
> 
> By the way - how is that campaign pledge of his coming, to cut our deficit in half before the end of his first term?


Dr. Mike, if we elect a Republican in 2012, I'll be sure to ask you this same question in 2016.
I firmly believe that the economic crisis was the result of a combination of factors, from deregulation and speculation, passing through many other domestic blunders, to international pressures. I don't think that the party in power after 2012 - either the Democrats, the Republicans, or some independent candidate if by miracle one is elected - will be able to stop the inevitable decline of the United States.

I have explained my position before. I believe that the Bush administration was a disaster and triggered much of what we're seeing, with oversight of what was going on with the bubble and increased spending, including silly wars. Once this was all set in motion, I believe that the Democratic administration is impotent to stop the downturn, and the next administration - be it still the Obama administration or one of his opponents - will be equally impotent to stop the downturn.

I believe that soon enough the American people will learn the hard way that there won't be any recovery like in the past, that the situation will only get worse, and that the American president who happens to be sitting in office in a given term won't be able to change any of this, since a new world order with the rise of the BRIC countries and decline in oil production and food crops and other resource crunches will continue to bring America down no matter who is in power.

Either the American people learns that it's not the President who is doing this, or we'll get to the weird and paralizing situation of electing a 1-term Democrat then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Republican then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Democrat then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Republican then the economy goes bad and we.... etc.

Because, mark my words, Dr. Mike, if the argument for getting rid of the Democrats is that the economy is sour, the same argument will apply at the end of the new Republican president's first term.

I think we are in an irreversible economic downspiral.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Iron Lady isn't interested in meeting with Sarah Barracuda"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...n.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01538f05d98f970b


----------



## Vaneyes

"GOP Disaster Economics"

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/05/25/republican_disaster_economics/index.html


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, if we elect a Republican in 2012, I'll be sure to ask you this same question in 2016.
> I firmly believe that the economic crisis was the result of a combination of factors, from deregulation and speculation, passing through many other domestic blunders, to international pressures. I don't think that the party in power after 2012 - either the Democrats, the Republicans, or some independent candidate if by miracle one is elected - will be able to stop the inevitable decline of the United States.
> 
> I have explained my position before. I believe that the Bush administration was a disaster and triggered much of what we're seeing, with oversight of what was going on with the bubble and increased spending, including silly wars. Once this was all set in motion, I believe that the Democratic administration is impotent to stop the downturn, and the next administration - be it still the Obama administration or one of his opponents - will be equally impotent to stop the downturn.
> 
> I believe that soon enough the American people will learn the hard way that there won't be any recovery like in the past, that the situation will only get worse, and that the American president who happens to be sitting in office in a given term won't be able to change any of this, since a new world order with the rise of the BRIC countries and decline in oil production and food crops and other resource crunches will continue to bring America down no matter who is in power.
> 
> Either the American people learns that it's not the President who is doing this, or we'll get to the weird and paralizing situation of electing a 1-term Democrat then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Republican then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Democrat then the economy goes bad and we elect a 1-term Republican then the economy goes bad and we.... etc.
> 
> Because, mark my words, Dr. Mike, if the argument for getting rid of the Democrats is that the economy is sour, the same argument will apply at the end of the new Republican president's first term.
> 
> I think we are in an irreversible economic downspiral.


Of course a Republican would be held to the same standard were they to win in 2012. That is how it goes. Just ask H. W. Bush.

If what you say is true, and we really are in for a new set point, then what sense does it make to lug down our already dismal economy with an unsustainable debt and unsustainable deficits and unsustainable entitlement programs. Why won't politicians actually own up to the problems that face us from entitlement programs? The only time they mention them is when they are out of power, and it serves their needs. Paul Ryan is demonized for what he wants to do to Medicare, but Obama's health care reform already plans to gut it. Social Security is solvent for now, but the government has borrowed all the money in the "lockbox" and the only way it can pay out when we have to start going into the lockbox is to start taxing more, or increase the age of retirement, or likely some combination of both. How will that improve the chances of our economy ever advancing? There is more petroleum and natural gas out there - in fact, new technology is opening up the opportunity of harvesting from sources that were heretofore unimaginable, and suddenly there are vast untapped sources - but the president only wants to fund exploration in Brazil. So how does that solve our energy problems? How are "green jobs" going to solve our energy problems, when they can't make them profitable in much smaller countries like Spain? What are windmills, solar panels, and hydroelectric plants going to do to provide the immense amount of energy we need? Exactly how much of our country will we have to blanket with solar panels and windmills to generate the energy needed? Because right now, after Japan, it doesn't look like liberals are even willing to mention nuclear power.

I think we are at a turning point. Every so often, we hit a point where the markets become old-fashioned, and you have to dump old ways of doing things and look to the new. And there are growing pains. Have railroads ever recovered from the hit they took when suddenly people could drive themselves in personal automobiles? I still don't think Amtrak has been able to turn a profit. And here in the U.S., we have priced ourselves out of competitiveness. Our products cost too much, and our labor costs too much. Sure, we can erect high tariffs and trade barriers that force Americans to buy American, but will there really be profit? Or just products out there too expensive to afford? For a long time now, really since the energy crisis of the '70's, people understood that the better cars to buy were the imported Japanese cars. Honda and Toyota have great products. They hold their value better than American cars, and they last longer. The American auto companies produced worse cars at nearly as high of costs. Take the minivan - Dodge/Chrysler pretty much invented the thing, and they still can't make that great of one. All kinds of flaws. They make nice gadgets to go in it, but if you want a quality minivan, you buy a Honda or a Toyota. Want great gas mileage? Again, get a Honda or a Toyota. Who knows all the reasons for the failure of the U.S. auto industry, but we do know that part of the problem was that they had to charge as much as they did - to cover all their union costs. So when they finally reach an unsustainable point, what do we do? Well, we bail them out. We now subsidize their failed business practices. Would it have been bad for the economy had they failed? Probably. But are we better off resuscitating companies that may very well end up in this same situation in the not too distant future? If they made a crappy product that nobody wanted to buy, how does it help the economy long term to keep them running?

If you are abdicating any kind of attempt at improving our situation, then I say your party should get out of the way and at least let people in who think we can do better. And if they don't, then hold them accountable. But that is how it always has been. As president, you get 4 years to prove you are the person for the job. It's like a grant - a typical government research grant runs for 5 years. You then can apply for a competitive renewal. They evaluate what you said you would do and what you did, what you have to show for the money they gave you. If they deem it worthwhile to renew your funding, they will. Nobody is expecting Obama to fix everything that was broke. But just like a researcher, he came in with a proposal for what he would do and what results he expected to see from his agenda. 2012 is the evaluation time to see how well he performed based on what he proposed. He won't be judged based on the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for things he specifically did. And he won't be judged on the causes of the economic crisis. But he will be judged based on how well his proposals worked to fix the problem he said he would fix. Now, if he campaigned saying that this problem would be with us for a long time, and that he wouldn't be able to promise success in only 4 years, and he was elected on that basis, then sure, you could argue that he may still deserve time to let his policies play out. But that isn't what he promised. He promised halving the deficit by the end of his first term. He promised to lead the country to a recovery from the crisis. He promised a lot of things, and hasn't fulfilled as many. And that is the yardstick against which he will be measured.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> "Iron Lady isn't interested in meeting with Sarah Barracuda"
> 
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...n.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01538f05d98f970b


That's no scandal. Thatcher is fairly old and in declining health. Palin is not even an announced candidate. If Thatcher were to set the precedent of meeting with every potential conservative candidate who want to boost their credentials, that would not be very good. Remember when Obama was denied the Brandenburg Gate as the venue for his 2008 speech in Berlin? Important leaders and locations are not made available to any potential American presidential candidate.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> That's no scandal. Thatcher is fairly old and in declining health. Palin is not even an announced candidate. If Thatcher were to set the precedent of meeting with every potential conservative candidate who want to boost their credentials, that would not be very good. Remember when Obama was denied the Brandenburg Gate as the venue for his 2008 speech in Berlin? Important leaders and locations are not made available to any potential American presidential candidate.


Oh, you had to turn this into something against Obama, huh? I think reasons to deny the Brandenburg Gate weren't as explicit or damaging as this, from the quoted article:

"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."


----------



## Almaviva

> If you are abdicating any kind of attempt at improving our situation, then I say your party should get out of the way and at least let people in who think we can do better


It's not my party. Like I said, I'm unregistered, independent leaning left. As for "people who think they can do better," we had that from 2000 through 2008. Thanks, but no, thanks.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Oh, you had to turn this into something against Obama, huh? I think reasons to deny the Brandenburg Gate weren't as explicit or damaging as this, from the quoted article:
> 
> "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."


No, I was giving another example where special considerations were not given to someone during an election season, because obviously foreign countries most likely don't want to simply be used as election pawns. I don't think it was an insult to Obama that he wasn't granted access to speak at the Brandenburg Gate - but given the history of that gate, and the important things accomplished and said there, it was not appropriate for a Senator campaigning for President to give a speech there.

And your quote was taken from an unnamed source. The official statement made no such comments. My comment was pretty innocuous. Glad to see you read too much into it. The simple matter is that foreign leaders, dignitaries, and historical monuments are not made available to campaigning American politicians. Those countries will ultimately have to deal with whoever is elected, so they don't want to be seen as favoring any particular candidate, thus potentially alienating the winner, should they have chosen wrong. My reference to Obama was only because we had a similar scenario. He very much wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, and the German government said no. Palin wanted to meet with Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher said no. This is not some new behavior that has only touched on Sarah Palin. The precedent is already there.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> It's not my party. Like I said, I'm unregistered, independent leaning left. As for "people who think they can do better," we had that from 2000 through 2008. Thanks, but no, thanks.


Right. Because all Republicans are George W. Bush clones. So can I equally subjectively compare all Democrats to whatever Democrat is the easiest target? Maybe I'll just assume all Democrats are clones of Anthony Weiner, spending time having Twitter sex when they should be coming up with budgets?

You don't want another George W. Bush. I think we all get that. And I defy you to find the GOP candidate that even comes close to wanting to pick up his mantle. In comparison, Democrats, and those who voted with Democrats, gave us a second Jimmy Carter administration in Barack Obama, for all the good he has done. I think the best thing that can be said of the Carter administration is that it was only 4 years. I pray that is what we will be saying of Obama's administration.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> It's not my party. Like I said, I'm unregistered, independent leaning left. As for "people who think they can do better," we had that from 2000 through 2008. Thanks, but no, thanks.


For it not being your party, you sure carry water for it. I would be willing to bet that you, for all intents and purposes, are a Democrat. Might I ask whether you have ever cast a vote for anybody with an (R) after their name? I will be honest and say that I have never voted for a Democrat. I will say that, were I a Connecticut citizen, I probably would have voted for Lieberman in his last re-election campaign, as he was clearly the best choice. But otherwise, I don't vote for Democrats.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> For it not being your party, you sure carry water for it. I would be willing to bet that you, for all intents and purposes, are a Democrat. Might I ask whether you have ever cast a vote for anybody with an (R) after their name? I will be honest and say that I have never voted for a Democrat. I will say that, were I a Connecticut citizen, I probably would have voted for Lieberman in his last re-election campaign, as he was clearly the best choice. But otherwise, I don't vote for Democrats.


That's why you'd vote for Joe Lieberman.

"Good Riddance, Joe Lieberman"

http://www.slate.com/id/2281645/


----------



## science

That's funny. The only Democrat my father ever voted for was Jimmy Carter. 

I really don't think Bush was so atypical of Republicans, aside from his attempt to reform immigration.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And your quote was taken from an unnamed source. The official statement made no such comments. My comment was pretty innocuous.


 The "official" statement you're upholding was also from an unnamed source.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> For it not being your party, you sure carry water for it. I would be willing to bet that you, for all intents and purposes, are a Democrat. Might I ask whether you have ever cast a vote for anybody with an (R) after their name? I will be honest and say that I have never voted for a Democrat. I will say that, were I a Connecticut citizen, I probably would have voted for Lieberman in his last re-election campaign, as he was clearly the best choice. But otherwise, I don't vote for Democrats.


Yes, I have. To be honest, that I recall, my votes for Republicans were cast only in local and state elections. For federal office I believe that I've only voted Democrat.


----------



## Guest

Wow! New CNN/Opinion Research Poll out today says that 48% of those polled believed that we could be in a depression in the next 12 months. That is up 10 points from what it was in 2008.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Wow! New CNN/Opinion Research Poll out today says that 48% of those polled believed that we could be in a depression in the next 12 months. That is up 10 points from what it was in 2008.


I think we'll be permanently in a depression from now on.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I think we'll be permanently in a depression from now on.


Jeez, Alma. You need some Prozac. Reagan faced tough unemployment numbers for most of his first term, but he had the economy growing at 6 and 7%. Just because Obama can't get things turned around doesn't mean they can't be turned around. He just needs to stop acting so antagonistic to business and start allowing the economy to right itself.


----------



## Vaneyes

Ann Coulter is running. Just kidding.

Her comments on the GOP field...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/ann-coulter-surveys-gop-2012-field/?iref=obinsite


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Jeez, Alma. You need some Prozac. Reagan faced tough unemployment numbers for most of his first term, but he had the economy growing at 6 and 7%. Just because Obama can't get things turned around doesn't mean they can't be turned around. He just needs to stop acting so antagonistic to business and start allowing the economy to right itself.


Dr. Mike, wake up to the vast world out there. 
Our problems are not domestic any longer.
Things can't be turned around not because of American politics, but because of the declining availability of sources of energy and the increasing demand from rising middle classes in Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
I don't need Prozac. I'm not personally depressed. I'm doing very well, both personally and professionally. It's just that I'm being realistic about the new world order. We won't be the dominant country any longer, and our economy will suffer the consequences.


----------



## Almaviva

This, for Dr. Mike's despair:

"Obama leads all potential Republican challengers by double-digit margins, the poll showed. He is ahead of his closest Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, by 13 percentage points -- 51 percent to 38 percent."

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_poll


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> This, for Dr. Mike's despair:
> 
> "Obama leads all potential Republican challengers by double-digit margins, the poll showed. He is ahead of his closest Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, by 13 percentage points -- 51 percent to 38 percent."
> 
> Source:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_poll


That is true. But there are two other polls out in the last couple days that put Obama ahead of Romney by less than 10, in addition to the one that puts Romney ahead of Obama. Kind of ominous, especially considering that just one month after Obama's major coup of getting bin Laden, his approval rating has dropped by 6 points, and he is now, at best, polling at 50% approval, and many put him under 50%. And then we get more bad job news. Reagan was also battling off the effects of recession at this point in his presidency, and had high unemployment, but by the end of the second quarter of his third year, the recovery was underway, and the economy was growing at 6 and 7%. Obama doesn't have those kind of numbers. Add to that the fact that the major issue people are now associating with Democrats, other than a bad economy, is Anthony Weiner refusing to step down after sending pics of his ***** to any woman who followed him on Facebook and Twitter. Not where you want to be heading into election season.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> That's funny. The only Democrat my father ever voted for was Jimmy Carter.
> 
> I really don't think Bush was so atypical of Republicans, aside from his attempt to reform immigration.


Actually, I would disagree. Republicans led the fight against his ill-conceived immigration "reform." Republicans squashed his dreams of nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Republicans were some of the biggest opponents of his Drug Prescription plan, his No Child Left Behind. Now, at the time, Congressional Republicans might have been on board - but given how they lost in '06, I'd say they weren't that popular with many of their constituents. And given the recent losses of many squishy Republicans to Tea Party primary opponents, I'd say that the Republican voters tend to be more conservative than many previous elected GOP.

Bush received support from conservatives when he acted in a conservative manner. When he didn't, he lost support. But don't confuse voting for the guy with absolute solidarity. Many recognized that it would be better to have him than John Kerry, and so swallowed much of their disappointment with Bush and punched the ticket for him. Most Republicans understand that some of the most onerous things that have come out of this economic crisis - TARP and the initial auto company bailouts - came from Bush. Remember, when Bush sent the first bailouts to the auto companies, it wasn't Republicans who were happy with it. It was Democrats. In fact, Obama voiced his agreement with the decision. And then continued the policy with even more bailouts. Incidentally, Obama's contention that the auto companies have paid back their bailouts is false, unless you look at every word he says. Notice he stipulates that Chrysler has paid back, and then some, every dollar they received during his administration. He has to say it that way because, while they have managed to repay the bailouts they received since Obama was inaugurated, they are still short the total amount they received under both Bush AND Obama. And GM is even further behind than Chrysler. So no - we haven't made back the money paid to auto companies in the bailouts. It has been a net loss.

In contrast, how much opposition has Obama had from his party to any of his major policy decisions? Even the moderates who didn't like it toed the line and voted for the health care bill - although many suffered hugely, when it came out that the bill included kickbacks to them to buy their votes (i.e. "Cornhusker Kickback," "Louisiana Purchase").


----------



## Vaneyes

Will The Sarah's old e-mail be of any value?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10palin.html

The Sarah's 2012 prospects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...raid-of-a-fight/2011/03/04/AGUkgQNH_blog.html


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Will The Sarah's old e-mail be of any value?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10palin.html
> 
> The Sarah's 2012 prospects.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...raid-of-a-fight/2011/03/04/AGUkgQNH_blog.html


Too bad Democrats hadn't been as scrutinizing about their own. They might not be in their current predicament vis-a-vis Anthony Weiner.

I find it simply fascinating the fixation liberals have on Sarah Palin. She isn't leading any of the polls - in fact, last I saw, she was running even with Giuliani, and we know how well he did last time he tried. And yet Democrats are literally obsessed with her - stalking her bus tour and hanging on her every word. She gets railed about butchering the Paul Revere story, and yet Democrats turn a blind eye to the obvious discrepancies that were creeping into Weiner's explanations about the pic - I was hacked, no wait, it was a prank, no, this is just someone trying to distract us, it was all a prank, but I can't definitively say that the picture is not of me, I have hired a firm to investigate how this picture could have been sent out. Turns out he was getting his rocks off with some BlackJack dealer in Vegas while getting all turned on watching Jon Stewart's Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Don't Democrats realize they just might be playing into the hands of Palin? They look petty, she looks persecuted. Liberal reporters moving in next door to her in Wasilla, Alaska? David Letterman cracking jokes about baseball players having sex with her younger daughter. Crazy liberal bloggers making really horrific comments about her Down's Syndrome child.

Yet you ignore problems with your own people - how long did the mainstream media sit on the stories about John Edwards and his mistress? Or the Anthony Weiner story? Or all of Bill Clinton's problems?


----------



## Guest

Wow, now this is class!


----------



## Vaneyes

There goes Newt "Tiffany Man" Gingrich again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/gingrich-senior-aides-resign/2011/06/09/AGN77VNH_blog.html


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Too bad Democrats hadn't been as scrutinizing about their own. They might not be in their current predicament vis-a-vis Anthony Weiner.
> 
> ... , and yet Democrats turn a blind eye to the obvious discrepancies that were creeping into Weiner's explanations about the pic - I was hacked, no wait, it was a prank, no, this is just someone trying to distract us, it was all a prank, but I can't definitively say that the picture is not of me, I have hired a firm to investigate how this picture could have been sent out. Turns out he was getting his rocks off with some BlackJack dealer in Vegas while getting all turned on watching Jon Stewart's Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
> 
> ... Yet you ignore problems with your own people - how long did the mainstream media sit on the stories about John Edwards and his mistress? Or the Anthony Weiner story? Or all of Bill Clinton's problems?


Gee, you insist with the Weiner story. Like I said, your party has a glass roof on this topic. Please refer again to my long post in which I listed the much bigger number of Republicans who got in trouble with similar and worse behaviors. And see, we have more than one year to go until the next elections, and given the striking frequency of news of Republican politicians being caught with their metaphorical (and non-metaphorical) pants unzipped, rest assured that your party will inevitably give us another entertaining story like Weiner's (from the standpoint of the opposition) between now and the elections. Mark my words.

But anyway, let's not talk about the future, let's just consider the current field, shall we? You may have a point. I may be so disgusted with the despicable behavior of this Democrat (who is not running by the way) that I'll turn my presidential vote to paragons of virtue, family values, and marital faithfulness such as Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. Oh wait...

P.S. - This is one thing you can't blame Obama for. He's a faithful family man with a lovely wife and two lovely kids.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aside from the Gingrich news....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...iner-_n_873393.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008


----------



## samurai

And guys, I'm just waiting for the next "G Bomb" who goes by the name of Giuliani to implode as well, assuming he evn declares himself in this time around!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Gee, you insist with the Weiner story. Like I said, your party has a glass roof on this topic. Please refer again to my long post in which I listed the much bigger number of Republicans who got in trouble with similar and worse behaviors. And see, we have more than one year to go until the next elections, and given the striking frequency of news of Republican politicians being caught with their metaphorical (and non-metaphorical) pants unzipped, rest assured that your party will inevitably give us another entertaining story like Weiner's (from the standpoint of the opposition) between now and the elections. Mark my words.
> 
> But anyway, let's not talk about the future, let's just consider the current field, shall we? You may have a point. I may be so disgusted with the despicable behavior of this Democrat (who is not running by the way) that I'll turn my presidential vote to paragons of virtue, family values, and marital faithfulness such as Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. Oh wait...
> 
> P.S. - This is one thing you can't blame Obama for. He's a faithful family man with a lovely wife and two lovely kids.


I do admire that about Obama. I give credit where credit is due, and he seems to be a good family man with a beautiful family. I'm glad he hasn't gone down the road of so many politicians and screwed up the best thing a man can have in this world.

As you must have noticed, the two people in the GOP that seem to poll the highest are Romney and Palin - both family people. Gingrich's candidacy was practically dead out of the starting gate. As if he hadn't given conservatives enough reasons to doubt him with his crazy private life, then he makes those idiotic statements a couple of weeks back. And today his senior staff all fled the sinking ship. As for Giuliani - we'll always love him for his leadership post-9/11, and he did great as mayor of NYC. But he just isn't destined for the national ticket.

But you guys aren't learning the lesson. The last GOP member who got caught - Chris Lee - was gone before the day was out. And the story ended. This story keeps going. And as one commentator said, come next year, the last thing Democrats want are a bunch of commercials out there linking Democrats and Weiner. Dump the dead weight, get a safe Congressman in there who will be easier to run in 2012.

But the bottom line is that the economy is the only question that matters next year, and all signs indicate it will still be bad.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> But you guys aren't learning the lesson. The last GOP member who got caught - Chris Lee - was gone before the day was out. And the story ended. This story keeps going. And as one commentator said, come next year, the last thing Democrats want are a bunch of commercials out there linking Democrats and Weiner. Dump the dead weight, get a safe Congressman in there who will be easier to run in 2012.
> 
> But the bottom line is that the economy is the only question that matters next year, and all signs indicate it will still be bad.


What's David "Baby Man" Vitter still doing in office? Family man. Beautiful wife, three daughters, and a son.

http://lynnrockets.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/david-vitter-is-a-diaper-wearing-baby-man/


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> What's David "Baby Man" Vitter still doing in office? Family man. Beautiful wife, three daughters, and a son.
> 
> http://lynnrockets.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/david-vitter-is-a-diaper-wearing-baby-man/


And do you remember what happened in the election immediately after that? In 2008? What party won the White House? Democrats won the White House, gained a net of 8 Senate seats and 21 House seats. So, are you happy with losing the White House, 8 Senate seats, and 21 House seats?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And do you remember what happened in the election immediately after that? In 2008? What party won the White House? Democrats won the White House, gained a net of 8 Senate seats and 21 House seats. So, are you happy with losing the White House, 8 Senate seats, and 21 House seats?


Dr. Mike, Arnold the Terminator is Republican and was caught just a few days before Weiner.
Like I said, your party never fails to produce these cases, so, I'm counting on two or three more Republican scandals until the election, which will be plenty to cancel any possible electoral effects of the Weiner scandal. So, beware, you guys may be the ones losing those seats.


----------



## regressivetransphobe




----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> P.S. - This is one thing you can't blame Obama for. He's a faithful family man with a lovely wife and two lovely kids.


So far, and if you pray, pray for him. If he screws up it'll confirm so many stereotypes, it would set our civil rights back to the 1970s.

That has been my biggest fear all along - can you imagine the GOP / Tea Party glee if Obama philanders? Especially if the other woman is not black.

But men in power attract willing women, and men, all men, have feet of clay.

I'd even say this: if he gets to January 2013 without an affair, accomplishing nothing else for the remainder of his term, he will have been a success in my book.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I'd even say this: if he gets to January 2013 without an affair, accomplishing nothing else for the remainder of his term, he will have been a success in my book.


You'd better push ahead your deadline. His term will last until 2016.


----------



## Guest

Help me out, guys. I'm thinking of starting another party for this next election season, but I can't settle on a name. In the spirit of Jimmy McMillan, I'm thinking of calling it either the "Recovery is Too Damn Slow" Party or the "Unemployment is Too Damn High" Party. Which do you think works best?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> So far, and if you pray, pray for him. If he screws up it'll confirm so many stereotypes, it would set our civil rights back to the 1970s.
> 
> That has been my biggest fear all along - can you imagine the GOP / Tea Party glee if Obama philanders? Especially if the other woman is not black.
> 
> But men in power attract willing women, and men, all men, have feet of clay.
> 
> I'd even say this: if he gets to January 2013 without an affair, accomplishing nothing else for the remainder of his term, he will have been a success in my book.


Good to see you are still stereotyping the GOP/Tea Party as racist. The last holdout of the liberals - when all else fails, make it about race.

No, should Obama be caught in some sexual scandal, the bigger problem would be the message it sends to young African-American men. One thing I really liked about Obama early on was when he addressed head on the plight of young African-Americans, and the uphill battle they face in this day and age, and that the issue of single-parent families (typically only the mother) is one of the contributing factors. Fathers need to stick around and help raise their children - it gives those kids a much better chance in life. And that he represents a positive role model in that sense is a great thing. I don't take any joy in men cheating on their wives. I think it is a horrible thing, and I think we should hold our leaders to a higher honorable standard.

My issue with Weiner is this - had he been up front about it in the first place, yes, it would have still hurt him, but he would have at least maintained a shred of dignity in owning up. But instead he lied, he attacked, he tried to destroy the reputation of others, all in an attempt to save himself. That is why I think he should be gone. Let's be honest - it doesn't matter who is in that seat, they will probably vote the same as Weiner (unless the seat gets redistricted, but come on, it is still New York). He hasn't taken responsibility. He merely came out and stated the obvious when there was no longer any possible way he could lie himself out of the situation. It's like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, finally asking for a draw once his arms and legs are gone. And any joy I take in any of this is Democrats willing to allow such a dishonorable person to stay in their midst going into what is shaping up to be an uphill political season for them. They just lost the House in a near-historic landslide. They lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - all this only 4 short years after reclaiming both. Their party leader is barely eeking out 50% approval, and his numbers are on the decline. Democrats haven't passed a budget in the last 2 years. They still won't pass one in the Senate, despite the fact that they are legally obligated to do so. They have ethics charges potentially against Weiner. Rangel just got blasted by the ethics committee for tax cheating (remember, the man was chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, THE committee that determines tax law). I could also mention Maxine Waters. And then consider that Democrats in the Senate have to defend 23 seats in 2012, compared to only 10 for Republicans. Several of the Democratic seats are in states that recently seem to have shifted back towards the GOP, and most of the GOP seats are in pretty safe states. The last time Democrats faced this lopsided of a task in defending seats was in 1980 (do we need any more ominous parallels to the 1980 election?) - and Democrats lost 12 seats in that election. With a majority of 53, Republicans only need to pick up a net of 4 seats to take over the Senate. That may prove to be an even bigger danger for Democrats than losing the presidency.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Wow, now this is class!


Right. If the union protesters had any class, they'd do like Gov. Walker and cut education funding and special needs programs for the Special Olympians.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Right. If the union protesters had any class, they'd do like Gov. Walker and cut education funding and special needs programs for the Special Olympians.
> 
> -Vaz


I'm sorry - I thought I was the only one around here who spouted talking points. Tell me, are you quoting Ed Schultz, or is there some other MSNBC talking head you are citing? Rachel Maddow? I'd say liberal talk radio, but I'm not sure taht exists anymore.


----------



## Vaneyes

Republicans want Republicans to help Obama...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233031734925.htm

No thanks to Perry's "Day of Prayer"

http://iowaindependent.com/57210/branstad-received-day-of-prayer-from-rick-perry-but-declined-to-take-part


----------



## Vazgen

Doc, I didn't realize this thread was exclusively about ... (content removed by moderator) 
A thousand pardons.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Doc, I didn't realize this thread was exclusively about [content removed by moderator]
> 
> A thousand pardons.
> 
> -Vaz


No, no, no. You misunderstand me completely. My intentions in this thread are to tweak liberals who have Obama love fetishes and seem to overlook completely that he seems to be making our economy worse. I will be the first to admit that I am not an economist - but it seems that I am in good company with the president. And my other intention is to express my schadenfreude at the misfortunes of the Democratic party in general as their political comeback, which James Carville predicted would last 40 years, seems to be imploding in less than 10.

I rather enjoy "hearing" you defend this administration, curiously, by harking back to the days of FDR and Reagan, rather than touting the current achievements (if they may at all be found) of this administration and their legislative fellow travelers. Were you to be running FDR again this election, you might just win. Alas, you must satisfy yourselves with Obama. Pray tell, do the legs still tingle over there on your side of the aisle as he talks about the "recovery" that wasn't?


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Doc, I didn't realize this thread was exclusively about your fascination with scandal politics and your tenuous grasp of economics. I also didn't realize that you posted the link to the video of the union protesters merely to generate anti-union hatred and not to stimulate discussion about Wisconsin politics in general.
> 
> A thousand pardons.
> 
> -Vaz


And I will concede the point that, no, I am not an economist. I am a scientist by training, and have far more in depth knowledge of the workings of immune systems than monetary and fiscal policy. However, like so many Americans (especially those of the voting persuasion), I have a firm grasp of results. I know that 9.1% unemployment is not what we were promised when we were sold that bill of goods quaintly referred to as the Stimulus bill. I know that less than 3% growth does not equate to a recovery. I know that 54,000 new jobs last month won't get the job done. I know that gas prices near $4/gallon won't help lower costs. I know that unemployment above 9% for the last 23 of 25 months is not good. I know that average time unemployed being up around 40 months - the longest it has ever been - is a dismal sign for the economy, especially considering that your chances of getting a new job are inversely proportional to the length of time you have been out of work. I know that the President is lying to us about how much of the auto bailout money has been paid back. And I know that, despite how bad things are, Democrats have decided to sit on their hands last year and this year concerning passing a budget, and instead choose to attack Republicans when they actually do put one out. You may think that the Ryan budget plan is a disaster, but I think that Democrats are cowardly for not putting their own proposal forward.

And I know that it took the economy over a decade to recover after FDR's efforts during the Great Depression. So I will ask you, with all your infinite economic wisdom, whether you deny that? And if you don't deny that, should we expect something similar from Democrats this time around? Should we not expect Obama's recovery for at least another 7 years? Especially considering that, since the Great Depression, the average recovery, following the end of a recession, took only 6 months?


----------



## Vazgen

Has anyone here expressed anything resembling an _Obama love fetish_, Doc? In my first post on this thread, I gave what I considered a fair assessment of Obama's performance. Even considering my expectations weren't high to begin with, I admitted disappointment.

However, it seems anyone on "our side of the aisle" is stuck in a quandary: if he approves of Obama's performance and policies, you accuse him of having an _Obama love fetish_. However, if he expresses disappointment, then you accuse him of admitting defeat before the superiority of the party of Reagan and Bush.

And the irony still seems to escape you that this current recession, like the Depression you scoff at FDR for having labored to fix, is the direct result of the workings of an unregulated free market. Yet the blame for the lag in recovery, according to you, rests not in our misguided confidence in a system that doesn't operate to meet human needs, but rather squarely at the feet of the President unlucky enough to hold office during the crisis. If the pitfalls of basing our economy on consumer spending and stock speculation isn't obvious to all of us by this point, perhaps we deserve to be in this mess after all.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Has anyone here expressed anything resembling an _Obama love fetish_, Doc? In my first post on this thread, I gave what I considered a fair assessment of Obama's performance. Even considering my expectations weren't high to begin with, I admitted disappointment.
> 
> However, it seems anyone on "our side of the aisle" is stuck in a quandary: if he approves of Obama's performance and policies, you accuse him of having an _Obama love fetish_. However, if he expresses disappointment, then you accuse him of admitting defeat before the superiority of the party of Reagan and Bush.
> 
> And the irony still seems to escape you that this current recession, like the Depression you scoff at FDR for having labored to fix, is the direct result of the workings of an unregulated free market. Yet the blame for the lag in recovery, according to you, rests not in our misguided confidence in a system that doesn't operate to meet human needs, but rather squarely at the feet of the President unlucky enough to hold office during the crisis. If the pitfalls of basing our economy on consumer spending and stock speculation isn't obvious to all of us by this point, perhaps we deserve to be in this mess after all.
> 
> -Vaz


I'm sorry, but how exactly can you consider ours an unregulated free market? Explain that one to me. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Fed in existence during the Depression? If this, to you, is an unregulated free market, then I'd hate to see our situation in one that was truly "regulated."

And Obama was merely "unlucky enough to hold office during the crisis?" Excuse me? I believe he actively campaigned for the position, and all during the campaign, he told us about how this was the worst economic crisis we had faced since the Great Depression. I may not have the economic acumen you do, but you seem to be [content removed by moderator].


----------



## emiellucifuge

In my quest to determine who I will be voting for next year I have come across a few things.

1. I am being told by an econometrist that Obama's hands on policy regarding the financial crisis may have saved the US from a depression. He believes a tea-party style president would bring the economy into a recession, whereas a more moderate republican candidate isnt really so different from Obama when it comes to the economy - the main difference being on which income-demographic the burden will be laid.

2. DrMike: You continue to complain about how Obama's policy of 'throwing money at things' is bringing us into great debt and that we cannot afford entitlements. According to you a republican would bring back spending, and allow the market to deal with things and allow people to determine how their own money is spent. This graph cleary shows that republican presidents are responsible for the greatest deal of our deficit:







My question to you is: If republicans dont spend moeny on entitlement programs and social security, then where did all that money go? And why should we trust a republican to bring spending back to sustainable levels, while they have shown in the past that they can only spend?

I am seriously considering both sides here. Mitt Romney seemed an attrative candidate to me, however I am dissapointed with his opportunistic change-of-mind when it comes to AGW/environment and Health care. If the guy in point 1 (above) is right (and theres no way ill vote for the TP), then the democrats take my fancy a little more when it comes to social issues, gay rights, the environment, foreign policy and a bunch of other things.


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> In my quest to determine who I will be voting for next year I have come across a few things.
> 
> 1. I am being told by an econometrist that Obama's hands on policy regarding the financial crisis may have saved the US from a depression. He believes a tea-party style president would bring the economy into a recession, whereas a more moderate republican candidate isnt really so different from Obama when it comes to the economy - the main difference being on which income-demographic the burden will be laid.


Exactly, Emiel.

@ Dr. Mike: see, let's suppose there was no stimulus, resulting in unemployment of 14%. You'd be here screaming: "Obama is incompetent, he sits there doing nothing while the economy crashes around him." Well, he implemented the stimulus, the unemployment rate is 9% instead of 8% as initially estimated, you scream "He didn't fulfill his promise." Then if the economy had reacted better than expected and we had unemployment of 6%, you'd say "It's because Bush started the first few measures for economic recovery and the crash of the economy during the Republicans' watch wasn't as bad as liberals say." 
There will never be any result that will satisfy you, since what you object to is to the Democratic party and its policies as a whole, therefore any sitting president who is a Democrat will be in the wrong in your eyes regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

This is a symptom of our political divide. One side will never see any good on the other side. Example, a Republican governor implements a health insurance exchange with a mandate to participate, it's all good. A Democratic president proposes the same, it's communism.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Exactly, Emiel.
> 
> @ Dr. Mike: see, let's suppose there was no stimulus, resulting in unemployment of 14%. You'd be here screaming: "Obama is incompetent, he sits there doing nothing while the economy crashes around him." Well, he implemented the stimulus, the unemployment rate is 9% instead of 8% as initially estimated, you scream "He didn't fulfill his promise." Then if the economy had reacted better than expected and we had unemployment of 6%, you'd say "It's because Bush started the first few measures for economic recovery and the crash of the economy during the Republicans' watch wasn't as bad as liberals say."
> There will never be any result that will satisfy you, since what you object to is to the Democratic party and its policies as a whole, therefore any sitting president who is a Democrat will be in the wrong in your eyes regardless of what he does or doesn't do.
> 
> This is a symptom of our political divide. One side will never see any good on the other side. Example, a Republican governor implements a health insurance exchange with a mandate to participate, it's all good. A Democratic president proposes the same, it's communism.


Alma - you have raised so many straw men in your post that it is difficult to decide which to address first.

What information do you have that unemployment would have been 14% had Obama not done what he did? That was not the estimate Obama's team of advisors gave us for what would happen were the Stimulus not to have been passed.

Were unemployment to have been down at 6% and the economy were growing, I would say that it was in spite of the spending measures of both Bush and Obama. History has shown us that, since the Great Depression, it has taken, on average, 6 months for the economy to recover after a recession has ended. The recession, by its technical definition, is long since over. But there has been no recovery. Had there been one, I would not attribute it to Bush. I think the moves he made did the economy no favors. I think Obama was betting on the averages, was hoping that the economy would recover quickly, just like it had done for most of the last century, and he could use the fear to ram through big programs that Dems wanted, and when the economy naturally righted itself, he could then take the credit and use it as justification for his big government programs. Remember Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" comment? Only problem is, the recovery has not happened, and now it looks like many of the policies he enacted might just be partly behind why we can't seem to get the recovery underway.

You will notice that Romney is facing a lot of heat over his health insurance plan in Massachusetts, and that, along with his religion, is probably a significant factor behind his failure in 2008. He may be leading the current pack in the nomination, but notice that, while he may be winning with a plurality in the polls, anywhere from 70-80% polled are picking someone other than him.

@emiellucifuge
If you will go back to the early days of the Tea Party movement, you will notice that their disdain was leveled at Republicans and Democrats alike. They were critical in primary defeats of many long-serving Republicans that they saw as part of the problem in Washington. They did recognize that Republicans were spending on entitlement programs. We know that Bush added a huge entitlement program in the Prescription Drug Plan. Reagan's spending is a lot easier to define - he made vast cuts in non-defense spending, but he did ramp up defense spending. And for that, we don't apologize, as defense is a constitutionally mandated function of government, whereas social security and health insurance are not. And it did help bring about the collapse of communism and the iron curtain.

Let's extend your graph out a bit, because the numbers are available beyond the first 6 years of Bush's administration. His deficits were:

2001 - $153 billion surplus
2002 - $186 billion deficit
2003 - $430 billion deficit
2004 - $463 billion deficit
2005 - $348 billion deficit
2006 - $260 billion deficit
2007 - $165 billion deficit
2008 - $455 billion deficit
2009 - $1,400 billion deficit
2010 - $1,350 billion deficit
2011 - $921 billion deficit (projected)
2012 - $590 billion deficit (projected)
2013 - $538 billion deficit (projected)
2014 - $558 billion deficit (projected)
2015 - $558 billion deficit (projected)
2016 - $620 billion deficit (projected)
2017 - $626 billion deficit (projected)
2018 - $622 billion deficit (projected)
2019 - $722 billion deficit (projected)

The projected numbers were from an August 2009 CBO report.

So let's be fair hear and throw out the 2001 budget surplus for Bush, because that really was the product of Clinton. And by that same measure, we will add the 2009 deficit to Bush. I think I am being fair there. That give total deficits for Bush of $3.71 trillion, which averages to $463 billion/year over 8 years.

For Obama, we will add 2010, and projected deficits through 2013, which all would have been under his first term. We'll assume for now he only gets the one term. By my calculations, that comes to $3.4 trillion, which averages to $850 billion/year over 4 years. That is nearly twice the average for Bush. And the total is only about $300 billion less in 4 years than what Bush amassed in 8.

Now, if we go ahead and assume a 2nd term for Obama, using the numbers I listed above and going through 2017, the total is $5.76 trillion. That averages to $720 billion/year over 8 years.

But the really interesting thing is if you exclude 2009 from the equation, then the total deficit under Bush was $2.3 trillion, or an average of $330 billion/year over 8 years. Less than half of what Obama is projected to average, whether you give him 4 or 8 years.

So yes, both parties spend without concern. But let me ask you this - if the surplus generated under Clinton was such a wonderful thing, then how can the record level deficits under Obama be anything other than bad? And keep in mind, also, that increased spending under Reagan and Bush 43 (at least until 2007) were accompanied by significant growth in the economy. Not so with Obama. The economy is floundering.


----------



## Vaneyes

2012 contests...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56648.html

Landslide victory in the making for US Rep. Weiner?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56681.html


----------



## emiellucifuge

Okay thats interesting, *but* it also ties back to point 1 of my previous post.

As you said, increased spending is accompanied by significant economic growth. In this case it appears to have halted further economic recession. It seems Obama had no choice but to provide stimulus, given the economy inherited, and therefore the increase in deficit was inevitable and in some ways necessary.


----------



## Almaviva

> Alma - you have raised so many straw men in your post that it is difficult to decide which to address first.


They were not straw men, they were hypotheticals. I didn't say that you said these things to then distort your position and attack an easier target (the definition of a straw man). I said how *I* think you would have reacted if the above hypotheticals had happened. You tried to counter my position with data about what in fact happened, etc, missing the point of the hypothetical: "let's suppose..." etc. I know that my scenarios are not reality, thus the "let's suppose." But I wouldn't be surprised if you reacted exactly like I said, based on past observations (the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior). I remember when you criticized Obama for donating just some 200K for charity, and I said, oh wow, for you the man can do no good, he donates to charity and you still manage to criticize him. My point is not to attack you personally, thus my assessment that this is a symptom of a larger divide. I've seen that conservatives will rarely acknowledge something that a liberal person does as valid. They'll always manage to find fault. And vice-versa.

Personally, although mostly liberal, I'm a bit conservative in some issues - such as defense, foreign policy, and part of the immigration debate (for one thing, I'm totally against illegal immigration, unlike many liberals). But I think my kind is relatively rare. Nowadays we've seen lots of radicalization, with each side of the political spectrum totally blind and deaf to the other side. That's all that I was trying to say.


----------



## emiellucifuge

This is all fascinating. Once weve said all we can about the economy, I hope that we can move the debate to social issues such as immigration among others...


----------



## Aksel

emiellucifuge said:


> This is all fascinating. Once weve said all we can about the economy, I hope that we can move the debate to social issues such as immigration among others...


Yeah. I think we've established by now that we disagree with DrMike and he disagrees with us. Let's move on to disagree on more entertaining issues!


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> This is all fascinating. Once weve said all we can about the economy, I hope that we can move the debate to social issues such as immigration among others...


Well, I think economic issues are going to define this next election, but that is fine.

How about we discuss the program from Holder's Justice Department that allowed guns to cross the border into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartels. It was supposed to be some kind of sting operation, but fell through. It was brought to light when a gun fight a short while back ended up with some American law enforcement officials killed by some of those guns that were allowed across. The Obama administration is stonewalling Congressman Issa's investigation into the matter.

Or we could talk about how it is that the Department of Education has the authority to issue search warrants.

Honestly, the abortion issue gets tiring to discuss. I think that minds are even more set there than with regards to economic issues. The Republican will say they are pro-life, the Democrat will say they are pro-choice. They'll argue the virtue of their cause and the inherent moral wrong of the other. Demagoguing will abound.

Ditto with gay marriage. There may be some arguments about federal judges, and whether or not they should be deciding such issues. Honestly, though, the bigger issue with federal judges as of late has been less about social issues (although those have been prominent) and more about the authority of the federal government to mandate the purchase of medical insurance. I hope the issue gets to the Supreme Court before the 2012 election. That will be a good debate to inject into the election - where are we willing to draw the line on federal power over us. If we are willing to allow the government to mandate the purchase of a commodity (in this case, health insurance), what else can they mandate? Can they mandate our food consumption? After all, poor diet leads to poor health leads to higher medical expenses, and that is really at the heart of why they want to mandate medical insurance. Just how much control over our every action should we surrender to the government?


----------



## Almaviva

> If we are willing to allow the government to mandate the purchase of a commodity (in this case, health insurance), what else can they mandate? Can they mandate our food consumption? After all, poor diet leads to poor health leads to higher medical expenses, and that is really at the heart of why they want to mandate medical insurance. Just how much control over our every action should we surrender to the government?


Warning, folks: the above is a textbook example of a fallacy called slippery slope.
Hold on to your wives and daughters and your cherished possessions. The Government is taking over!!! The sky is falling!!!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Warning, folks: the above is a textbook example of a fallacy called slippery slope.
> Hold on to your wives and daughters and your cherished possessions. The Government is taking over!!! The sky is falling!!!


Well, Alma, why don't you cite for me another example in the history of this country where the government was allowed to force an individual to purchase something for no other reason than that they are a citizen? Because the government's lawyers sure couldn't when questioned by federal judges in court this week.

And given the types of things that Bloomberg is doing in NYC, I don't think it is such a leap to consider the government taking a huge interest in what we do and don't eat. You can more easily obtain an abortion in NYC than a french fry cooked with trans fats.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Well, Alma, why don't you cite for me another example in the history of this country where the government was allowed to force an individual to purchase something for no other reason than that they are a citizen? Because the government's lawyers sure couldn't when questioned by federal judges in court this week.
> 
> And given the types of things that Bloomberg is doing in NYC, I don't think it is such a leap to consider the government taking a huge interest in what we do and don't eat. You can more easily obtain an abortion in NYC than a french fry cooked with trans fats.


Dr.Mike, we're trying to make health care more affordable and more accessible to our fellow citizens. You guys are going nuts with the ideological, constitutional thing.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr.Mike, we're trying to make health care more affordable and more accessible to our fellow citizens. You guys are going nuts with the ideological, constitutional thing.


So totalitarianism is okay, so long as the ends are noble? A benevolent dictatorship that can mandate what we do and don't purchase? The only limit to federal power is how much "good" it does?

I hate to tell you, but liberty does have some costs. Just as freedom of speech requires that we also allow some unsavory speech, economic liberty means that some people are going to fail.

But the misconception that you spread is that the only way to help those who can't afford it is to force all people to buy it. Tell me, is the ideal way to end hunger to force everybody to buy food? Or just work on ways to get it to those who need it?

How willing were liberals to accept a similar argument when it came to warrantless wiretaps? They were being conducted to protect us from terrorists. Surely that is a noble venture.

But the basic point is this - either the constitution means something, or it doesn't. If you don't like that the constitution doesn't allow the government to mandate purchasing insurance, then work to amend the constitution. But you can't just ignore it because it doesn't suit your ideological goals. If there is an aspect of a law that I don't like, I am not free to disregard that aspect because it is not in line with my ideology. I can try to change the law, but so long as it is the law, I am required to abide by it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It draws out explicitly what the government can and cannot do. And it was meant to devise a form of limited government. The Bill of Rights was added very quickly to ensure that the government did not assume that it could also add more powers to itself. The government was meant to function within the bounds of the Constitution. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your social goals, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no constitutional authority granted the federal government to force its citizens to purchase something by virtue of their citizenship. And until now there has been no precedent for such a law. Simply because I am a citizen, I am mandated to buy medical insurance. I can be penalized under force of law if I do not. It now becomes a criminal act to not buy something. Don't compare it to automobile insurance, because people can not have auto insurance and be entirely compliant with the law if they choose to not drive.

I understand the logical reasoning behind the mandate, but I am simply telling you it is unconstitutional. If you believe it is constitutional, then state what reasoning you have for that belief. If you don't believe it is constitutional, then regardless of how right you think it is, you cannot do it. If you allow the constitution to be subverted for this reason, then that sets precedent for other unconstitutional measures.


----------



## Vaneyes

GOP's 'tween a rock and a hard place--sabotage the economy, or help Obama? Maybe their 2010 success wasn't?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/165721-reeling-from-ryan-budget-gop-wary-of-debt-deal-vote


----------



## Almaviva

> If you don't like that the constitution doesn't allow the government to mandate purchasing insurance, then work to amend the constitution.


You took it out of my tongue. I was about to say so. I feel so strongly about the need to do this, that if the Supreme Court calls it unconstitutional (they haven't yet), then the next step would be to work on an amendment to make it constitutional. But we do need to extend medical care to all citizens.
See, my life and my career and my ideals and my vocation are geared towards helping sick people get healthy, and helping healthy people avoid sickness. I may be biased, but this is my life goal. I'll fight for this for as long as I live. And I'll vote for any president who wants to advance us in this direction, and against any who will stop us from getting there.

P.S. - Check your PMs


----------



## Vaneyes

T-Paw's creating early buzz.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/165801-pawlenty-benefits-from-turbulence-in-gop-field


----------



## samurai

DrMike said:


> Well, Alma, why don't you cite for me another example in the history of this country where the government was allowed to force an individual to purchase something for no other reason than that they are a citizen? Because the government's lawyers sure couldn't when questioned by federal judges in court this week.
> 
> And given the types of things that Bloomberg is doing in NYC, I don't think it is such a leap to consider the government taking a huge interest in what we do and don't eat. You can more easily obtain an abortion in NYC than a french fry cooked with trans fats.


DrMike, with all due respect I'll submit to you that when the government first instituted programs such as Social Security and Medicare etc. the opposition--mostly Republicans and southern "blue-dog" Democrats--wanted to strangle them in their infancies before they even got out of the starting gate. There were dire predictions of "socialized medicine" and a G-man under everyone's bed with Big Brother just around the corner if these types of programs were enacted. Well--as we all know--they were, and I believe they have served to help a lot of people--in particular the elderly--who had always "fallen between the cracks" economically prior to this. BTW, I fully agree with you about Emperor Bloomberg and his autocratic and imperious ways {I'm just glad I never voted for him!} and actions. 
At the risk of mixing metaphors here, I would just say that America--as does every other decent and well-meaning society--has to maintain a safety net for those of us who--for various reasons beyond our control--have fallen behind the eight ball. I do not believe that we can afford--especially morally--to "throw the baby out with the bath water". We are too good a nation and a people for that!


----------



## Almaviva

> I would just say that America--as does every other decent and well-meaning society--has to maintain a safety net for those of us who--for various reasons beyond our control--have fallen behindthe eight ball. I do not believe that we can afford--especially morally--to "throw the baby out with the bath water". We are too good a nation and a people for that!


Exactly! I'm appalled at the fact that Dr. Mike - fundamentally a good person - can't see this!!!


----------



## Guest

Question regarding the Sarah Palin email release today. How many of you who are eager to find things to discredit Palin in her emails had their minds changed about climate change when the East Anglia emails were released? Did you believe those emails were evidence of wrongdoing among climate change scientists, or did you dismiss them as being taken out of context? And will Sarah Palin's emails be judged by the same standards that you judged those emails? And how do you think President Obama would look were his emails to be released? Including private email accounts, in case she discussed official stuff. And how many of us would like our emails scrutinized by our employers? Would they take some emails wrong because maybe we are taken out of context, or maybe we are talking with someone we are quite familiar with, and might speak differently?

I'm just asking, because I switched (who knows why) to MSNBC, and on Hardball, and now The Last Word, that seems to be all they can talk about. That and the NYT and other newspapers are trying to enlist people to help them read through the thousands of emails. Hmm, did they scrutinize Obama this much when he was a candidate?


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> DrMike, with all due respect I'll submit to you that when the government first instituted programs such as Social Security and Medicare etc. the opposition--mostly Republicans and southern "blue-dog" Democrats--wanted to strangle them in their infancy before they even got out of the starting gate. There were dire predictions of "socialized medicine" and a G-man under everyone's bed with Big Brother just around the corner if these types of programs were enacted. Well--as we all know--they were, and I believe they have served to help a lot of people--in particular the elderly--who had always "fallen between the cracks" economically prior to this. BTW, I fully agree with you about Emperor Bloomberg and his autocratic and imperious ways {I'm just glad I never voted for him!} and actions.
> At the risk of mixing metaphors here, I would just say that America--as does every other decent and well-meaning society--has to maintain a safety net for those of us who--for various reasons beyond our control--have fallen behind the eight ball. I do not believe that we can afford--especially morally--to "throw the baby out with the bath water". We are too good a nation and a people for that!





Almaviva said:


> Exactly! I'm appalled at the fact that Dr. Mike - fundamentally a good person - can't see this!!!


Because I fear more the power that a government has, which continually adds more power with seemingly no end in sight. Every crisis, we seem to surrender more control to the government. I want to help others as well, and I think there are ways that we can do it without turning our country into a nanny state. These programs aren't about helping the helpless - they are about increasing government control over all of us. The ultimate objective of Obama's health care plan, had he not had the opposition, was single payer. Making everybody controlled by a government system. That is not the same as helping the poor. The problem with these programs is not so much that they seek to help the poor, so much as they seek to yoke everybody with a new government program in the name of helping the poor. Let me ask you - why does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet need Social Security? Or Medicare? Such people should be able to meet their health care costs, and their retirement needs. Yet the Social Security program will pay them just as much as the poor person. Tell me - how does that help the poor? Why is every liberal solution for helping the poor just another program that ensnares all of us?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Question regarding the Sarah Palin email release today. How many of you who are eager to find things to discredit Palin in her emails had their minds changed about climate change when the East Anglia emails were released? Did you believe those emails were evidence of wrongdoing among climate change scientists, or did you dismiss them as being taken out of context? And will Sarah Palin's emails be judged by the same standards that you judged those emails? And how do you think President Obama would look were his emails to be released? Including private email accounts, in case she discussed official stuff. And how many of us would like our emails scrutinized by our employers? Would they take some emails wrong because maybe we are taken out of context, or maybe we are talking with someone we are quite familiar with, and might speak differently?
> 
> I'm just asking, because I switched (who knows why) to MSNBC, and on Hardball, and now The Last Word, that seems to be all they can talk about. That and the NYT and other newspapers are trying to enlist people to help them read through the thousands of emails. Hmm, did they scrutinize Obama this much when he was a candidate?


Hm... yeah, they did scrutinize Obama this much; just, they couldn't find anything wrong in his past except for "guilty by association" and ridiculous claims that he wasn't born here.

About Sarah Barracuda Palin, I couldn't care less. She is a non-entity. She's just a dumb woman who gets supported by dumber people. She has a 64% rejection rate and is not a candidate, only wants to sell books. Whether her emails show her to be the despicable idiotic woman that I believe she is or not, won't make any difference whatsoever.

Oh, yes, TV shows and radio shows will talk about her. It boosts their ratings, that's all, because unfortunately there are lots of dumb people out there who like to hear about this dumb woman.

Now, can we go back to debating real candidates with real qualifications and real ideas instead of some ignorant nutjob?


----------



## science

Also, I don't believe the East Anglia emails were really all that scandalous. They were extensively quotemined, but the actual science seems to have emerged unscathed.

EDIT: Sarah Palin may well be a real candidate. I can imagine her getting a fair share of the GOP primary votes. When Huckabee dropped out, that helped her a lot. Huckabee did pretty well in 2008 and I'd guess people who voted for him are likely to vote for Palin. 

Right now the question is Palin v. Bachmann v. Santorum. If they all stay in it for some time, they are going to split the base between them, and then I'd guess a moderate like Romney will probably win. But if they can sort themselves out, Palin will probably be the winner of the three, and she could put up a heck of a fight.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Also, I don't believe the East Anglia emails were really all that scandalous. They were extensively quotemined, but the actual science seems to have emerged unscathed.
> 
> EDIT: Sarah Palin may well be a real candidate. I can imagine her getting a fair share of the GOP primary votes. When Huckabee dropped out, that helped her a lot. Huckabee did pretty well in 2008 and I'd guess people who voted for him are likely to vote for Palin.
> 
> Right now the question is Palin v. Bachmann v. Santorum. If they all stay in it for some time, they are going to split the base between them, and then I'd guess a moderate like Romney will probably win. But if they can sort themselves out, Palin will probably be the winner of the three, and she could put up a heck of a fight.


A heck of a fight? How does one win an election if 64% of voters (including many in her own party) say they would never vote for her no matter what?


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Because I fear more the power that a government has, which continually adds more power with seemingly no end in sight. Every crisis, we seem to surrender more control to the government. I want to help others as well, and I think there are ways that we can do it without turning our country into a nanny state. These programs aren't about helping the helpless - they are about increasing government control over all of us. The ultimate objective of Obama's health care plan, had he not had the opposition, was single payer. Making everybody controlled by a government system. That is not the same as helping the poor. The problem with these programs is not so much that they seek to help the poor, so much as they seek to yoke everybody with a new government program in the name of helping the poor. Let me ask you - why does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet need Social Security? Or Medicare? Such people should be able to meet their health care costs, and their retirement needs. Yet the Social Security program will pay them just as much as the poor person. Tell me - how does that help the poor? Why is every liberal solution for helping the poor just another program that ensnares all of us?


The control of Homeland Security, for instance...and wars in the Middle East. Add to, the control of Credit Card Economics, and a long list of others.

Of course the GOP control has meant chaos. The spiralling downward of world economics. Cheney/W declared we'll be fighting wars for the rest of our lives. Our children. Our grandchildren. And if there's anyone beyond that.

The "nanny state" cry usually comes from the heartless employed, who just can't get enough of the good living. Being in need could never happen to them, so why should they care about others.

Considering the philanthropic efforts of Gates, Buffet, and many others (GOP and Democrat), they're poor examples to make for a desperate argument, even if they did choose to draw peanuts from a system they paid into.

Some GOP'ers excuses never fail to amaze.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> A heck of a fight? How does one win an election if 64% of voters (including many in her own party) say they would never vote for her no matter what?


I believe a lot of people would reconsider. Nearly 50% of the country is going to vote for whoever the relatively conservative candidate is, and nearly 50% of the country is going to vote for whoever the relatively liberal candidate is.

And, like I've explained before, I think the cards are stacked against Obama now. I'm sure he'd like to run against Palin, but if it happens I won't expect a 64-36 election result.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> I believe a lot of people would reconsider. Nearly 50% of the country is going to vote for whoever the relatively conservative candidate is, and nearly 50% of the country is going to vote for whoever the relatively liberal candidate is.
> 
> And, like I've explained before, I think the cards are stacked against Obama now. I'm sure he'd like to run against Palin, but if it happens I won't expect a 64-36 election result.


Obama's safe. It'll be a comfortable victory. 2012 is another throwaway year for the splintered GOP, and if they want a chance at 2016, they had better start rebuilding their party (ridding themselves of all the looney tunes), as well as helping Obama combat Cheney/W's mess.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Obama's safe. It'll be a comfortable victory. 2012 is another throwaway year for the splintered GOP, and if they want a chance at 2016, they had better start rebuilding their party (ridding themselves of all the looney tunes), as well as helping Obama combat Cheney/W's mess.


Ah, the ever-recurring myth of the fractured GOP. Supposedly we were so fractured in 2010, what with all those upstart Tea Partiers, that Democrats had nothing to fear. Each side likes to paint the other as being in so much disarray that there is no way they can unify and win. Republicans believed that the schism in the Democratic primaries in 2008 would mean we would keep the White House. Didn't work for us. I know you Democrats like to think that there is some major civil war tearing the GOP apart, but we come together when it counts. As much as we may disagree internally, Obama really has united us.


----------



## Vaneyes

Poll: What matters to GOP voters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-what-matters-to-gop-voters/2011/06/10/AGuc6nQH_blog.html

"New Polls Show Romney Winning Over Weary Republicans"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/12/new-polls-show-romney-winning-over-weary-republicans/


----------



## Vazgen

emiellucifuge said:


> I hope that we can move the debate to social issues such as immigration among others...


The immigration issue is one that finds Republicans curiously blasé about the same individual rights they otherwise claim to support. The bill recently signed into law by Alabama's Governor Bentley raises the same concerns about civil liberties that Arizona's recent anti-immigration measure did.

These laws seem very lax exactly where you'd expect them to be most strict: in terms of punishment for the companies whose employment is the main incentive for people to immigrate in the first place. Under the Arizona law, immigrants and the people who transport them face fines and incarceration, while the businesses who employ them merely face extra paperwork. I haven't heard any details about how Alabama will treat employers who fall afoul of the new law, but it would seem that incarcerating a few corporate CEOs might change the prevailing business plan of keeping labor costs down by employing undocumented workers.

-Vaz


----------



## Vaneyes

"Poll: Most want Medicare changes, but wary of GOP plan"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070620-503544.html

"GOP defends Medicare plan after N.Y. loss"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gop-defends-medicare-plan-after-ny-loss-2011-05-25

"(GOP) Immigration law will hurt economy"

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110612/OPINION0101/106120307/Alabama-Voices-Immigration-law-will-hurt-economy


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> The immigration issue is one that finds Republicans curiously blasé about the same individual rights they otherwise claim to support. The bill recently signed into law by Alabama's Governor Bentley raises the same concerns about civil liberties that Arizona's recent anti-immigration measure did.
> 
> These laws seem very lax exactly where you'd expect them to be most strict: in terms of punishment for the companies whose employment is the main incentive for people to immigrate in the first place. Under the Arizona law, immigrants and the people who transport them face fines and incarceration, while the businesses who employ them merely face extra paperwork. I haven't heard any details about how Alabama will treat employers who fall afoul of the new law, but it would seem that incarcerating a few corporate CEOs might change the prevailing business plan of keeping labor costs down by employing undocumented workers.
> 
> -Vaz


I might remind you that illegal immigration is not popular with much of the Democratic base. Illegal workers can be paid at lower than standard wages, thus driving wages down. They also, due to being illegal, are not joining unions. So they weaken the power of unions and they drive down wages. I hear so much talk of how these people come to do jobs Americans won't. That is true, but only if you stipulate that Americans won't do the jobs at the sub-standard wages that illegals are accepting. If employers had to pay at least minimum wage, what is the incentive in hiring an illegal?

Most Republicans would like to see increased penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegals. The Alabama law requires employers to use the federal eVerify system. The ignorance defense won't work there.

But my question to you is what exactly do Democrats propose to do, other than issue blanket amnesty to those already in the country? Or offer in-state tuition and scholarships to illegals? If money is so short these days, why are we worrying about the education of those in this country illegally? Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to. Other than going down to the border and cracking jokes about Republicans wanting to construct moats along our Southern border, what meaningful measures has the president enacted to address the issue of illegal immigration? Other than his administration seeing to it that Mexican drug cartels are well equipped with weapons, I'm not sure what attention Obama has paid to our Southern border.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> I might remind you that illegal immigration is not popular with much of the Democratic base.


I might remind you I never said it was, or that it should be.

All I said was that it's an unofficial part of business policy in many border states to use undocumented workers to keep labor costs down. How many times has Tyson been caught using illegal immigrants at their Scottsdale operation? For all of Arizona Governor Brewer's supposedly brave action to curb illegal immigration, the measures themselves seem geared toward incarcerating the illegals and the people who aid or transport them, intimidating the legal nonwhite population with searches and suspicion, and very little in the way of repercussions for the businesses who employ the illegal workers. It seems Brewer depends on the support of these businesses far too much to jeopardize their campaign contributions, so she decided to institute measures that would simply increase trade for her friends in the private-prison industry.

As I already said, if companies like Tyson were fined $10,000 for every illegal worker caught on their payroll, were deprived of licenses or government contracts, or had their directors jailed for their use of undocumented laborers, the incentive to use illegal immigrants to keep labor costs down would disappear.

-Vaz


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> ....what meaningful measures has the president enacted to address the issue of illegal immigration? Other than his administration seeing to it that Mexican drug cartels are well equipped with weapons, I'm not sure what attention Obama has paid to our Southern border.


You'll find it here with his other solutions.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Is this the best use of US resources?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/national/main20070639.shtml


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> You'll find it here with his other solutions.
> 
> http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
> 
> Is this the best use of US resources?
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/national/main20070639.shtml


Clearly you haven't clicked all the way through that - I just did, and there is no mention of anything dealing with illegal immigration. If I missed it, please let me know what it was. It mentions appointing Sotomayor, and allowing Cubans in the U.S. to send money back to Cuba - beyond that, I couldn't find anything remotely related to Hispanics or borders.


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> I might remind you I never said it was, or that it should be.
> 
> All I said was that it's an unofficial part of business policy in many border states to use undocumented workers to keep labor costs down. How many times has Tyson been caught using illegal immigrants at their Scottsdale operation? For all of Arizona Governor Brewer's supposedly brave action to curb illegal immigration, the measures themselves seem geared toward incarcerating the illegals and the people who aid or transport them, intimidating the legal nonwhite population with searches and suspicion, and very little in the way of repercussions for the businesses who employ the illegal workers. It seems Brewer depends on the support of these businesses far too much to jeopardize their campaign contributions, so she decided to institute measures that would simply increase trade for her friends in the private-prison industry.
> 
> As I already said, if companies like Tyson were fined $10,000 for every illegal worker caught on their payroll, were deprived of licenses or government contracts, or had their directors jailed for their use of undocumented laborers, the incentive to use illegal immigrants to keep labor costs down would disappear.
> 
> -Vaz


The problem with the immigration issue is that it is more bipartisan than many other issues. When last it was a big issue - during the Bush administration - Republicans and Democrats were on both sides of the issue. The federal government argument against these various laws is that it falls under the power of the federal government to enforce immigration law. Okay - so why won't the federal government do anything? Why are states being forced to adopt measures? Obama has ignored the issue, except to issue platitudes to Hispanics to court their votes. That is about it. And given that none of the GOP frontrunners are directly involved in this issue, I don't see how it is going to be an issue that gains traction. It is a thorny issue, and one that Obama doesn't really want to touch right now. It isn't a clear winner for him, and that is what he needs . . . desperately.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I might remind you that illegal immigration is not popular with much of the Democratic base. Illegal workers can be paid at lower than standard wages, thus driving wages down. They also, due to being illegal, are not joining unions. So they weaken the power of unions and they drive down wages. I hear so much talk of how these people come to do jobs Americans won't. That is true, but only if you stipulate that Americans won't do the jobs at the sub-standard wages that illegals are accepting. If employers had to pay at least minimum wage, what is the incentive in hiring an illegal?
> 
> Most Republicans would like to see increased penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegals. The Alabama law requires employers to use the federal eVerify system. The ignorance defense won't work there.
> 
> But my question to you is what exactly do Democrats propose to do, other than issue blanket amnesty to those already in the country? Or offer in-state tuition and scholarships to illegals? If money is so short these days, why are we worrying about the education of those in this country illegally? Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to. Other than going down to the border and cracking jokes about Republicans wanting to construct moats along our Southern border, what meaningful measures has the president enacted to address the issue of illegal immigration? Other than his administration seeing to it that Mexican drug cartels are well equipped with weapons, I'm not sure what attention Obama has paid to our Southern border.


Like I said, I for one am a leftie who is against illegal immigration (I have nothing against the legal kind; much the opposite, I think it helps the country and the economy although the system should be reformed to favor skills rather than family reunions like in most developed countries).

I do understand the circumstances that drive these people to illegally immigrate here, and the fact that much of the fault falls upon American businessmen who are content with the way these aliens drive business costs down. I think that much of the rethoric of the right wing about illegal immigration is overblown and the economic impact is not as bad as they say - illegals do contribute to the economy in many ways and are less of a burden to school systems and ERs than they say when you factor in other contributions (such as people who pay FICA but won't benefit from it, or people who indirectly pay property taxes through rent or directly pay it through owning a home). But regardless of the economic facts which are hard to pinpoint since the stats that are shown vary according to the ideology of the source, *I'm against illegal immigration anyway as a matter of principle*. It breaks the law, and I'm a law abiding citizen.

I don't own a business and I don't usually hire people (except in the sense of interviewing candidates who want to work for the institution where I work - but then, the Personnel office takes care of verifying credentials). When I need to hire someone (e.g., a lawn care company, a construction crew to work on my desk/patio or house renovations, etc.) I do ask to see documentation that the business is legal, insured, licensed, and that the people doing the work are US citizens or lawful permanent residents or aliens with valid working visas. As a matter of fact I don't even have to physically inspect these documents since my simple demand for proof of legal status tends to drive away those who wouldn't be able to provide these papers (they just say "uh... sorry, I just remembered that I have other commitments and can't take upon your project" and walk away), and for those who are more than willing to do so, at some point I kind of realize that there is no concern there, and I say - "OK, you guys seem legit, just forget about it." So, no big time E-Verify or even browsing of passports for me as a private citizen, but I find that just being proactive about it is often sufficient to ensure a homeowner that he/she is not directly or indirectly hiring illegal aliens.

This said, I think the problem is more complex than the right wing says, and there is just no way to drive out 12 million people who are already here, so any permanent solution would have to address this issue in some way that is different from rounding them all up and deporting them (just not possible in pragmatic terms).

And also, while scholarships paid for with tax-payers' money and in-state tuition to illegals do represent a contradiction in terms of the respect for the laws of the land, I have nothing against allowing the non-US born children of illegal aliens to attend colleges while paying out-of-state tuition. I think the right wing goes too far on this. In my state legislation was passed to prevent these kids from attending community college or state universities even if they pay for the full out-of-state tuition on their own. This I believe is cruel since most of these kids didn't willingly and knowingly break the law. This makes no sense in terms of what we want to accomplish. We want these kids to integrate and not get into gangs and drug trafficking, right? These are the best kids among them, the ones who value education and did well in high school. Why do we want to push them away? We should do like France does: any alien who achieves an advanced degree in a French school is *offered* a "carte de sejour" (their equivalent to a green card) and a path to citizenship. These kids grew up here, speak perfect English, identify with our culture, are hard-working, intelligent kids who want a share of the American dream; they'll grow up to be productive citizens who will pay taxes and contribute to the economy and will not be depending on welfare; so why in the hell do we want to push them away? This is the kind of people who would be attractive to any developed country for legal immigration, they're already here, they are doing well here, let the darn kids stay and legalize them, I say.

About the parents who broke the law in the first place, I favor a mixed approach.

1) Really, really, really secure the border. That's gotta come first otherwise all of what follows will never work. It won't completely eliminate illegal immigration (where there's a will, there's a way) but it will help to limit it.
2) Give all currently illegals an opportunity to come forward, make themselves known to the government, with a deadline of say, 3-5 years from now.
3) For those who do, run a background check. Weed out the criminals (meaning those who seriously broke other laws, not just immigration law). It should be a small percentage since the criminals wouldn't come forward to start with.
4) Make them pay fines and back taxes. 
5) Sentence them to some significant community service or even a few days in jail (not too many - a week or so).
6) Set back their date of application to legal status in a way that wouldn't step on anybody who has initiated a lawful application.
7) Put them on a probationary status with a non-immigrant work visa and after 10 years of good law-abiding behavior and tax payments, give them a green card and a path to citizenship.
8) For those who don't come forward after the deadline (most of them will, this would decrease the number of truly illegals to a manageable number that *could* be deported in practical terms) strongly enforce deportation policies if caught.

In addition to these measures, I'd do the following:

A) I'd amend the constitution to read that a child born of foreigners on US soil will be a US citizen if at least one of the parents is here in a legal status (including temporary visas, student visas, etc) but not if both parents are here completely illegally. I'd waive this obligation for 3-5 years for everybody who came forward as in item 2 above, which would add a strong incentive for people to come forward. I would continue to grant US citizenship to those whose who were born up to the passing of the constitutional amendment, of course (it would be unfair to have any retroactive effect).

B) I'd create a temporary work visa program that would be flexible, easy to get (as long as people passed criminal background check and infectious diseases checks - the latter if failed could be retried after treatment), and linked to areas of documented shortage of US workers subject to periodic review to diagnose possible market saturation - these areas could include things like Nursing, harvest workers, construction workers, hotels and restaurants, etc. This program would have no path to citizenship but would satisfy seasonal worker who want to make money here than go back to their home countries.

C) With the border secure and the above flexible and easy work permits in place, I'd crack down really, really hard on employers who continued to hire illegal aliens, including stiff fines, prison terms, and loss of business license in all 50 states for a number of years, up to and including the CEOs of such firms.

D) I'd reform the visa allocation system to privilege skilled workers with advanced degrees over family reunion and diversity lottery types of visas. All developed countries do this. Why don't we?

E) I would have an appeal process in place and would look into individual situations - such as unbearable hardship for young US citizens if the sole breadwinner of a family was to be summarily deported, etc - to provide some humanitarian relief in those cases)

-------

I don't think I'm being smarter than anybody with the above proposals. Most people can easily see that this approach would solve the problem and would solve it permanently. The problem is, it's not that the solution is not known, it's rather the lack of political will to do it.

People trying to do it would suffer criticism from the right and from the left, would suffer pressure from lobbies for certain sectors of the economy, and wouldn't get re-elected. That's why nobody does anything about it. Both parties pay lip-service to the issue but once in office nobody wants to champion any of this because it's too much of a hot potato. Meanwhile we continue to have the worst possible legal and illegal immigration system among developed countries. Another symptom of the paralyzing effects of our two-party system.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Clearly you haven't clicked all the way through that - I just did, and there is no mention of anything dealing with illegal immigration. If I missed it, please let me know what it was. It mentions appointing Sotomayor, and allowing Cubans in the U.S. to send money back to Cuba - beyond that, I couldn't find anything remotely related to Hispanics or borders.


Geez, I thought it was there, sorry. Maybe it was a priority victim in Obama's many solutions. No comment about the Texas shoot-out?


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> I don't own a business and I don't usually hire people (except in the sense of interviewing candidates who want to work for the institution where I work - but then, the Personnel office takes care of verifying credentials). When I need to hire someone (e.g., a lawn care company, a construction crew to work on my desk/patio or house renovations, etc.) I do ask to see documentation that the business is legal, insured, licensed, and that the people doing the work are US citizens or lawful permanent residents or aliens with valid working visas. As a matter of fact I don't even have to physically inspect these documents since my simple demand for proof of legal status tends to drive away those who wouldn't be able to provide these papers (they just say "uh... sorry, I just remembered that I have other commitments and can't take upon your project" and walk away), and for those who are more than willing to do so, at some point I kind of realize that there is no concern there, and I say - "OK, you guys seem legit, just forget about it." So, no big time E-Verify or even browsing of passports for me as a private citizen, but I find that just being proactive about it is often sufficient to ensure a homeowner that he/she is not directly or indirectly hiring illegal aliens.


Re e-verify, understandably there are concerns over Homeland Security leftovers from the Constitution-trampling Cheney/W admin.

http://www.pe.com/politics/goad/stories/PE_News_Local_D_e-verify13.3e9ad8f.html


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> The problem with the immigration issue is that it is more bipartisan than many other issues.


Bipartisan? Are you sure you don't mean partisan?

-Vaz


----------



## Vaneyes

Marlo Thomas (whose verbage over the years I've had a few disagreements with) checks in with, "Men behaving badly...it's a good thing". The largely disappearing act of women standing by their men, I think, is good. Mrs. Spitzer and Mrs. Vitter still imprint on my mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marlo-thomas/famous-men-sex-scandals_b_875587.html


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Geez, I thought it was there, sorry. Maybe it was a priority victim in Obama's many solutions. No comment about the Texas shoot-out?


How did that apply to immigration? It looked to be a drug-smuggling issue. Not sure what you are looking for there.


----------



## Guest

Vazgen said:


> Bipartisan? Are you sure you don't mean partisan?
> 
> -Vaz


Nope, bipartisan. Opponents of Bush's immigration reform were found among Republicans and Democrats, as were proponents. This isn't an issue that cuts cleanly along party lines.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Both parties pay lip-service to the issue but once in office nobody wants to champion any of this because it's too much of a hot *potatoe*.


Sorry, but I couldn't pass this up - are you, by any chance, a fan of former VP Dan Quayle?:lol:

:devil:


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Re e-verify, understandably there are concerns over Homeland Security leftovers from the Constitution-trampling Cheney/W admin.
> 
> http://www.pe.com/politics/goad/stories/PE_News_Local_D_e-verify13.3e9ad8f.html


No - the Democrats just want to try and pass their DREAM act. That is their reason to hold things up.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> How did that apply to immigration? It looked to be a drug-smuggling issue. Not sure what you are looking for there.


I'll just take a wild guess and say it was in response to, "Other than his administration seeing to it that Mexican drug cartels are well equipped with weapons...."


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Marlo Thomas (whose verbage over the years I've had a few disagreements with) checks in with, "Men behaving badly...it's a good thing". The largely disappearing act of women standing by their men, I think, is good. Mrs. Spitzer and Mrs. Vitter still imprint on my mind.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marlo-thomas/famous-men-sex-scandals_b_875587.html


Generally, I agree with her. I don't think it is a good thing that these types of things are happening. But that these guys no longer get a free pass, but are made to realize that such acts are despicable and have no place among our leaders is a good thing. I wish all such men caught in such acts were shamed out of public life. Then we just might see a decrease in such activity.

With the exceptions, though, of the maid - women are not innocent. There is always talk about what jerks men can be - but were there not women willing to engage those men in these activities, it wouldn't have as much impact. Women may claim they prefer the nice guys, but there sure never seems to be a shortage of Monica Lewinskys in this world.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> With the exceptions, though, of the maid - women are not innocent. There is always talk about what jerks men can be - but were there not women willing to engage those men in these activities, it wouldn't have as much impact. Women may claim they prefer the nice guys, but there sure never seems to be a shortage of Monica Lewinskys in this world.


The maid, did you mean Arnold & Maria's housekeeper?


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Why are states being forced to adopt measures?


They're not.

The measures that have been taken are political grandstanding from figures desperate to rally support from the anti-Fed segment of the populace. I can't imagine someone having constitutionality concerns with universal healthcare but not with this sort of legislation, but that's all-American cynicism for you.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> The maid, did you mean Arnold & Maria's housekeeper?


No, the one that DSK allegedly assaulted.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> No - the Democrats just want to try and pass their DREAM act. That is their reason to hold things up.


Not that the Republicans have ever been accused of holding things up.


----------



## Vaneyes

GOP Debate preview.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/14/c_13927291.htm


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Not that the Republicans have ever been accused of holding things up.


Of course they do. That is how the game is played. My point is that there are some things that are opposed on ideological grounds - social issues usually fall in these categories - and then there are things that are held up for pure political gamesmanship. "You want that legislation to pass? Well, only if you attach my rider to it."

I don't think opposition to eVerify is so much ideological, as Democrats want some of their pet projects to pass as well.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> I'll just take a wild guess and say it was in response to, "Other than his administration seeing to it that Mexican drug cartels are well equipped with weapons...."


Kind of comparing apples and oranges. My issue was about the administrations program that allowed guns to pass through fronts on this side of the border that they knew were smuggling them to drug cartels on the other side - an attempted sting operation. It flopped - and U.S. law-enforcement people were killed with some of those guns.

Your story is about a shoot-out on the border with drug runners trying to smuggle marijuana across the river. I'm not seeing the connection.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Kind of comparing apples and oranges. My issue was about the administrations program that allowed guns to pass through fronts on this side of the border that they knew were smuggling them to drug cartels on the other side - an attempted sting operation. It flopped - and U.S. law-enforcement people were killed with some of those guns.
> 
> Your story is about a shoot-out on the border with drug runners trying to smuggle marijuana across the river. I'm not seeing the connection.


I do see a connection, the connection of chaos within ATF, US Border Patrol, and Homeland Security. Not much doubt, evidence of more Cheney/W leftovers.

Project Gunrunner began in 2005. (R) Issa's investigation may be half-hearted. Blowing smoke, but maybe not wanting to get to the fire.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> I do see a connection, the connection of chaos within ATF, US Border Patrol, and Homeland Security. Not much doubt, evidence of more Cheney/W leftovers.
> 
> Project Gunrunner began in 2005. (R) Issa's investigation may be half-hearted. Blowing smoke, but maybe not wanting to get to the fire.


 I suggest you do more than just a superficial search regarding Gunrunner. Are you aware that several million dollars from the Stimulus bill went to this program? That there are rumors that there was a political motive for the guns to get into Mexico, to claim that part of the drug problem was due to all the American guns making their way into Mexico? I would dig a little deeper.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> I suggest you do more than just a superficial search regarding Gunrunner. Are you aware that several million dollars from the Stimulus bill went to this program? That there are rumors that there was a political motive for the guns to get into Mexico, to claim that part of the drug problem was due to all the American guns making their way into Mexico? I would dig a little deeper.


Now you're going to the rumor mill, oh my, that's enough. I'll just suggest to start realizing how much leads back to Cheney/W. But do keep us informed of (R) Issa's findings.


----------



## Guest

Let's pick up another relevant issue surely to be in play this election cycle - foreign policy.

When we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, liberals derided the Bush doctrine, and asked why we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in North Korea and Iran. Where was the consistency? And liberals vehemently opposed the war effort in Iraq. They made the argument that it was an illegal war, for various reasons, but they consistently argued that Bush did not have authorization for war in Iraq from Congress.

Fast forward to today. Why are we in Libya? We were told to avoid a human rights disaster - according to who? So it was for humanitarian reasons? What about the slaughter of Syrian citizens by its leader? What about the bloodshed we saw occurring in Iran? Obama was silent then. He is pathetically silent about Syria. So why are we in Libya and not those other countries? Who are the rebels we are supporting? What is our exit strategy? If the objective is not to remove Qaddafi, then what is the objective? To offer military support until the civil war is over? And where is the Congressional authorization for this "kinetic military action" whatever the hell that means? And where is the liberal outrage here? Dare I call this rank hypocrisy?

And what of Israel? Talks are now non-existent. Obama has made a wreck of that situation. Insisting Israelis agree to the 1967 indefensible borders? Alienating our only reliable ally in the Middle East?

What is the Obama doctrine? Talk loudly and carry a little stick?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Sorry, but I couldn't pass this up - are you, by any chance, a fan of former VP Dan Quayle?:lol:
> 
> :devil:


There was this one and a number of other typos / grammar errors. I wrote that post in a hurry right before I had something relatively urgent to do. The errors have been corrected.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I suggest you do more than just a superficial search regarding Gunrunner. Are you aware that several million dollars from the Stimulus bill went to this program? That there are rumors that there was a political motive for the guns to get into Mexico, to claim that part of the drug problem was due to all the American guns making their way into Mexico? I would dig a little deeper.


Conspiracy theories now? Like you said, a sting operation went wrong. Big deal. It could have happened during any administration (and it routinely does).


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> And what of Israel? Talks are now non-existent. Obama has made a wreck of that situation. Insisting Israelis agree to the 1967 indefensible borders? Alienating our only reliable ally in the Middle East?


Are you suggesting that Israel get to do whatever they please with regards to their borders?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> No - the Democrats just want to try and pass their DREAM act. That is their reason to hold things up.


Not passing the DREAM act is anti-American. Blaming innocent children for someone else's error, not rewarding hard work and patriotism, and denying worthy people the American dream are all actions that are completely against our values. Republicans should be ashamed of being against the DREAM act.


----------



## samurai

Aksel said:


> Are you suggesting that Israel get to do whatever they please with regards to their borders?


No, what all fair-minded people are suggesting--and in my case, insisting--is that Israel not be held to a different and much more rigorous standard than any other sovereign nation. The bottom line is that Israel has aright to exist. From her birth in 1948, this has been disputed every step of the way by her Arab "peace-loving neighbors". Look at a map and compare the size of Israel against her neighbors. Let's not forget one other fact, please, Israel was created because the rest of the "civilized world" did not want to accept Jewish refugees, even when/after it was common knowledge that we were being roasted in extermination camps. It's hard--especially for those of us who are Jewish and lost relatives to that German monster--to *ever, ever forget *that.
On a slightly more personal note,though I am a non-religious Jew, I had to have lots of fights just to survive in my mostly Catholic neighborhood. From these experiences, I took away the outlook that I don't care if people love me--or even like me--as long as they respect/fear me enough to just leave me and mine the hell alone. I don't think it's that much different in the larger world at all.


----------



## Almaviva

Congressional authorization for the action in Libya: not needed. It's a NATO operation. Our treaty obligations with NATO overrule other dispositions because a treaty IS the law of the land and has priority. WE did not declare war on Libya (for which Congress authorization would have been needed). We have merely supported a NATO action, as we are obliged to do by the force of treaties. This is totally a non-issue. Remember the definition of a treaty: an official, express written agreement that states use to *legally bind themselves. * If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be *in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws. *In international law, treaties supersede domestic laws. If there is error here, it's on the side of Congress. No authorization should be necessary by a domestic body to "authorize" the government to fulfill treaty obligations, since these treaties have been previously approved and ratified by Congress.

This said, I don't think the action in Libya is wise, like I said in another post, for the simple fact that we don't know who we are supporting and whether the eventual winners will turn against us or not (like it happened in Iran).


----------



## Almaviva

samurai said:


> No, what all fair-minded people are suggesting--and in my case, insisting--is that Israel not be held to a different and much more rigorous standard than any other sovereign nation. The bottom line is that Israel has aright to exist. From her birth in 1948, this has been disputed every step of the way by her Arab "peace-loving neighbors". Look at a map and compare the size of Israel against her neighbors. Let's not forget one other fact, please, Israel was created because the rest of the "civilized world" did not want to accept Jewish refugees, even when/after it was common knowledge that we were being roasted in extermination camps. It's hard--especially for those of us who are Jewish and lost relatives to that German monster--to *ever, ever forget *that.
> On a slightly more personal note,though I am a non-religious Jew, I had to have lots of fights just to survive in my mostly Catholic neighborhood. From these experiences, I took away the outlook that I don't care if people love me--or even like me--as long as they respect/fear me enough to just leave me and mine the hell alone. I don't think it's that much different in the larger world at all.


I confess that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is one that puzzles me and defeats my efforts to rationally pick a side.
On the one hand, Israel is our ally and our best partner in the region, and I agree with her right to exist.
On the other hand, nobody can say that the Israeli have not engaged in excesses. In my humble opinion, BOTH sides have been in the wrong in various occasions, and BOTH sides have committed abuses (e.g., terrorism from the Palestinian side, but also human rights abuses from the Israeli side).

As I grow older and more concerned with what will happen to the world (not for me, but for my children and possible future grandchildren) I tend to grow more pro-Israel since I'm a lot more afraid of Arab/Persian/Muslim radicalization (e.g., the spread of nukes to rogue states and terrorism sponsors). But I can't entirely agree with the Israelis either. I think they have committed grave mistakes in the way they handled places like Gaza.


----------



## samurai

As long as you agree that Israel has a right to exist and to defend herself. I would never advocate the maxim of "my country right or wrong" or "love it or leave it", be it in regards to Israel or my own country. Of course I agree that Israel--as has every other existing nation on earth--made grievous mistakes in their handling of certain situations and it should be brought to task for that--but not *eliminated*--as Hamas and so many of the other Arab groups with whom she has to contend on a *daily basis*--insist on. No country in the world would--or should--have to face that kind of "negotiating" position!


----------



## Almaviva

samurai said:


> As long as you agree that Israel has a right to exist and to defend herself. I would never advocate the maxim of "my country right or wrong" or "love it or leave it", be it in regards to Israel or my own country. Of course I agree that Israel--as has every other existing nation on earth--made grievous mistakes in their handling of certain situations and it should be brought to task for that--but not *eliminated*--as Hamas and so many of the other Arab groups with whom she has to contend on a *daily basis*--insist on. No country in the world would--or should--have to face that kind of "negotiating" position!


Yes, I agree with what you've just said.
Sometimes, however, I feel some significant unwillingness from the Israelis to acknowledge any wrong-doing. Having been the victims of oppression doesn't give them permission/excuses to become oppressors themselves.


----------



## samurai

Indeed it doesn't; as long as we're applying the same standards and definitions re: oppression equally to evry other nation as well, and not advocating that they be destroyed or pushed into the sea, I can live with that. Unfortunately, some of America's closest "allies" have far more terrible human rights records than does Israel; but again, Israel is not right 100 per cent of the time. No nation--or person is--for that matter. But, she has the right to *exist.* Until/unless her neighbors accept this as fact, there will never be peace in that part of the world.


----------



## Almaviva

Has anybody watched the Republican debate tonight? 
Any news on how it went, who came on top?
I heard that Bachmann has officially announced during the debate that she is running.


----------



## samurai

Actually, I was so engrossed in the back and forth going on here that I forgot all about it!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Congressional authorization for the action in Libya: not needed. It's a NATO operation. Our treaty obligations with NATO overrule other dispositions because a treaty IS the law of the land and has priority. WE did not declare war on Libya (for which Congress authorization would have been needed). We have merely supported a NATO action, as we are obliged to do by the force of treaties. This is totally a non-issue. Remember the definition of a treaty: an official, express written agreement that states use to *legally bind themselves. * If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be *in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws. *In international law, treaties supersede domestic laws. If there is error here, it's on the side of Congress. No authorization should be necessary by a domestic body to "authorize" the government to fulfill treaty obligations, since these treaties have been previously approved and ratified by Congress.
> 
> This said, I don't think the action in Libya is wise, like I said in another post, for the simple fact that we don't know who we are supporting and whether the eventual winners will turn against us or not (like it happened in Iran).


Wow - and they said that Bush really twisted definitions to justify Iraq. So we went in first, and then later got NATO to grudgingly sign its name to it - although I believe we are still shouldering the brunt of the heavy-lifting. Now, were it originally a NATO action, you might have a case - but that was all kind of after the fact. And I suppose that it was all NATO's idea? So Democrats will go commit us to operations that don't really have any justifiable purpose if NATO says so? What is NATO's interest in this? Saddam fed his people into wood chippers, but that was not a justifiable reason. But we'll go get involved in some pointless adventure in Libya because we convinced NATO to agree. And is this a NATO-in-name-only operation? Did Obama talk them into signing off just so he could avoid a nasty fight in Congress?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Has anybody watched the Republican debate tonight?
> Any news on how it went, who came on top?
> I heard that Bachmann has officially announced during the debate that she is running.


I was playing single dad tonight while my wife was at work, so only saw a bit. But after hearing questions like "American Idol or Dancing With the Stars?" and "Blackberry or iPhone?" I decided I wouldn't be learning anything substantive, so I moved on. I don't worry too much about these early stage debates where there are too many on the stage to give any of them enough time for really anything substantive.


----------



## Vaneyes

Frighteningly, Michele Bachmann came off well, looking lovely, and saying most PC things in a clear-headed manner (no pun). Lies about Obama were of course okay in this gathering. Old Warrior Newt ('Tiffany Man' sounds more adventurous) could've phoned his in. He's one tired fellow. Paul, instead of fringe candiidate was fringe lunatic. Santorum and T-Paw were virtually unnoticed. Mitt, despite showing some nervousness about his and Obama's health plan, came off best because no one attacked him. Herman Cain former Godfather Pizza CEO was the weakest. He kept wanting to inject his business sense into issues. It fell flat. Truly an outsider.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Wow - and they said that Bush really twisted definitions to justify Iraq. So we went in first, and then later got NATO to grudgingly sign its name to it - although I believe we are still shouldering the brunt of the heavy-lifting. Now, were it originally a NATO action, you might have a case - but that was all kind of after the fact. And I suppose that it was all NATO's idea? So Democrats will go commit us to operations that don't really have any justifiable purpose if NATO says so? What is NATO's interest in this? Saddam fed his people into wood chippers, but that was not a justifiable reason. But we'll go get involved in some pointless adventure in Libya because we convinced NATO to agree. And is this a NATO-in-name-only operation? Did Obama talk them into signing off just so he could avoid a nasty fight in Congress?


I'm not sure what you're actually arguing because I got lost in the rhetorical questions, and couldn't tell what was sarcastic and what was sincere.

Are you saying that the NATO action in Libya was really started by the US with NATO as cover, or that it was started by NATO and the US is just there as a partner in NATO's action?

Are you blaming Obama & Democrats for being involved in Libya? I mean, is it your opinion that our "adventure in Libya" is "pointless?"

I'm confused about your stance on Iraq too. I can't untangle the implications of your comments here. Are you saying that our war in Iraq was or was not justified by Saddam's human rights violations? (I guess you meant something like "human rights violations" by the "wood chippers" comment, but if you'd prefer other semantics feel free to use a different phrase. I don't mean to put words in your mouth at all; I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.)

It might seem like I'm asking so many questions in order to put you on the spot, and I don't want to seem that way, so just in case it matters, I'll unload my own opinions on the topic so that we can have a fair discussion. Still, I hope you will not only attack my opinion, but explain your own more clearly because I didn't understand your post.

I believe

- the real reason we invaded Iraq was oil; Saddam's unpredictability bothered us and the Saudis
- the humanitarian arguments were, on the whole, just ad hoc justifications 
- invading Iraq (especially "the surge") has been fairly successful, to my pleasant surprise
- many of the people of Iraq are in a better situation now than they were under Saddam, so that's good
- even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and does not appear to have been actively seeking or developing any kind of WMDs (let alone nukes), the Iraq war was on the whole a productive thing for the war on terror, as Islamic fundamentalist tactics (especially the beheadings on video) helped discredit extremists in Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and also as extemists from other countries (such as Jordan) were attracted to Iraq
- it appears that Bush genuinely expected to find WMDs in Iraq, but also that his administration was semi-consciously fudging the evidence in order to justify the war
- still, even though it hurt radical Islam, it was also very unpopular throughout the world and especially the Muslim world; it unquestionably strengthened Iran in the region, and cost us a great deal of money in addition to the human cost - not only a few thousand soldiers and also mercenary casualties, but a huge number of Iraqi casualties 
- we really needed to fight the war in Afghanistan, and it turns out we distracted ourselves from that war at least a little too soon; in all probability we are essentially going to abandon the people of Afghanistan again 
- all in all, if the situation in Iraq keeps going as it has been, and a stable secular democracy survives and then thrives, Bush II will deserve a lot of credit for his gutsy decision (of course the soldiers and the Iraqi people also do)

- the real reason NATO / the US are involved in Libya is oil; Gaddafi's unpredictability bothers us and Europe
- the humanitarian arguments are, on the whole, just ad hoc justifications 
- it looks like we're going to be successful in Libya; the surprise is that it's turned out to be a little harder than expected
- many of the people of Libya will almost certainly be better off under a new government, hopefully a democratic one 
- NATO's / the US's action in Libya may turn out to be popular in the Arab and Muslim worlds, in part because, unlike in Iraq, the people of Libya were already in rebellion and begged for NATO's assistance; had we (NATO and the US) done nothing, Gaddafi's allies and mercenaries would have crushed the protests/rebels
- anyway, if it continues to go well, NATO/the US and the Libyan people will deserve credit

- the situation in Syria is different primarily because there is no oil, but also because it would be a much harder task 
- the humanitarian situation in Syria is every bit as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam or Libya under Gaddaffi

That's probably enough. I hope you don't mind stating your perspective as clearly.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I'm not sure what you're actually arguing because I got lost in the rhetorical questions, and couldn't tell what was sarcastic and what was sincere.
> 
> Are you saying that the NATO action in Libya was really started by the US with NATO as cover, or that it was started by NATO and the US is just there as a partner in NATO's action?
> 
> Are you blaming Obama & Democrats for being involved in Libya? I mean, is it your opinion that our "adventure in Libya" is "pointless?"
> 
> I'm confused about your stance on Iraq too. I can't untangle the implications of your comments here. Are you saying that our war in Iraq was or was not justified by Saddam's human rights violations? (I guess you meant something like "human rights violations" by the "wood chippers" comment, but if you'd prefer other semantics feel free to use a different phrase. I don't mean to put words in your mouth at all; I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.)
> 
> It might seem like I'm asking so many questions in order to put you on the spot, and I don't want to seem that way, so just in case it matters, I'll unload my own opinions on the topic so that we can have a fair discussion. Still, I hope you will not only attack my opinion, but explain your own more clearly because I didn't understand your post.
> 
> I believe
> 
> - the real reason we invaded Iraq was oil; Saddam's unpredictability bothered us and the Saudis
> - the humanitarian arguments were, on the whole, just ad hoc justifications
> - invading Iraq (especially "the surge") has been fairly successful, to my pleasant surprise
> - many of the people of Iraq are in a better situation now than they were under Saddam, so that's good
> - even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and does not appear to have been actively seeking or developing any kind of WMDs (let alone nukes), the Iraq war was on the whole a productive thing for the war on terror, as Islamic fundamentalist tactics (especially the beheadings on video) helped discredit extremists in Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and also as extemists from other countries (such as Jordan) were attracted to Iraq
> - it appears that Bush genuinely expected to find WMDs in Iraq, but also that his administration was semi-consciously fudging the evidence in order to justify the war
> - still, even though it hurt radical Islam, it was also very unpopular throughout the world and especially the Muslim world; it unquestionably strengthened Iran in the region, and cost us a great deal of money in addition to the human cost - not only a few thousand soldiers and also mercenary casualties, but a huge number of Iraqi casualties
> - we really needed to fight the war in Afghanistan, and it turns out we distracted ourselves from that war at least a little too soon; in all probability we are essentially going to abandon the people of Afghanistan again
> - all in all, if the situation in Iraq keeps going as it has been, and a stable secular democracy survives and then thrives, Bush II will deserve a lot of credit for his gutsy decision (of course the soldiers and the Iraqi people also do)
> 
> - the real reason NATO / the US are involved in Libya is oil; Gaddafi's unpredictability bothers us and Europe
> - the humanitarian arguments are, on the whole, just ad hoc justifications
> - it looks like we're going to be successful in Libya; the surprise is that it's turned out to be a little harder than expected
> - many of the people of Libya will almost certainly be better off under a new government, hopefully a democratic one
> - NATO's / the US's action in Libya may turn out to be popular in the Arab and Muslim worlds, in part because, unlike in Iraq, the people of Libya were already in rebellion and begged for NATO's assistance; had we (NATO and the US) done nothing, Gaddafi's allies and mercenaries would have crushed the protests/rebels
> - anyway, if it continues to go well, NATO/the US and the Libyan people will deserve credit
> 
> - the situation in Syria is different primarily because there is no oil, but also because it would be a much harder task
> - the humanitarian situation in Syria is every bit as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam or Libya under Gaddaffi
> 
> That's probably enough. I hope you don't mind stating your perspective as clearly.


My point is this - those who so vehemently opposed the operation in Iraq are now eerily silent regarding our presence in Libya. Going beyond the legal justifications, the question is raised of what threat to the U.S. Libya posed. What national interest? Obama hasn't really sat down and told us these things, or his "exit strategy" as we so often heard from Democrats while Bush was prosecuting the war in Iraq. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region. He had repeatedly violated the conditions of the treaty that ended the earlier Gulf War. While it turned out that he did not have stockpiles of WMD, there was evidence that he was attempting to procure the necessary components. He was funding Palestinian terrorists. There was evidence that other known terrorists had been harbored in Iraq (I'm not connecting it with 9/11, but with terrorism in general). There are a number of UN resolutions of which he was in violation. There was a clear pattern of violations and actions that illustrated how dangerous an Iraq under the continued leadership of Saddam Hussein could be. And in the wake of 9/11, we were awoken to the realization that we could no longer let such threats continue.

Although their own leaders voted to authorize the use of military force, rank and file Democrats for the large part spent the better part of Bush's administration criticizing (at its mildest) or spewing outright hateful invective at Bush (war criminal, comparing him to Hitler) over the Iraq War.

Fast forward to today. We are in Libya. No one quite knows for how long. Nobody quite knows what our objective is. We are helping rebels against Qaddafi, and yet in the statements about the operation, we are told that removing Qaddafi is not the primary objective, rather to prevent a human rights disaster. But who are we protecting? What do we know of these rebels? Are we funding some new Taliban group that will then take over and impose strict religious law on the people and leave them, at best, no better than under Qaddafi? Or are they liberal-minded Muslims? I don't know. Does anybody else? Because nobody is telling us anything. We got in there first, and only later did NATO take over. This was not some NATO operation that we joined in on. NATO co-opted the operation after it got underway. Why can't we play a supporting role, like other NATO nations? They don't all feel compelled to contribute forces. And what is the exit strategy?

My main point in comparing these two scenarios is that there appears to be utter hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. Obama has enjoyed relatively solid support from Republicans on Libya. There is some concern that he should have come to Congress for authorization in accordance with the War Powers Act, but you will notice there is no uproar from Republicans about this being an "illegal war." But Democrats have suddenly become solid proponents of military force around the globe for nebulous reasons. You hear nary a peep from the previously dovish crowds. Where no justification in their mind quite rationalized our presence in Iraq, now they care for no justification to confirm their support of Obama in this action. It looks like they will always oppose military operations undertaken by Republicans, but wholeheartedly support any military operation undertaken by a Democrat. Compare the uproar over our operations in Somalia and the Balkans under Clinton with either of the wars in Iraq under Bush 41 and Bush 43.

My point is that Democrats have been shamelessly hypocritical in their criticisms of military actions. And it is made all the more deplorable in that they didn't merely voice opposition to Iraq - they turned Bush into some kind of monster and war criminal. It wasn't enough to debate the position. They had to demonize the man. And now they ignore Obama's pet operation in Libya. His policy is utterly incoherent. What is the reason to be in Libya? We were told it was to prevent a human rights crisis. Well, how would you characterize what is going on in Syria? Or what happened in Iran after their last elections?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Vaneyes said:


> ...Michele Bachmann came off well...


Yup.

Don't want to jump to saying anything bad about the principals (I'm sure there will be enough of that from the vocal hard-left among us)- but here's how I see it-

I agree with Dick Morris that there will be two "sub-primaries," one for the front-runner among the country-club Republicans/RINO/Democrat-lite contingent, and one for the leader among the Tea Party and SoCon constituencies. In that former grouping, Romney held serve. In the latter, Michele Bachmann separated herself from the pack a bit.

Gingrich rallied in the second half- but he struck me as someone who needed a three unanswered goals rally, but only potted one.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Wow - and they said that Bush really twisted definitions to justify Iraq. So we went in first, and then later got NATO to grudgingly sign its name to it - although I believe we are still shouldering the brunt of the heavy-lifting. Now, were it originally a NATO action, you might have a case - but that was all kind of after the fact. And I suppose that it was all NATO's idea? So Democrats will go commit us to operations that don't really have any justifiable purpose if NATO says so? What is NATO's interest in this? Saddam fed his people into wood chippers, but that was not a justifiable reason. But we'll go get involved in some pointless adventure in Libya because we convinced NATO to agree. And is this a NATO-in-name-only operation? Did Obama talk them into signing off just so he could avoid a nasty fight in Congress?


You have your facts all wrong. It was from the beginning a NATO operation. We just had a brief military command of the operation for a week or so, acting on NATO's mandate that they got from the UN. France and Great Britain were pushing for this a lot harder than we were and took most initiatives of pushing this forward at the UN and NATO. Of course since our military capabilities are bigger, we started the heavy lifting (we *are* part of NATO, you know?) but we are not doing the heavy lifting any longer. All aircrafts and pilots there are NATO. We are doing logistic support, intelligence, ammunition, stuff like this. And yes, Congress approval is not needed for a NATO operation given the higher status of previously approved and ratified treaties. You can consult any professor of International Law in this matter and he/she will tell you that I'm right. By the way, what is the number of American casualties in this operation that you'd like so much Congress to authorize although it's not needed? Zero? I thought so.

About Democratic hypocrisy: sure, it's politics for ya. You didn't know that this is the way politics go? The same applies to the other side: you're talking against the Libya operation in my humble opinion mostly because it is being done under a Democratic president. You'd be highly praising it here if it was being done under a Republican president. I mean, we're shooting Muslims, what's not to like from a Republican perspective? [tongue-in-cheek]

Like Science said, the fundamentals are the same - an erratic dictator sitting on a lake of oil. All the rest is lip service. Differently from Iraq, though, this time NATO has endorsed it. It's basically one of the only differences (plus, the existence of rebels).

I'm weary of it (not entirely against it, but considering it unwise) because of the unknown stance of the people we're helping. But don't fool yourself. We're not helping them because of humanitarian reasons. We're doing it because they sit on a lake of oil. As usual.


----------



## Almaviva

I'm really disappointed in Obama after his comments of today that he doesn't mind if he gets to be a one-term president, and his family would appreciate it. That's not the fighting Obama I was prepared to support again. WTF, if he doesn't want to put up a fight, I'm not the one who will be fighting for him. If he doesn't show some balls, I'll have to look harder into the Republican field. I wonder if for the first time I'll vote for a Republican candidate in presidential elections.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> (I'm sure there will be enough of that from the vocal hard-left among us)


Am I one of those?:lol:


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> I'm really disappointed in Obama after his comments of today that he doesn't mind if he gets to be a one-term president, and his family would appreciate it. That's not the fighting Obama I was prepared to support again. WTF, if he doesn't want to put up a fight, I'm not the one who will be fighting for him. If he doesn't show some balls, I'll have to look harder into the Republican field. I wonder if for the first time I'll vote for a Republican candidate in presidential elections.


Now hold on, let's not go overboard because of a little candor.

Granted, it's not something an incumbent's handlers want bounced around too often, but on the other side of the coin, it makes your President more human, which is good...and also, it could yield helpful feedback on what voters are thinking.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/14/One-term-Obama-says-theres-more-to-do/UPI-75561308064564/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56917.html


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I'm really disappointed in Obama after his comments of today that he doesn't mind if he gets to be a one-term president, and his family would appreciate it. That's not the fighting Obama I was prepared to support again. WTF, if he doesn't want to put up a fight, I'm not the one who will be fighting for him. If he doesn't show some balls, I'll have to look harder into the Republican field. I wonder if for the first time I'll vote for a Republican candidate in presidential elections.


What, you're not feeling the "Hope and Change?"

I would have thought by now he would have shown you enough reasons to re-elect him. After all, according to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, his administration and party have completely turned the economy around.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> About Democratic hypocrisy: sure, it's politics for ya. You didn't know that this is the way politics go? The same applies to the other side: you're talking against the Libya operation in my humble opinion mostly because it is being done under a Democratic president. You'd be highly praising it here if it was being done under a Republican presidents. I mean, we're shooting Muslims, what's not to like from a Republican perspective? [tongue-in-cheek]
> 
> Like Science said, the fundamentals are the same - an erratic dictator sitting on a lake of oil. All the rest is lip service. Differently from Iraq, though, this time NATO has endorsed it. It's basically one of the only differences (plus, the existence of rebels).
> 
> I'm weary of it (not entirely against it, but considering it unwise) because of the unknown stance of the people we're helping. But don't fool yourself. We're not helping them because of humanitarian reasons. We're doing it because they sit on a lake of oil. As usual.


See, you and I are not so different on the issue of Libya. The points I was making were not regarding whether we should be in Libya. Lord knows I am not an isolationist, and I don't tend to favor the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party. But it was the sheer hypocrisy in all of this. But not even that - okay, everybody plays politics. I get it. But the fact of the matter is that Democrats were not merely playing politics - they were demonizing Bush and anybody who supported the war in Iraq. You still do it, with your little tongue-in-cheek joke about Republicans being okay with wars that allow them to kill Muslims. The fact of the matter is that ANY war that takes place in the Middle East is going to kill Muslims. I don't know the exact figures, but I'm willing to bet that Muslims comprise AT LEAST 90% of all the people over there, and so the odds are simply that any person who dies is more than likely to be a Muslim. How many Muslim lives were protected in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I understand that loss of life on our part has been non-existent thus far. But since when was that justification for military conflict? We are still killing people. Somebody is dying with all the bombs we drop. I tend to be more interventionist in these areas, but I too am concerned over who it is, exactly, that we are supporting. I don't want to be displacing one brutal regime for another Iran or Afghanistan - a brutal, repressive theocracy.

But let's not forget, either, that candidate Obama claimed he would not get us involved in these types of operations without first gaining Congressional approval. I know - standard politics, promising one thing on the campaign trail, then gaining amnesia after election. But Obama was supposed to bring Hope and Change, and put an end to business as usual. He was supposed to herald in a new post-partisan era in Washington - "We are the ones we have been waiting for," and all that pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. The list of broken promises does seem to be ever increasing.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Vaneyes

Missing candidate news:

Rick Perry's 'appropriate thought'.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-president-20110614,0,4791154.story

The Sarah's missing e-mail.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...2_NyTA?docId=6225ca40386d44a48132c67c4dec3f73


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Missing candidate news:
> 
> Rick Perry's 'appropriate thought'.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-president-20110614,0,4791154.story
> 
> The Sarah's missing e-mail.
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...2_NyTA?docId=6225ca40386d44a48132c67c4dec3f73


Jon Stewart had a great bit on the ridiculousness of the media obsession with the Palin emails. I love this story you posted - they haven't found anything yet in the thousands of emails they already have been sifting through. I'm sure that all smoking guns will be loaded into her very first month's worth of emails.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Jon Stewart had a great bit on the ridiculousness of the media obsession with the Palin emails. I love this story you posted - they haven't found anything yet in the thousands of emails they already have been sifting through. I'm sure that all smoking guns will be loaded into her very first month's worth of emails.


I hope these e-mails have created jobs. Keep 'em coming.


----------



## Almaviva

Dr. Mike, you have complained in the past that Obama gave only $200,000 to charity. At least it was really to charity. Look at what New Gingrich did of his "charitable" contributions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110614/pl_atlantic/gingrichcharitypaidcashgingrichbusiness38810


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, you have complained in the past that Obama gave only $200,000 to charity. At least it was really to charity. Look at what New Gingrich did of his "charitable" contributions:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110614/pl_atlantic/gingrichcharitypaidcashgingrichbusiness38810


And? I hadn't planned on giving Newt my vote. Right now, if he survives for another 2 months, I will be surprised.


----------



## Almaviva

And? When a Democrat misbehaves (e.g. Wiener) you bash the entire Democratic party.
I'm showing a Republican misbehaving... but then you dismiss it as irrelevant because you wouldn't have voted for him?
To criticize is always easier than to receive criticism, isn't it?


----------



## mmsbls

There's been quite a bit of discussion concerning politicians misbehaving. I think that Republicans have committed more ethical violations in the past 10 years or so, but I don't have confidence in that assessment. Mostly I know that whether Democrats had committed 1/3 or 2/3 of the ethical violations, I would still generally favor their policies and vote for them. I suspect that almost every conservative or liberal would feel the same way about their party. The main effect of these violations is to distract politicians, the public and media attention from issues that desperately need attention.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> And? When a Democrat misbehaves (e.g. Wiener) you bash the entire Democratic party.
> I'm showing a Republican misbehaving... but then you dismiss it as irrelevant because you wouldn't have voted for him?
> To criticize is always easier than to receive criticism, isn't it?


What would you have us do to Gingrich? Run him out of office? Oh wait, he isn't currently holding elective office. I believe he did leave office when he was mired in scandal, as he should have. And I think the voters are now showing him that they have little taste for a Gingrich run for the presidency. So what exactly are you looking for here? If you are talking about Republicans holding office that are tied up in scandal, I believe I have already stated my position. Did I not say that I believe David Vitter should be gone? I'm glad Foley is gone. I'm glad Chris Lee is gone. Were I in Vitter's state, I would not vote to re-elect him.

But Gingrich IS an irrelevant figure. All he is now is a talking head - but I'll note that he hasn't been given his own show on CNN.

I bashed the Democratic party because at first they chose the coward way out with Weiner - but I will give credit now that they are pushing for Weiner to resign, even Pres. Obama. I think that is a good thing. I think it is only because it finally got uncomfortable enough, what with the nude pictures taken in the Congressional gym, that they had no choice.

I think the appropriate punishment for politicians who engage in this ridiculous behavior is to run them out of office. Gingrich has no office from which he can be run, so I don't see how he is relevant. What are you looking for? Me to say he should never be elected again? Fine. I'll concede that, but I don't think that was a significant concern.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> There's been quite a bit of discussion concerning politicians misbehaving. I think that Republicans have committed more ethical violations in the past 10 years or so, but I don't have confidence in that assessment. Mostly I know that whether Democrats had committed 1/3 or 2/3 of the ethical violations, I would still generally favor their policies and vote for them. I suspect that almost every conservative or liberal would feel the same way about their party. The main effect of these violations is to distract politicians, the public and media attention from issues that desperately need attention.


I think that this rationalizing attitude is kind of ridiculous. If it is about scorecards, then fine. But the basic fact here is that, regardless of the breakdown of who commits more, both parties are guilty frequently enough that it is easy enough to think of examples for both. And that is the problem. And while the problems for Republicans may well be that it makes them look like hypocrites, the problem for Democrats is that, in their effort to defend their president in the '90's, they argued that issues of sex are irrelevant in the realm of politics, no matter how salacious. They did all they could to convince the American people that the president of the United States getting blowjobs in the oval office from an intern was no big deal. So why wouldn't someone like Weiner think that it would be okay to sext women who friend him on Twitter and send nude and semi-nude images of himself?

Republicans may very well be guilty of these sexual scandals, but Republican voters at least are still mostly disgusted by such behavior. A few politicians still hang on, but Republicans are usually at the head of the pack expressing their disgust. But Democrats' first notion is to start rationalizing that Republicans do it more.

And I never tied policies of the party to individual actions of the members. I'm not saying that the platform of the Democratic party is negated because someone like Anthony Weiner sends pictures of his package all over creation. Believe me, I have all kinds of other reasons to dislike the Democratic party platform. But to my knowledge, I have never said on here that you shouldn't vote for Democrats because they have sex scandals. Vote for the party that matches your ideology. But as far as individual candidates, yes, I do believe that these scoundrels shouldn't be rewarded for outrageous conduct. Let us start holding our politicians to higher moral standards. Besides, why would you want Weiner in there anymore. I hear how smart the guy is supposed to be. So smart he sends nude pictures of himself and messages that all leave an electronic trail and can easily be passed on by those who received them. Yeah, smart guy.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> What would you have us do to Gingrich? Run him out of office? Oh wait, he isn't currently holding elective office. I believe he did leave office when he was mired in scandal, as he should have. And I think the voters are now showing him that they have little taste for a Gingrich run for the presidency. So what exactly are you looking for here? If you are talking about Republicans holding office that are tied up in scandal, I believe I have already stated my position. Did I not say that I believe David Vitter should be gone? I'm glad Foley is gone. I'm glad Chris Lee is gone. Were I in Vitter's state, I would not vote to re-elect him.
> 
> But Gingrich IS an irrelevant figure. All he is now is a talking head - but I'll note that he hasn't been given his own show on CNN.
> 
> I bashed the Democratic party because at first they chose the coward way out with Weiner - but I will give credit now that they are pushing for Weiner to resign, even Pres. Obama. I think that is a good thing. I think it is only because it finally got uncomfortable enough, what with the nude pictures taken in the Congressional gym, that they had no choice.
> 
> I think the appropriate punishment for politicians who engage in this ridiculous behavior is to run them out of office. Gingrich has no office from which he can be run, so I don't see how he is relevant. What are you looking for? Me to say he should never be elected again? Fine. I'll concede that, but I don't think that was a significant concern.


Well, I'm surprised to find out that you think that someone officially running under your party's banner for the spot of running for the *highest office in our land* is an irrelevant figure. That tells me what the standards of your party are. I'd expect more from one of the two major US parties.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Well, I'm surprised to find out that you think that someone officially running under your party's banner for the spot of running for the *highest office in our land* is an irrelevant figure. That tells me what the standards of your party are. I'd expect more from one of the two major US parties.


Do you know how many are running under the GOP banner? Even Ron Paul - who is more libertarian than anything, and has run as a libertarian. I can't control who runs for office. And I won't respond about every potential candidate. And I haven't required that of you in our conversation. I don't think it is such a big thing to limit our discussion to elected officials. If you are going to require me to also comment on past politicians, or potential candidates, can we at least stipulate some limit on how far back I have to defend? Say, nobody before 1990? Because this could get tedious. And as I said, Gingrich already suffered what I would hope would happen to Weiner. And is Gingrich polling even above 10%?


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> Republicans may very well be guilty of these sexual scandals, but Republican voters at least are still mostly disgusted by such behavior. *A few politicians still hang on, but Republicans are usually at the head of the pack expressing their disgust. * But Democrats' first notion is to start rationalizing that Republicans do it more.


Then why haven't any Republicans in office condemned the actions of David Vitter who actually broke the law?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> My point is this - those who so vehemently opposed the operation in Iraq are now eerily silent regarding our presence in Libya. Going beyond the legal justifications, the question is raised of what threat to the U.S. Libya posed. What national interest? Obama hasn't really sat down and told us these things, or his "exit strategy" as we so often heard from Democrats while Bush was prosecuting the war in Iraq. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region. He had repeatedly violated the conditions of the treaty that ended the earlier Gulf War. While it turned out that he did not have stockpiles of WMD, there was evidence that he was attempting to procure the necessary components. He was funding Palestinian terrorists. There was evidence that other known terrorists had been harbored in Iraq (I'm not connecting it with 9/11, but with terrorism in general). There are a number of UN resolutions of which he was in violation. There was a clear pattern of violations and actions that illustrated how dangerous an Iraq under the continued leadership of Saddam Hussein could be. And in the wake of 9/11, we were awoken to the realization that we could no longer let such threats continue.
> 
> Although their own leaders voted to authorize the use of military force, rank and file Democrats for the large part spent the better part of Bush's administration criticizing (at its mildest) or spewing outright hateful invective at Bush (war criminal, comparing him to Hitler) over the Iraq War.
> 
> Fast forward to today. We are in Libya. No one quite knows for how long. Nobody quite knows what our objective is. We are helping rebels against Qaddafi, and yet in the statements about the operation, we are told that removing Qaddafi is not the primary objective, rather to prevent a human rights disaster. But who are we protecting? What do we know of these rebels? Are we funding some new Taliban group that will then take over and impose strict religious law on the people and leave them, at best, no better than under Qaddafi? Or are they liberal-minded Muslims? I don't know. Does anybody else? Because nobody is telling us anything. We got in there first, and only later did NATO take over. This was not some NATO operation that we joined in on. NATO co-opted the operation after it got underway. Why can't we play a supporting role, like other NATO nations? They don't all feel compelled to contribute forces. And what is the exit strategy?
> 
> My main point in comparing these two scenarios is that there appears to be utter hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. Obama has enjoyed relatively solid support from Republicans on Libya. There is some concern that he should have come to Congress for authorization in accordance with the War Powers Act, but you will notice there is no uproar from Republicans about this being an "illegal war." But Democrats have suddenly become solid proponents of military force around the globe for nebulous reasons. You hear nary a peep from the previously dovish crowds. Where no justification in their mind quite rationalized our presence in Iraq, now they care for no justification to confirm their support of Obama in this action. It looks like they will always oppose military operations undertaken by Republicans, but wholeheartedly support any military operation undertaken by a Democrat. Compare the uproar over our operations in Somalia and the Balkans under Clinton with either of the wars in Iraq under Bush 41 and Bush 43.
> 
> My point is that Democrats have been shamelessly hypocritical in their criticisms of military actions. And it is made all the more deplorable in that they didn't merely voice opposition to Iraq - they turned Bush into some kind of monster and war criminal. It wasn't enough to debate the position. They had to demonize the man. And now they ignore Obama's pet operation in Libya. His policy is utterly incoherent. What is the reason to be in Libya? We were told it was to prevent a human rights crisis. Well, how would you characterize what is going on in Syria? Or what happened in Iran after their last elections?


Maybe you can make it more clear. I don't see the hypocrisy in my position at all.

You imply we need an exit strategy for Libya. But we haven't _entered _Libya. Really, our activity there so far is hard to compare to the invasion of Iraq. I explained that in my post, but you didn't respond to any of those points, so I don't understand how you continue to compare them as if they were directly equivalent, implying that our reaction to one should be equivalent to our reaction to the other.

Edit: Re-reading your post reminded me of another reason I cannot see how Libya is supposed to be equivalent to Iraq: so far as I know, we haven't yet been told the kind of lies that we were told about Iraq.

I explained why we won't get involved in Syria but we would in Libya. You evidently missed that part of my post. Maybe you would like to read it again and then see if your question remains.

Finally, let's suppose that our actions in Libya really ought to be thought of as completely equivalent to our actions in Iraq. It is also true that it took a long time for the anti-war reaction to that war to build up steam. If a few thousand of our soldiers die in Libya in the next couple of years, I'd bet a bigger anti-war movement emerges. You might just be asking for too much too soon.

Somalia and the Balkans are a new point, but I suppose I will address them as they're close to relevant: there was opposition to both of them, and very, very few Americans died in those actions compared to the invasion of Iraq. Had a few thousand of our soldiers died in those, I'd've bet that a bigger anti-war movement would've emerged.

And as for an "uproar" over the Gulf War, under Bush I, I don't remember it that way at all. It was almost universally popular, one of the biggest feathers in his cap in the '92 election. Not at all the kind of thing the Iraq War became under Bush II.

Obama has had his share of the rhetoric about "demonization" and "Hitler" in, for instance, the "debate" over healthcare reform. If it is deplorable in one case, then so in the other. Or, if it is acceptable in one case, then so in the other. But of course Obama is Hitler for trying to save lives. Well.


----------



## Guest

Aksel said:


> Then why haven't any Republicans in office condemned the actions of David Vitter who actually broke the law?


Notice I mentioned in that first sentence that Republican VOTERS are disgusted by the behavior. I wish more Republicans in office would condemn Vitter.


----------



## Almaviva

After further discussion among the staff we have decided to keep this thread permanently closed. This was a good-faith effort to provide an avenue for political discussions with a well-defined frame (thus the appeals to civility in the original post) but the destiny of such threads seems to be one of always derailing (several posts had to be deleted and edited out of content that violated the terms of service) so it is best to let this topic go, for now. Well, it always comes back, but only civil discussions will be allowed, and this one wasn't civil any longer.


----------

