Official Politics thread pt. 2

[Bigmo5246]

Obama will be re-elected. By now, there usually is a strong GOP candidate being groomed for the election. Mitt Romney is the closest thing to that and I don't see him winning over the casual American. I would REALLY love to see a Romney/Paul ticket. That would really intriguing.

I doubt be will. To many racists out there

[GONYK]

Obama will be re-elected. By now, there usually is a strong GOP candidate being groomed for the election. Mitt Romney is the closest thing to that and I don't see him winning over the casual American. I would REALLY love to see a Romney/Paul ticket. That would really intriguing.

I doubt be will. To many racists out there

There are more minorities than racists. Obama will definitely be re-elected IMO. There is no mainstream Republican to oppose him on a national scale, and I don't believe the majority of the country believes in the conservative extremism of most of the potential candidates on the right.

[tuckerfor3]

Were there too many racists when Obama was elected as well?

Here's a novel concept: perhaps he'll lose because he's done a sh*tty job?

There are more minorities than racists. Obama will definitely be re-elected IMO. There is no mainstream Republican to oppose him on a national scale.

I had no idea that "minority" and "racist" were mutually exclusive. Or comparable, for that matter.

Sheesh.

[GONYK]

Were there too many racists when Obama was elected as well?

Here's a novel concept: perhaps he'll lose because he's done a sh*tty job?

There are more minorities than racists. Obama will definitely be re-elected IMO. There is no mainstream Republican to oppose him on a national scale.

I had no idea that "minority" and "racist" were mutually exclusive. Or comparable, for that matter.

Sheesh.

I never said there was. I thought his one line of logic was a bit ridiculous in its simplicity, so I responded with what I felt was an equally simplistic rebuttal.

I don't think this election will be waged on race. There are too many real issues to discuss. I do think, however, that the Right comes out on the wrong end of those issues as far as what the American reception to their solutions will be.

[GONYK]

Tucker, how do you feel about corporations cutting jobs domestically while outsourcing jobs abroad? Do you think that practice should be curbed in the interest of American prosperity?

[tuckerfor3]

Were there too many racists when Obama was elected as well?

Here's a novel concept: perhaps he'll lose because he's done a sh*tty job?

There are more minorities than racists. Obama will definitely be re-elected IMO. There is no mainstream Republican to oppose him on a national scale.

I had no idea that "minority" and "racist" were mutually exclusive. Or comparable, for that matter.

Sheesh.

I never said there was. I thought his one line of logic was a bit ridiculous in its simplicity, so I responded with what I felt was an equally simplistic rebuttal.

I don't think this election will be waged on race. There are too many real issues to discuss.

Forgive my assumption then, that's what it seemed like.

And I hope you're right... we've elected the first man of color to the Presidency. Sure, racism is alive and well, but it is so in every ethnic community in the country. It's definitely time to be adults about why or why not he deserves a second term.

GONYK, I pretty much never agree with your politics, but kudos for always being a good sport and not stooping to unnecessary levels in our discussions. Peace.

[tuckerfor3]

Tucker, how do you feel about corporations cutting jobs domestically while outsourcing jobs abroad? Do you think that practice should be curbed in the interest of American prosperity?

Sure, but I think a multi-pronged approach is needed... I think incentives for domestic hiring and an improvement in the small business climate would help immensely. Part of the problem, I'm sure you'll agree, is that our government is utterly corporatist, including Mr. Obama.

[GONYK]

Forgive my assumption then, that's what it seemed like.

And I hope you're right... we've elected the first man of color to the Presidency. Sure, racism is alive and well, but it is so in every ethnic community in the country. It's definitely time to be adults about why or why not he deserves a second term.

GONYK, I pretty much never agree with your politics, but kudos for always being a good sport and not stooping to unnecessary levels in our discussions. Peace.

No worries man.

I agree that it is time to take a real look at Obama the president, and not just the transcendental icon he was as a candidate. I just think that he comes out ahead when compared to the alternatives in this election.

I don't agree with you and mugzi politically, but that is mostly on ideology. I always enjoy having discussions with the both of you. I know that, at the very least, I will learn how the other side thinks, and the reasons why I believe what I believe will be tested. I believe that is necessary to be a responsible voter. Take care man.

[GONYK]

Tucker, how do you feel about corporations cutting jobs domestically while outsourcing jobs abroad? Do you think that practice should be curbed in the interest of American prosperity?

Sure, but I think a multi-pronged approach is needed... I think incentives for domestic hiring and an improvement in the small business climate would help immensely. Part of the problem, I'm sure you'll agree, is that our government is utterly corporatist, including Mr. Obama.

That we absolutely agree on. This country is corporatist to the point of corruption in my opinion. I agree with your approach in theory, but I would also support a more aggressive approach.

In your opinion, why do you feel there has been a pushback in limiting that practice though? Is the resistance coming from rejecting how the Left has tried to limit that behavior, or from a denial that it is a problem at all?

[tuckerfor3]

Tucker, how do you feel about corporations cutting jobs domestically while outsourcing jobs abroad? Do you think that practice should be curbed in the interest of American prosperity?

Sure, but I think a multi-pronged approach is needed... I think incentives for domestic hiring and an improvement in the small business climate would help immensely. Part of the problem, I'm sure you'll agree, is that our government is utterly corporatist, including Mr. Obama.

That we absolutely agree on. This country is corporatist to the point of corruption in my opinion. I agree with your approach in theory, but I would also support a more aggressive approach.

In your opinion, why do you feel there has been a pushback in limiting that practice though? Is the resistance coming from rejecting how the Left has tried to limit that behavior, or from a denial that it is a problem at all?

Interesting point... the push-back, naturally, comes from the corporations and their puppets in government. Deep pockets + Deep influence = a government not for or by the people.

However, the end-result of the leftist approach of "limiting those practices" results in more centralized government power. Why should we bestow this same bought, corporatist government with additional power? Is it really no wonder that the big social government programs are going bust? Either is a essentially a corporation and bestowing either with increased power is a zero-sum game... for you and I.

I think the best possible solution is an engaged, active and self-empowered citizenry... that demands its government rein in corporations through sane, fair legislation that does not hinder innovation or productivity.

And that, we ain't got.

[GONYK]

Interesting point... the push-back, naturally, comes from the corporations and their puppets in government. Deep pockets + Deep influence = a government not for or by the people.

However, the end-result of the leftist approach of "limiting those practices" results in more centralized government power. Why should we bestow this same bought, corporatist government with additional power? Is it really no wonder that the big social government programs are going bust? Either is a essentially a corporation and bestowing either with increased power is a zero-sum game... for you and I.

I think the best possible solution is an engaged, active and self-empowered citizenry... that demands its government rein in corporations through sane, fair legislation that does not hinder innovation or productivity.

And that, we ain't got.

I can't say I disagree with any of that, and I heartily agree with the bold. As citizens, we don't take nearly enough initiative.

[Bigmo5246]

Were there too many racists when Obama was elected as well?

Here's a novel concept: perhaps he'll lose because he's done a sh*tty job?

There are more minorities than racists. Obama will definitely be re-elected IMO. There is no mainstream Republican to oppose him on a national scale.

I had no idea that "minority" and "racist" were mutually exclusive. Or comparable, for that matter.

Sheesh.

Nobody will be able to fix this country. My point was that people get on his case more than necessary most likely because of his race. He's an easy target. This is something everyone knows.

[tuckerfor3]

Interesting point... the push-back, naturally, comes from the corporations and their puppets in government. Deep pockets + Deep influence = a government not for or by the people.

However, the end-result of the leftist approach of "limiting those practices" results in more centralized government power. Why should we bestow this same bought, corporatist government with additional power? Is it really no wonder that the big social government programs are going bust? Either is a essentially a corporation and bestowing either with increased power is a zero-sum game... for you and I.

I think the best possible solution is an engaged, active and self-empowered citizenry... that demands its government rein in corporations through sane, fair legislation that does not hinder innovation or productivity.

And that, we ain't got.

I can't say I disagree with any of that, and I heartily agree with the bold. As citizens, we don't take nearly enough initiative.

Nope... I'm guilty of it too. It's hard. People work, go to school, have kids, or are just plain struggling. It's hard to find the time to be up your congressman's a$$ every week. Obama knows that. Bush knew it. The corporations know it. And they like it that way.

[tuckerfor3]

I found this kind of interesting and would be curious as to what some of you think:

CBS Detroit: Program Offers Cash Incentives To Live Downtown

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/07/25/ ... -downtown/

[ibraheim718]

Let me see if I'm following this latest bit of BS...

So Baby Bush takes office and is given a surplus to play with left by the former administration.

Then 9/11 takes place and the economy takes a hit. So Baby bush decides to start a war (an expensive one)... then he starts another war. All the while he is encouraging banks to lend, lend, lend (I acknowledge Clinton was doing the same) regardless or not if the borrowers can pay, pay, pay.

Then Baby Bush decides to cut taxes for everyone including the wealthiest people in america... because after all cutting taxes stimulates the economy... supposedly War does also.

Then the housing bubble bursts and Hank Paulson decides we have to scare the Chit out of congress so he hands them a three page document that basically says "hey I need 700+ billion dollars of tax payer money or we're going to be F****ed I'll explain why after you write me the check". This coincidentally happens right after Baby Bush is about to leave office and while we are losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month.

So why didn't the tax cuts stimulate the economy? Why weren't jobs being gained not lost when the corporate elite were making record profits?

And now the republicans don't want to pay the bills we are going to be past due on. Instead they want to put them off so they can be discussed in 2012 when the presidential election is going to be heating up? They also want to see a cut back in a completely solvent program in social security?

All Obama needs to do is call their bluff. And if the economy once again takes a plunge all he has to say is "hey I'm not the one who didn't want to pay the bills". How does this approach work in the republican party's favor? I don't see it. And the democratic party has to do nothing but simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and then make it clear during his bid for re-election how much revenue will be created from just letting the tax cuts expire in a simple enough way to where the american public understand it.

I am just getting a huge kick on how the republican party is digging their own grave for 2012. Why do you think Boner wants to cut a deal with the president only to be hamstrung by the tea baggers and be fed a line of crap to go on television to spew out of his tanned embalmed mouth? Because he knows the ramifications that will happen if they just do nothing. Knowing the Chinese will lose their patience with a country they most likely despise who owes them trillions of dollars. I honestly don't know what the Chinese would enjoy seeing more an american government lose it's once high standing as the economic superpower it once was or the interest that will accrue from the hefty loan america has taken over the years from them that they cannot afford to pay.

[ibraheim718]

I am willing to bet anybody anything that this debacle helps Obama win in 2012. Any takers?

[ibraheim718]

The CBO reported during June 2011 two scenarios for how debt held by the public will change during the 2010-2035 time period. The "extended baseline scenario" assumes that the Bush tax cuts (extended by Obama) will expire per current law in 2012.



Here's the link to the chart above. Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_- ... e_2011.png

Seriously how do you not just let the Bush tax cuts expire?

The CBO reported: "Many budget analysts believe that the alternative fiscal scenario presents a more realistic picture of the nation’s underlying fiscal policies than the extended-baseline scenario does. The explosive path of federal debt under the alternative fiscal scenario underscores the need for large and rapid policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course."

[mugzi]

Let me see if I'm following this latest bit of BS...

So Baby Bush takes office and is given a surplus to play with left by the former administration.

Then 9/11 takes place and the economy takes a hit. So Baby bush decides to start a war (an expensive one)... then he starts another war. All the while he is encouraging banks to lend, lend, lend (I acknowledge Clinton was doing the same) regardless or not if the borrowers can pay, pay, pay.

Then Baby Bush decides to cut taxes for everyone including the wealthiest people in america... because after all cutting taxes stimulates the economy... supposedly War does also.

Then the housing bubble bursts and Hank Paulson decides we have to scare the Chit out of congress so he hands them a three page document that basically says "hey I need 700+ billion dollars of tax payer money or we're going to be F****ed I'll explain why after you write me the check". This coincidentally happens right after Baby Bush is about to leave office and while we are losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month.

So why didn't the tax cuts stimulate the economy? Why weren't jobs being gained not lost when the corporate elite were making record profits?

And now the republicans don't want to pay the bills we are going to be past due on. Instead they want to put them off so they can be discussed in 2012 when the presidential election is going to be heating up? They also want to see a cut back in a completely solvent program in social security?

All Obama needs to do is call their bluff. And if the economy once again takes a plunge all he has to say is "hey I'm not the one who didn't want to pay the bills". How does this approach work in the republican party's favor? I don't see it. And the democratic party has to do nothing but simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and then make it clear during his bid for re-election how much revenue will be created from just letting the tax cuts expire in a simple enough way to where the american public understand it.

I am just getting a huge kick on how the republican party is digging their own grave for 2012. Why do you think Boner wants to cut a deal with the president only to be hamstrung by the tea baggers and be fed a line of crap to go on television to spew out of his tanned embalmed mouth? Because he knows the ramifications that will happen if they just do nothing. Knowing the Chinese will lose their patience with a country they most likely despise who owes them trillions of dollars. I honestly don't know what the Chinese would enjoy seeing more an american government lose it's once high standing as the economic superpower it once was or the interest that will accrue from the hefty loan america has taken over the years from them that they cannot afford to pay.

If you want to play fast and loose with the truth thats your choice, but lets cast the revisionism aside for a moment. I suppose social security's solvency is tied to the fact that its scheduled to run out of money within 25 years?

Im not a fan of GWB, never was I always viewed him as a Rino but I do recognize he inherited a situation that no president had until that point. An act of terrorism in NYC that was unprecedented. I understood the need to go into Afghanistan but I didnt agree wholeheartedly with Iraq, I thought the real threat was Iran and I was right.

The wars have cost over a trillion dollars and counting. But candidate Obama railed against the wars and doubled down on both once he got in office and continued without congressional approval in Libya something his predecessor never did.

Now any rational person knows how the economy got to where we are. That was the mortgage crisis. I was in the business I know first hand fraud was rampant on every level. From borrowers and mtg brokers doing liar loans to mortgage banks being complicit via their field reps telling brokers how to package a suspect loan for approval to Wall st who looked the other way because pass the potato didnt end with them.

So when people who had no business getting these loans didnt pay, it caused a domino affect throughout the economy, massive defaults, bankrupting lenders and people couldnt use their homes as atms anymore.


So how did these evil subprime loans get started? Funny you should ask. You see in the 90s BILL CLINTON in conjunction with HUD outlawed redlining and forced the govt lenders to provide low income families loans on a massive scale.

Thus the floodgates opened. And now were drowning in debt. So while yes Bush made plenty of bad decisions, dont try to put the meltdown at his feet and ignore the ineptitude of your idol Bill Clinton.


The economy was doing fine until mid 07, a year and a half before Obama was elected. And what has Obama done since entering office? Funny you should ask. He inherited a half a trillion deficit and QUADRUPLED IT.

Your boy Obama owns this economy and our malaise and he's not going to get what he wants in this standoff and hes not getting re-elected.

You've just been teabagged.

[GONYK]

Mugzi, what do you think about Reid's deal vs. Boehner's deal?

[mugzi]

I think they're both jokes. Kicking the can down the road instead of dealing with the issue.

1 trillion from Reids plan is assumed savings from ending Iraq and Afgahnistan.

Boehners simply punting to keep pressure on obama.