Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: GOP preparing for '14 primary fight

  1. -11
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,842
    vCash:
    5192
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Ron Paul would also be a terrible president, which I think most people grasped. People focus too much on the candidates being similar, in my opinion, as if what the process needs is a guy to come out and say he wants to replace the US Navy with rubber duckies. The real story is in why the candidates usually have so many similarities, which to me comes down primarily two things: 1) the campaign finance system, and 2) the fact that there is -- despite the way it seems -- something of a consensus on what to do about most issues.

    There are very definite concrete things we can do about #1, and I believe we should do them. But #2 is just as big a part of it. The consensus will always drive a moderate, compromise position. Therefore, anyone who wants to be elected to national office must occupy some version of that moderation (and, amusingly, try to convince his base that a 3% change in income tax is either needed or Armageddon). People want to turn this into some kind of conspiracy because it's easier believing there are artificial forces manipulating the debate than realizing the truth... which is that very few people agree with them about issues they're passionate about.
    Damn good point. You can find similarities between anyone and everything if you look for them. And even better point in that most of those similarities are there because the people want them there. It's particularly frustrating when differences are discounted, like how most social issues are shrugged off as unimportant...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Ron Paul would also be a terrible president, which I think most people grasped. People focus too much on the candidates being similar, in my opinion, as if what the process needs is a guy to come out and say he wants to replace the US Navy with rubber duckies. The real story is in why the candidates usually have so many similarities, which to me comes down primarily two things: 1) the campaign finance system, and 2) the fact that there is -- despite the way it seems -- something of a consensus on what to do about most issues.

    There are very definite concrete things we can do about #1, and I believe we should do them. But #2 is just as big a part of it. The consensus will always drive a moderate, compromise position. Therefore, anyone who wants to be elected to national office must occupy some version of that moderation (and, amusingly, try to convince his base that a 3% change in income tax is either needed or Armageddon). People want to turn this into some kind of conspiracy because it's easier believing there are artificial forces manipulating the debate than realizing the truth... which is that very few people agree with them about issues they're passionate about.
    Well, there certainly has to be some level of manipulation in order for 2 parties to consistently be the ony options. But more importantly, you are correct, on the core most Americans agree on a lot of issues.

    What i see today as the two main issues dividing the body politic are Social and Economic policies. Those for more social spending, debt be damned, and less social spending, gutting social security Medicare and Medicaid, drown out the mainstream majority that understand you have to reign in spending, it has gotten too far out of control. It only becomes more inflamed when you have a President that says we dont have a spending problem, in spit of obvious evidence to the contrary.

    As far as Economic policies, again you get beaten over the head with those that think that raising taxes will fix all of the economic ails of out country, despite the fact you never see new revenues used for debt reduction but rather gets used as new spending. Then there are those that think we should just cut taxes, as if by doing so, jobs will magically appear from the rich making more work for people. We are tired of war, but we must keep a lean and modern military at the ready. But watch the vitriol if you mention cutting the defense budget.

    As with most things in life, the truth usually can be found somewhere in the middle. Thats why the President should be a leader, someone that unites people on common issues and advances our country forward. The last few we've had could not be described as leaders by the most charitable observer. Our politicians lack character and conviction. They all look forward only to the next election, and what they have to do and who they must ply to get that vote. Until such time as principles come back in vogue, we will continue to get the dirtbags we have put into office today.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,788
    vCash:
    34583
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Well, there certainly has to be some level of manipulation in order for 2 parties to consistently be the ony options. But more importantly, you are correct, on the core most Americans agree on a lot of issues.
    It's more a symptom of having a majority system, imo. You need 50% +1 to pass anything or get elected, therefore power is naturally going to coalesce around two unified, strong parties. If we had a plurality system (whatever or whoever got the most votes was elected or got passed), you'd see more parties and a more diverse assortment of views on the public stage.

    Problem with that is you're susceptible to strongly motivated but relatively small minorities getting into power and drastically changing public policy despite having only like 20% support (the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt being a good example of this). The two party system draws the debate and legislation toward more of a middle ground.

    What i see today as the two main issues dividing the body politic are Social and Economic policies. Those for more social spending, debt be damned, and less social spending, gutting social security Medicare and Medicaid, drown out the mainstream majority that understand you have to reign in spending, it has gotten too far out of control. It only becomes more inflamed when you have a President that says we dont have a spending problem, in spit of obvious evidence to the contrary.
    As I've said before, it really depends on what you qualify as "spending." The main driver of debt is health care costs, as everyone knows. Discretionary spending (which is what most people think of when they think of spending) is a relatively small part of the budget. The problem is that the government is pledged to pay for health care and that the cost of health care is growing out of control.

    I think the president is right then to say that what we need to do is attack health care costs, not reduce benefits. Unfortunately Obamacare did not, in my view, do a good job of addressing that issue. A single payer system would have been much better in that regard.

    But nonetheless I don't see how it's moral to tell people who've paid into Social Security and Medicare their entire working lives (money matched by their employers) that they're going to get reduced benefits. It would be like me buying something and then before it's shipped the seller says he can't afford to sell the good to me at that price anymore, so he's going to have to send me a lesser product. Oh, and no refund either. He's keeping the money.

    I can't sign off on that. Sorry.

    As far as Economic policies, again you get beaten over the head with those that think that raising taxes will fix all of the economic ails of out country, despite the fact you never see new revenues used for debt reduction but rather gets used as new spending. Then there are those that think we should just cut taxes, as if by doing so, jobs will magically appear from the rich making more work for people. We are tired of war, but we must keep a lean and modern military at the ready. But watch the vitriol if you mention cutting the defense budget.
    I think that is a rather silly way of characterizing the liberal position on economics. It's interesting to me though that you seem to reject supply side economics. I'm glad to see it but it's interesting. If lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, doesn't stimulate economic growth, then why do you think they shouldn't be raised? Not meant as an attack at all, genuinely interested.

    As with most things in life, the truth usually can be found somewhere in the middle. Thats why the President should be a leader, someone that unites people on common issues and advances our country forward. The last few we've had could not be described as leaders by the most charitable observer. Our politicians lack character and conviction. They all look forward only to the next election, and what they have to do and who they must ply to get that vote. Until such time as principles come back in vogue, we will continue to get the dirtbags we have put into office today.
    I can't really agree that our leaders are worse than they've been. That's every generations cry and I just don't buy it. If you look at the presidents from Andrew Johnson to Franklin Roosevelt (a span ~ 70 years), it's a pretty horrific group. Teddy Roosevelt was a truly great president but he's pretty much the only one in that era who isn't some form or another of terrible.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It's more a symptom of having a majority system, imo. You need 50% +1 to pass anything or get elected, therefore power is naturally going to coalesce around two unified, strong parties. If we had a plurality system (whatever or whoever got the most votes was elected or got passed), you'd see more parties and a more diverse assortment of views on the public stage.

    Problem with that is you're susceptible to strongly motivated but relatively small minorities getting into power and drastically changing public policy despite having only like 20% support (the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt being a good example of this). The two party system draws the debate and legislation toward more of a middle ground.



    As I've said before, it really depends on what you qualify as "spending." The main driver of debt is health care costs, as everyone knows. Discretionary spending (which is what most people think of when they think of spending) is a relatively small part of the budget. The problem is that the government is pledged to pay for health care and that the cost of health care is growing out of control.

    I think the president is right then to say that what we need to do is attack health care costs, not reduce benefits. Unfortunately Obamacare did not, in my view, do a good job of addressing that issue. A single payer system would have been much better in that regard.

    But nonetheless I don't see how it's moral to tell people who've paid into Social Security and Medicare their entire working lives (money matched by their employers) that they're going to get reduced benefits. It would be like me buying something and then before it's shipped the seller says he can't afford to sell the good to me at that price anymore, so he's going to have to send me a lesser product. Oh, and no refund either. He's keeping the money.

    I can't sign off on that. Sorry.



    I think that is a rather silly way of characterizing the liberal position on economics. It's interesting to me though that you seem to reject supply side economics. I'm glad to see it but it's interesting. If lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, doesn't stimulate economic growth, then why do you think they shouldn't be raised? Not meant as an attack at all, genuinely interested.



    I can't really agree that our leaders are worse than they've been. That's every generations cry and I just don't buy it. If you look at the presidents from Andrew Johnson to Franklin Roosevelt (a span ~ 70 years), it's a pretty horrific group. Teddy Roosevelt was a truly great president but he's pretty much the only one in that era who isn't some form or another of terrible.
    I agree about Teddy Roosevelt...one of my top 5 all time.
    Jobs are created by favorable market conditions, i.e. business is good. No businessman looks to hire people if the cost benefit analysis doesnt favor the business. The juice has to be worth the squeeze.


    Taxes are a necessity, theres no way around it. Everyone should have skin in the game. I favor a flat tax, or even better a consumption tax. It truly is fair, because everyone pays into the system that way.

    As far as Social Security goes, i agree. It should have been lock boxed instead or raided by cash hungry politicians. Now we have a dillema. All those people crying about privatizing social security (which is presented as an option, not an all encompassing plan) should have been pissed beyond belief when the SS coffers were being raided. I think you have to be realistic, and either accept a SS freeze for a time or allow people access to their monies to invest as they choose.

    Medicaid and Medicare are simply going to be dinosaurs now that the ACA has been passed. A single payer would have been preferable to this ugly piece of legislation, but a single payer is also unpalatable to me. There was no healthcare crisis to speak of. People were not dying in the street. The system needed major reforms, especially insurance reform. Buying insurance across state lines, creating exchanges, making it more like car insurance would have been a great start. The ACA is not going to reform and constrain costs, thats just an undeniable fact.

    We have a lot that ails us. The answers wont be found on the extremes on either side. But since we dont have any leaders to bring it back to the middle most of us occupy, the problems will just keep getting kicked down the road. Nobody wants to step up.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,373
    vCash:
    7821
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Ron Paul would also be a terrible president, which I think most people grasped. People focus too much on the candidates being similar, in my opinion, as if what the process needs is a guy to come out and say he wants to replace the US Navy with rubber duckies. The real story is in why the candidates usually have so many similarities, which to me comes down primarily two things: 1) the campaign finance system, and 2) the fact that there is -- despite the way it seems -- something of a consensus on what to do about most issues.

    There are very definite concrete things we can do about #1, and I believe we should do them. But #2 is just as big a part of it. The consensus will always drive a moderate, compromise position. Therefore, anyone who wants to be elected to national office must occupy some version of that moderation (and, amusingly, try to convince his base that a 3% change in income tax is either needed or Armageddon). People want to turn this into some kind of conspiracy because it's easier believing there are artificial forces manipulating the debate than realizing the truth... which is that very few people agree with them about issues they're passionate about.
    I disagree about Ron Paul.

    Just because both the Republicans & Democrats happen to agree that we should be spending 53% of every tax dollar on the military industrial complex doesn't necessarily make them right. Just because the Repubs & Dems happen to agree on prostitution, gambling, & the drug-war, doesn't necessarily make them correct. Just because both major parties agree that we should be engaged in 2-3 wars at a time doesn't necessarily mean they're just in doing so. Just because the Republicans & Democrats have had the benefit of 200+ years of momentum at their back's doesn't inherently make them superior.

    Do I agree with every one of his positions? I don't, but I'm sure the same could be said for you and Obama. Personally (because I feel the role of a President is somewhat overrated; see below), I think he'd be just as good, if not a better President than Obama or Romney. I think his son Rand would also make a good President.



    That guy selling soap is responsible for the largest peacetime economic boom in American history? I'm having trouble buying that.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,788
    vCash:
    34583
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I disagree about Ron Paul.

    Just because both the Republicans & Democrats happen to agree that we should be spending 53% of every tax dollar on the military industrial complex doesn't necessarily make them right. Just because the Repubs & Dems happen to agree on prostitution, gambling, & the drug-war, doesn't necessarily make them correct. Just because both major parties agree that we should be engaged in 2-3 wars at a time doesn't necessarily mean they're just in doing so. Just because the Republicans & Democrats have had the benefit of 200+ years of momentum at their back's doesn't inherently make them superior.

    Do I agree with every one of his positions? I don't, but I'm sure the same could be said for you and Obama. Personally (because I feel the role of a President is somewhat overrated; see below), I think he'd be just as good, if not a better President than Obama or Romney. I think his son Rand would also make a good President.

    That guy selling soap is responsible for the largest peacetime economic boom in American history? I'm having trouble buying that.
    I didn't say anything about the Democrats and Republicans being right. That's in the eye of the beholder. I just think that the reason they're similar on a lot of issues is because their policy positions reflect the general consensus of the people, rather than the two party system reflecting some kind of 1984ish conspiracy of power being it's own ends and voices and positions that do have support being sniffed out by the blah blah blah. Our terrible campaign finance system does lead to an excess of handouts and favorable laws for corporations and moneyed interests, but even on those issues globalization has scared many workers into not wanting to do anything that might hurt their tenuous work situations.

    The 53% thing is misleading. First of all, you're isolating discretionary spending to inflate the percentage being spent on defense. But even beyond that, more than $50 billion a year from the Defense Budget ($54 billion in 2011) goes to Tricare, the insurance program offered to veterans (whose premiums are about a 10th of what comparable insurance costs). In 2010 we spent as much on Tricare as on Iraq, and the percentage being spent on it is growing out of proportion to other defense spending for the same reason Social Security and Medicare costs are growing out of proportion: skyrocketing health care costs. That's where the deficit problem lies, with health care. Everything else, in my opinion, is a bunch of bull****, and Obama is right to put it that way.

    As far as defense spending you know well that I believe it should be cut, if not slashed. But let's have a clear view of what we're talking about.

    No need to rehash my old pre-election objections to libertarianism. Suffice to say I consider Ron Paul far worse than Gary Johnson.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    8,092
    vCash:
    1442
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The Republican Main Street Partnership, a Washington-based group that has promoted moderate GOP lawmakers and policies, will remove the word "Republican" from its title and welcome center-right Democrats in 2013, Yahoo News has learned.

    The organization's board of directors voted Tuesday morning to scrap party identification from its title and be known simply as "The Main Street Partnership." The group's new president, former Ohio Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette, told Yahoo News that he plans to begin conversations with Blue Dog Democrats and centrist groups in the coming months.

    "The goal is to try and fill the void that is the middle," LaTourette, who resigned from Congress this year, said. "The American political system is like a doughnut: You've got sides, but you don't have anything in the middle, and it would be my goal to work with Republicans and Democrats who want to find the path forward to getting things done and compromise."

    In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, LaTourette added: ďWhile we have changed our name, we have not changed our values or our mission. We will continue to be a right of center organization and continue to represent the governing wing of the Republican Party."
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...-politics.html

    Interesting. As the comparison to the 80's Democrats and Clinton was brought up in the original article, thought his would be the best thread to throw it up in.

    Doubt it amounts to much, but would love for some of the politicians to jump on board with this.
    "Ignorance is not an excuse" were the words Goodell used when describing why those involved in the Saints bounty scandal would not avoid punishment.
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...ons-unanswered

    #freespesh. Because HIPAA
    http://www.finheaven.com/showthread....e-Recap-Thread
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,373
    vCash:
    7821
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I didn't say anything about the Democrats and Republicans being right. That's in the eye of the beholder. I just think that the reason they're similar on a lot of issues is because their policy positions reflect the general consensus of the people, rather than the two party system reflecting some kind of 1984ish conspiracy of power being it's own ends and voices and positions that do have support being sniffed out by the blah blah blah. Our terrible campaign finance system does lead to an excess of handouts and favorable laws for corporations and moneyed interests, but even on those issues globalization has scared many workers into not wanting to do anything that might hurt their tenuous work situations.
    I didn't say anything about conspiracies. 200+ years of momentum does certainly go along way though in establishing the dominance of the two current major parties, but just because they're currently the major parties doesn't automatically mean they represent the consensus will of the people. I donít think the wars weíre in reflect the consensus will of the people. Drug-war policy will surely & slowly become more scrutinized with the ever increasing access to information, but as it currently stands I donít think the cannabis policies reflect the general consensus will of the people, nor do I think the NDAA, or what the NSA is doing reflect the consensus will of the people.

    You mentioned the campaign finance system so youíre already aware that any candidate that isn't ingratiating themselves with corporate interests (rather than the actual will of the people), is off-the-bat putting themselves way behind the 8-Ball. So this doesn't necessarily mean that the final two candidates are there because thatís what the consensus will of the people desires. It does however mean that we get to choose who we like the most of the people willing to play the corporate campaign finance game.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The 53% thing is misleading. First of all, you're isolating discretionary spending to inflate the percentage being spent on defense. But even beyond that, more than $50 billion a year from the Defense Budget ($54 billion in 2011) goes to Tricare, the insurance program offered to veterans (whose premiums are about a 10th of what comparable insurance costs). In 2010 we spent as much on Tricare as on Iraq, and the percentage being spent on it is growing out of proportion to other defense spending for the same reason Social Security and Medicare costs are growing out of proportion: skyrocketing health care costs. That's where the deficit problem lies, with health care. Everything else, in my opinion, is a bunch of bull****, and Obama is right to put it that way.

    As far as defense spending you know well that I believe it should be cut, if not slashed. But let's have a clear view of what we're talking about.

    No need to rehash my old pre-election objections to libertarianism. Suffice to say I consider Ron Paul far worse than Gary Johnson.
    Budget for 2011 was about 3 trillion dollars. 1.6 trillion of that went to Military Industrial complex related spending, 54$ billion spent on Tricare is a tiny fraction of that 1.6 trillion dollar figure. I also donít know where you got the information that we spent the same on Tricare as Iraq last year. According to Business Insiders, we spent approximately 9.7 billion dollars a month in Iraq in 2011 (116 Billion total). Also, if that 54 billion dollar Tricare bill is so prevalent, the 38 billion dollar 2-year bill for air-conditioning in Afghanistan should also be noteworthy. So if youíre insinuating or implying that health care costs is the lead perpetrator of the deficit, & that war-related spending is relatively inconsequential in comparison, Iíd have to disagree.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,788
    vCash:
    34583
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I didn't say anything about conspiracies. 200+ years of momentum does certainly go along way though in establishing the dominance of the two current major parties, but just because they're currently the major parties doesn't automatically mean they represent the consensus will of the people. I donít think the wars weíre in reflect the consensus will of the people. Drug-war policy will surely & slowly become more scrutinized with the ever increasing access to information, but as it currently stands I donít think the cannabis policies reflect the general consensus will of the people, nor do I think the NDAA, or what the NSA is doing reflect the consensus will of the people.
    200+ years of momentum? Sorry, but the Republican party dates to the breakup of the Whig party (which was really just an anti-Andrew Jackson party) in the 1850s and the Democratic party is an offshoot of the Democratic-Republican party and was the party of states rights until this century.

    The parties and what they stand for have actually been very fluid over time, which just goes to my point.

    You didn't say anything directly about conspiracies but that's essentially what you're insinuating. If the parties don't reflect the general will of the people (not their exactly will, not the will of everyone because only people who participate get their voices heard, but their general will), then who is setting the agenda? A whole bunch of moneyed interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, foreign investors and on and on? That is the essence of a conspiracy. That's fine if you believe it, but it's a conspiracy.

    You mentioned the campaign finance system so youíre already aware that any candidate that isn't ingratiating themselves with corporate interests (rather than the actual will of the people), is off-the-bat putting themselves way behind the 8-Ball. So this doesn't necessarily mean that the final two candidates are there because thatís what the consensus will of the people desires. It does however mean that we get to choose who we like the most of the people willing to play the corporate campaign finance game.
    I don't think it does mean that. It's part of it, but it's not like I see a broad base of support for higher corporate tax rates or an end to farm subsidies. Do you? The average guy out there might not like subsidies to oil companies but he doesn't want the price of gas going up, either.

    Budget for 2011 was about 3 trillion dollars. 1.6 trillion of that went to Military Industrial complex related spending, 54$ billion spent on Tricare is a tiny fraction of that 1.6 trillion dollar figure. I also donít know where you got the information that we spent the same on Tricare as Iraq last year. According to Business Insiders, we spent approximately 9.7 billion dollars a month in Iraq in 2011 (116 Billion total). Also, if that 54 billion dollar Tricare bill is so prevalent, the 38 billion dollar 2-year bill for air-conditioning in Afghanistan should also be noteworthy. So if youíre insinuating or implying that health care costs is the lead perpetrator of the deficit, & that war-related spending is relatively inconsequential in comparison, Iíd have to disagree.
    From this book by David Wessell that I just finished reading last week:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0770436145

    Well worth reading, and not very long. Many misconceptions are cleared up.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers for "military industrial complex spending", but the budget for the military is about $700 billion, or about 20% of the entire budget. As we draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and because Mitt Romney lost -- those numbers are going to go down, obviously.

    The scary part about projecting the deficit out is not the accumulation of year to year deficits. I mean, it's scary, but what you're really looking for are trends. Economic trends -- is the economy doing well or poorly? And spending trends -- which is where health care comes in. And the trendlines on health care spending are utterly frightening. Here's a good graph that was made before the economic meltdown (meaning, it would be more dire now):



    From the book:

    Quote Originally Posted by "Red Ink" by David Wessell
    In 2021, if current policies remain in place, government spending on healthcare will consume 33 percent of federal spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan arm of Congress that tracks such things. The Medicare prescription drug benefit alone will cost more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The spending on the wars will end someday; the drug benefit is permanent.

    Nearly all the growth in the federal budget over the next ten years is going to come from spending on health care and interest payments unless something changes. "You can't fix this without doing health care," says Paul Ryan. "I mean, health care is the driver of the debt." And, as he and other routinely observe, even though the United States spends far more per person on health care than any other country, it isn't close to having the world's healthiest population.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,373
    vCash:
    7821
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    200+ years of momentum? Sorry, but the Republican party dates to the breakup of the Whig party (which was really just an anti-Andrew Jackson party) in the 1850s and the Democratic party is an offshoot of the Democratic-Republican party and was the party of states rights until this century.

    The parties and what they stand for have actually been very fluid over time, which just goes to my point.
    Whether theyíve changed or not theyíve still been the primary parties in the United States for the past 200+ years. If you want to say theyíve been more consistent the past century, well, thatís still at least a centuryís worth of established momentum.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    You didn't say anything directly about conspiracies but that's essentially what you're insinuating. If the parties don't reflect the general will of the people (not their exactly will, not the will of everyone because only people who participate get their voices heard, but their general will), then who is setting the agenda? A whole bunch of moneyed interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, foreign investors and on and on? That is the essence of a conspiracy. That's fine if you believe it, but it's a conspiracy.
    Corporate interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, & foreign investors certainly have their impact & influence; thereís nothing conspiratorial about it, itís fact. Thatís not however what Iím insinuating. You said that just by virtue of being the two major parties, that they inherently reflect the consensus will of the people, when thatís not necesarrily the case. These parties are so well established & are viewed by the overwhelming majority of people to be the only two viable parties. So any issue that both major parties happen to agree on weíre stuck with, no matter how major, because everyone perceives thereís no other realistic, viable option capable of capturing a majority vote.

    Do we get to vote on war? No (see Vietnam), we donít, but both parties are in agreement that being in all these wars is the correct course of action. Do we get to vote on indefinite detention of American citizens, or online spying? No, & neither of those things represents the consensus will of the people. These policies are the consensus will of 535 people + the president, not the entire populous.

    Any real change thatís going to come is going to be an uphill process because itís working against an established systemís momentum.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I don't think it does mean that. It's part of it, but it's not like I see a broad base of support for higher corporate tax rates or an end to farm subsidies. Do you? The average guy out there might not like subsidies to oil companies but he doesn't want the price of gas going up, either.
    Youíre telling me the corporations donating to the campaigns arenít expecting returns in the form of favorable policy? As evidenced by recent history, the only way to win an election now-a-days is with enormous amounts of advertising dollars. The only way to really get enough of said advertising dollars, is via corporate finance, & I think itíd be naÔve to think they arenít expecting some type of return in the form of favorable policy. So it absolutely means that we get to choose between whoeverís willing to play said campaign finance game, thereís really no denying it.

    Iím not saying they only have corporate interests at heart (else yee run the risk of looking like a Ďdetached patrician eliteí, Mitt Romney style), but they unquestionably owe a debt to campaign funders.

    President Barack Obamaís largest campaign donors last month included employees of Wells Fargo & Co., (WFC) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

    Their support indicates that Wall Street, which gave Obama $16 million for his successful 2008 White House run, is opening its checkbook again for the president. The contributions helped Obama raise $21 million in February, including $6.5 million transferred from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers for "military industrial complex spending", but the budget for the military is about $700 billion, or about 20% of the entire budget. As we draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and because Mitt Romney lost -- those numbers are going to go down, obviously.
    Pentagon budget alone was 717$ billion.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    From the book:
    Heís speculating 9 years into the future, & that may very well be the case, but as of 2012, 53% of the budget was military related, so even his estimated 33% figure is small in comparison. Iím not saying Health-care costs aren't a problem as well, but to act like everything else is ďbull****Ē, is not really accurate imo.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Is Hamas Preparing for War?
    By FFiB in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 04:09 PM
  2. Preparing for Buffalo.....
    By Phinz420 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-08-2005, 01:09 PM
  3. Preparing for War With Iran?
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 09:29 PM
  4. China preparing for war with US?
    By SkapePhin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 01:27 AM
  5. Maybe Norv is just preparing for Dec
    By gottahavefootba in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-22-2003, 11:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •