Political Roundtable - Part V

[popper]

I vaguely remember a study recently that quantified the fact that congress, the President, wealthy individuals and well healed special interest do as they please with policy and the will of the general public (we the people) is, in almost all instances, completely ignored.

It would be refreshing to be able to vote for a President that had no agenda above and beyond the strengthening of America. The definition of strengthening would be defined, openly debated and then directed by a representative sample of the citizenry. For lack of a better term, "a shadow direct democracy" if you will. Obama was on to something when he said he would hold open and televised debates on issues but then, once in power, reneged on the commitment and started jamming through whatever he could get away with. Bush did the same thing with the Iraq war.

Oh well, Hope Springs Eternal.

[dckingsfan]

Sigh.

...But the company, which is based in Hartford, Conn., hopes to reduce its costs by offering eligible employees a chance to enroll in Medicaid, using a contractor called BeneStream Inc. to help them sign up. The government program is more affordable for employees and saves money for Locals 8, said Chief Executive Al Gamble. “The burden gets shifted to Medicaid,” he said.

Such maneuvers could fuel controversy. Big employers with significant Medicaid enrollment in their workforces have been a political flash point in some states. The health law aimed to expand Medicaid eligibility to most people with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, but not all states have adopted that standard.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbus ... ar-BBaw0B6

[dckingsfan]

Interesting... Both have largely negative ratings. So, 7 in 10 don't trust Rs and most trust D's on only 2 of 9 top issues.

---------------

Associated Press-GfK poll "...Most likely voters have a negative impression of the Republican Party, and 7 in 10 are dissatisfied by its leaders in Congress."

"The Democrats win few accolades themselves. Impressions of the party among likely voters have grown more negative in the past month. In fact, Democrats are more trusted than the GOP on just two of nine top issues, the poll showed."

--------------

[dckingsfan]

"Ms. Hodge said the annual adjustments are crucial to cover her living costs. She said her biggest expenses are heating her home, real-estate taxes and gasoline."

So basically she hasn't been able to keep up with the cost of tax increases at the local level - funny that we have to take care of that at the national level.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/low-infl ... 1414013215

[Nivek]

To me, that kind of polling data -- indicating a deep distrust of BOTH major political parties -- suggests a ready environment for a "third way" party.

[dckingsfan]

To me, that kind of polling data -- indicating a deep distrust of BOTH major political parties -- suggests a ready environment for a "third way" party.

Violent Agreement... I think that many Americans don't trust the Rs for the religious views and the Ds for their views on the government solving all problems and ties to Unions.

I think a party based upon balanced budgets, streamlining government and limiting government to what it is good at would take more than 30% of the vote over time. I think it would also force both the Rs and Ds to the middle. I think it would be very helpful to the political process... but there are always those unintended consequences.

[popper]

To me, that kind of polling data -- indicating a deep distrust of BOTH major political parties -- suggests a ready environment for a "third way" party.

In theory I agree. In practice however I don't see how center right and conservative voters benefit from a third party. A significant slice of the Dem constituency votes for the party because they are promised that there will be no cuts in govt. spending, only increases. Therefore a third party couldn't promise anything more than what Dems have already established as their key party platform and legacy. Therefore any third party would have to be slightly left of mainstream Repubs or further to the right. Both of those positions will peel votes disproportionately from Repubs just as Perot did some years back.

What would a third party platform look like that could attract 35% of the electorate pulling equal numbers from Dem and Repub voting blocks?

[popper]

To me, that kind of polling data -- indicating a deep distrust of BOTH major political parties -- suggests a ready environment for a "third way" party.

Violent Agreement... I think that many Americans don't trust the Rs for the religious views and the Ds for their views on the government solving all problems and ties to Unions.

I think a party based upon balanced budgets, streamlining government and limiting government to what it is good at would take more than 30% of the vote over time. I think it would also force both the Rs and Ds to the middle. I think it would be very helpful to the political process... but there are always those unintended consequences.

That platform would peel Repub voters disproportionately and guarantee a Dem victory.

[dckingsfan]

To me, that kind of polling data -- indicating a deep distrust of BOTH major political parties -- suggests a ready environment for a "third way" party.

Violent Agreement... I think that many Americans don't trust the Rs for the religious views and the Ds for their views on the government solving all problems and ties to Unions.

I think a party based upon balanced budgets, streamlining government and limiting government to what it is good at would take more than 30% of the vote over time. I think it would also force both the Rs and Ds to the middle. I think it would be very helpful to the political process... but there are always those unintended consequences.

That platform would peel Repub voters disproportionately and guarantee a Dem victory.

One unintended consequence. But I think you underestimate the number of dissatisfied Ds.

Edit: The R party would probably need to adjust their platform if this happened - or become extinct or a minority party.

[popper]

Violent Agreement... I think that many Americans don't trust the Rs for the religious views and the Ds for their views on the government solving all problems and ties to Unions.

I think a party based upon balanced budgets, streamlining government and limiting government to what it is good at would take more than 30% of the vote over time. I think it would also force both the Rs and Ds to the middle. I think it would be very helpful to the political process... but there are always those unintended consequences.

That platform would peel Repub voters disproportionately and guarantee a Dem victory.

One unintended consequence. But I think you underestimate the number of dissatisfied Ds.

Edit: The R party would probably need to adjust their platform if this happened - or become extinct or a minority party.

Yes, I agree. The Repub party would no longer be competitive.

[Nivek]

Honestly, I don't care which party is hurt more, if either. I think both are basically disgraceful at this point. I don't know about you, but I HATE voting because I don't feel like either party represents anything like what I think. Both parties -- the whole "conservative vs. liberal" way of thinking is bull. Both approaches contort solutions to fit ideologies that really don't mean anything.

So yeah, I'm back on my Pragmatist Party idea. Principles along the lines of more or less libertarian on social issues and people's private lives, a well-designed safety net for people who need help, a national defense that can protect the country without bankrupting it, and something that seeks a balanced budget that pays down the national debt.

That's not a full/complete list -- I haven't thought this through completely, because the one thing certain is that I ain't starting it.

[popper]

Honestly, I don't care which party is hurt more, if either. I think both are basically disgraceful at this point. I don't know about you, but I HATE voting because I don't feel like either party represents anything like what I think. Both parties -- the whole "conservative vs. liberal" way of thinking is bull. Both approaches contort solutions to fit ideologies that really don't mean anything.

So yeah, I'm back on my Pragmatist Party idea. Principles along the lines of more or less libertarian on social issues and people's private lives, a well-designed safety net for people who need help, a national defense that can protect the country without bankrupting it, and something that seeks a balanced budget that pays down the national debt.

That's not a full/complete list -- I haven't thought this through completely, because the one thing certain is that I ain't starting it.

I hear you. I'm not starting one either. But the moment any party starts talking about govt. spending cuts or a balanced budget then all hell breaks loose. Remember, only approx half the electorate (maybe even less) pays federal income tax so they're not about to give up the free ride. In fact, they want more spending because they disproportionately benefit from it.

[popper]

I hate to sound so negative but once we started down the path of the welfare state and then allowed govt. workers to unionize then it became almost inevitable that our decline would continue until our credit worthiness is no longer assured and we are unable to borrow vast sums of money. When we reach that point, interest rates will rise precipitously and the economy will struggle mightily. Some basket of currencies or the Chinese renminbi backed by huge gold reserves will replace the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. Our decline became inevitable once the table was set.

[Nivek]

Honestly, I don't care which party is hurt more, if either. I think both are basically disgraceful at this point. I don't know about you, but I HATE voting because I don't feel like either party represents anything like what I think. Both parties -- the whole "conservative vs. liberal" way of thinking is bull. Both approaches contort solutions to fit ideologies that really don't mean anything.

So yeah, I'm back on my Pragmatist Party idea. Principles along the lines of more or less libertarian on social issues and people's private lives, a well-designed safety net for people who need help, a national defense that can protect the country without bankrupting it, and something that seeks a balanced budget that pays down the national debt.

That's not a full/complete list -- I haven't thought this through completely, because the one thing certain is that I ain't starting it.

I hear you. I'm not starting one either. But the moment any party starts talking about govt. spending cuts or a balanced budget then all hell breaks loose. Remember, only approx half the electorate (maybe even less) pays federal income tax so they're not about to give up the free ride. In fact, they want more spending because they disproportionately benefit from it.

Is that you Mitt Romney?

Rich people also benefit tremendously from the taxes they pay. And, suggesting that people who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax are getting a "free ride" sounds sorta condescending. Most of those people go to work, pay their bills, take care of their kids, etc., but don't make enough to pay an income tax. Just a wild guess, but most of them would also prefer to make enough to pay income taxes.

[Nivek]

I hate to sound so negative but once we started down the path of the welfare state and then allowed govt. workers to unionize then it became almost inevitable that our decline would continue until our credit worthiness is no longer assured and we are unable to borrow vast sums of money. When we reach that point, interest rates will rise precipitously and the economy will struggle mightily. Some basket of currencies or the Chinese renminbi backed by huge gold reserves will replace the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. Our decline became inevitable once the table was set.

Don't know how realistic this is. From what I've read on the subject, America has been able to borrow in dollars. Changing the world's reserve currency would involve lenders essentially flushing a significant chunk of the value of debt owed by the US.

[mhd]

Doesn't everyone pay "some share" via the sales tax, property tax (if they own a home), etc?

Moreover, that statistic on no federal income tax is VERY misleading. That doesn't account for payroll taxes. Here is a solid article on the subject:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-rom ... ent-2012-9

So, there are about 18.1% who don't pay ANYTHING federally (income tax and/or payroll tax).

Of that 18.1 %, 10.3% are the seniors (where social security benefits are not deemed as income). GOOD LUCK trying to get anyone in congress to agree to ask retirees amongst this group to pay one cent federally.

Another 6.9% are people (who are not seniors) making UNDER $20k. They don't pay anything because of the earned income tax credit (an idea championed by Presidents Ford & Raegan), and supported by both parties & the child tax credit (again supported by both parties).

You are better off allowing the very poor (under $20k) to keep their money, vs, the miniscule impact any collected taxes would have.

[dckingsfan]

Honestly, I don't care which party is hurt more, if either. I think both are basically disgraceful at this point. I don't know about you, but I HATE voting because I don't feel like either party represents anything like what I think.

THIS...

[Kanyewest]

Question . . . do you trust what Obama says less than when you heard George W. Bush or Bill Clinton speaking? We have created a culture where speaking truth seems to disqualify you for the Presidency. How many Presidents have we had in the last half century going back to Kennedy that weren't inveterate liars . . . Jimmy Carter is about it, and he may have been the most incompetent man we've had in the job (I'd like to rate him second least competent behind George W. Bush personally but Bush had a stretch where he got things he wanted done after 9-11; Carter never did).

Bush got stuff done- like getting us into Iraq which costs somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion. And if we are going to blame Carter for Iran/hostage, then we can blame Bush for 9/11. IMO neither deserves the majority of the blame.

[penbeast0]

mmm, wasn't particularly blaming Carter for Iran/hostage. I blame him for a screwed up energy policy, for not having the political courage or economic wisdom to deal with the stagflation and bloating of government programs, and for not having the people/political skills to deal with Congress; basically for a lack of leadership. But not for the rise of Islamic militancy.

The irony is that, along with George Bush Senior, he was probably the best person we've had in the job, but it could be that being a fundamentally decent person might be a problem in being an effective president. I hope not, but there are some indicators that point that way.