# Election over- what now?



## NYC Composer (Nov 7, 2012)

Will there be a budget so we can avoid a fiscal cliff? Will there be immigration reform, tax reform? Will the stonewalling between the parties be modified? In other words, will we see progress in the next four years?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 7, 2012)

What good questions. I don't really understand the US system, but a split house / senate looks to me similar to our hung parliaments - with no overall majority you need an alliance of some kind to get anything done. For the last 4 year's its been like that but with no alliance - or little prospect of one.

From 3,000 miles away, it's always looked like all the disappointment at Obama has been that he's just not been able to do what the people who voted for him want him to do - or indeed he wants to do. It's an odd system.


----------



## kclements (Nov 7, 2012)

It is an odd system. And we have a Party that in the past went on record saying their _only_ job was to make sure the President didn't get a second term. They choose not to work with the President or the American People, instead blocking everything they could to stall progress. 

Now that Mr. Obama has won a second term I am hopeful they will stop acting like third graders and actually come to the table and have a real discussion/debate/compromise about what needs to get done.

What we need is to remove the "You must lose so I can win" mentality - really dig our heals in and get some very tough problems and questions answered.

cheers
kc


----------



## Ed (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2012)

If Obama was going to destroy the nation and rebuild it, it would have happened after the first 5 trillion bucks, no need for paranoia, just don't be shy, go get your underwater mortgage re negotitiated.
My buddy got together with the Bank and was going to tell them to stuff it after 2 years of getting his pud tugged, and to his shegrin he got 140k knocked off of his mortgage.
The money from Fed will not put cash in anyone but the Banks hands, but the toxic assets are being removed from creative financing.

This infuriates people who need money, have great credit and their mortgage paid off, but giving out hard currency is only happening to the Banks and their evil CEOs, but somehow this is raising home values, and demand, and Brotha Man Ben will keep pumpimg cash into Wall Street until it's no longer needed.

Be happy, we missed austerity measures, our kids will probably suffer a little from this, but them little jergovs don't listen anyways, let's see how they handle losing half of their equity, or seeing their lack of training or education actually have a negative effect.

Expect the legalization of Weed too.
The Feds don't really care about people, but they respond to money and the markets.

Enjoy Yourself, I know I will, we have record number of Convention and visiting people this year after 3 years of desolation, home invasions and shopping carts everywhere you go.

Congrats Obama, please fire Holder though, then I'll really believe we are moving forward.......... o-[][]-o


----------



## MA-Simon (Nov 9, 2012)

I know, I may have another perspective on things, not beeing an american, but from my point of view, I find this very funny:
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 9, 2012)

We were told to stand down Tuesday, which means don't perform and watch the Sheep fights, and I must say the rulers split up the people into groups perfectly well.
My Mexican, Black and many AFL-CIO white bro's were happy as they knew the AFL-CIO will get infrastructure jobs, and since the Casinos are heavily Unionized the cheers from the Romney Sheep were easily drowned out by the Obama worshippers.

It looks like the employees cafeteria wall, only with more shots of cheering Union workers, as we are heavily Unionized here in Las Vegas, and heavily Mormonized which made it the stangest place to see such an election.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 9, 2012)

Glad I don't live in the U.S.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 9, 2012)

dcoscina @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Glad I don't live in the U.S.



Glad I do.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 9, 2012)

NYC Composer @ 7th November 2012 said:


> will we see progress in the next four years?



I've been scanning "The Weekly Standard," a conservative magazine, to see if there is any sign of soul-searching on the conservative side of the aisle that might lead to a rethinking by the right about their positions. My assumption is that it would take some softening there for the next four years to be productive. 

So far, I haven't read much serious questioning about how Republicans have come to be viewed; in fact, the writers seem more than ever convinced that they live in a land of freeloaders, that only conservatives stand between proper government and profligacy, and that the election represents the triumph of a new majority who are looking for handouts from the Federal government.

This general theme reflects continuation and amplification of the "47%" comments Romney inadvertently disclosed at his secretly-taped fundraiser; the idea that anyone who disagrees with Republicans is explicitly asking for "stuff" from the government.

This notwithstanding that the older voters and white males who most strongly supported Romney appear willing to accept Medicare, Social Security, and other Federal largesse.

So it looks like four more years like the last two -- near-total gridlock, and demonization of Obama as some kind of anti-Christ.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 9, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> NYC Composer @ 7th November 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > will we see progress in the next four years?
> ...



yes interesting john. i will wait a few months on the critical decisions that have to be made on the fiscal cliff. then i will decide at least what im going to do.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 9, 2012)

dcoscina @ 9/11/2012 said:


> Glad I don't live in the U.S.



Please think about our many American friends before posting something that will clearly insult many of them.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 9, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> NYC Composer @ 7th November 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > will we see progress in the next four years?
> ...



I know. I've been doing the same. Shocking really. The party of "personal responsibility" is blaming everybody else for their loss. What kills me is that they really do think that 47% of the population are government freeloaders. Party is losing it big time. I mean I'm democrat and have never in my life received one dime of free government money. I can't believe that I'm the only one. :lol:


----------



## Darthmorphling (Nov 9, 2012)

The day after the election I came across two quotes: one from a Dem and one from a Rep. Both were anonymous, but really sum up why the state of politics is the way it is.

The Democrat quote.

"This may surprise you, but many of us that voted for the President are doing well financially, have never been on government support and make enough to pay taxes every year. Step outside of your narrow world. *There is a great country out there made up of really fine people on both sides.*"

The Republican quote from an anonymous high ranking party official.

"The fundamentals of the election were the same all along, and they were this: When there's an incumbent no one wants to vote for, and a challenger that no one wants to vote for, people will vote for the incumbent. At no point did Romney give people any reason to vote for him, and so they didn't."

The Republicans can not seem to realize that the America population is changing and that change needs to happen within the party. They are no longer going to be able to cater to the extreme religious right, or all of its xenophobic members. 

The Dems are almost as bad as they do not realize that we can not keep funding all of these entitlement programs either. We can not just abandon them completely, but there does seem to be a need for some reform.

On both sides of the aisle there is this demonization of the other side. I find my self able to agree with positions on both sides of the equation, but many seem to think that their world view is the only correct version. What people need to think is that their world view is only "their world view".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

According to punditry, The Party That Used To Be Republicans - the biggest problem facing our country - is going to have an internal fight over whether they need to court Latinos and black people or whether their problem is that they weren't Severely Conservative enough.

Yet the one thing I haven't heard one single talking head mention is the actual problem:

THEIR IDEAS ARE TERRIBLE!

As Rachel Maddow says, the way our system is supposed to work is that two parties come up with feasible ideas to solve the real problems in our world; we debate them; and then the best idea wins. The country should be better off that way.

Wouldn't it be great if the Off-The-Rails party became Republican again?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

> On both sides of the aisle there is this demonization of the other side.



False equivalence.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

By the way, I got a reported post notice.

And as usual, by the time I stagger into my office in the morning, Nik the Greek has already dealt with it.

...I hope? Because I didn't see anything out of line. If it was dcoscina's post, he's allowed to say he's glad he doesn't live in America, and other people are allowed to feel the same way or disagree.

I personally love living here and feel lucky to have had the accident of birth that allows me to do so, but I also don't take the next step of saying it's the best country in the world (there are other enlightened countries, so it's one of the equally great ones).


----------



## wst3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> As Rachel Maddow says, the way our system is supposed to work is that two parties come up with feasible ideas to solve the real problems in our world; we debate them; and then the best idea wins. The country should be better off that way.



That's not actually how it was envisioned, and it is not how it worked when it worked.

Both sides come up with their solution to a specific problem, and more often than not they will have to find a middle ground - consensus - since both groups have to give a little.

Expecting the "best idea" to win is, I'm afraid, a bit childish. Who decides which is the best idea? Oh, yeah, that would be the party in power... yeah, that's a plan I can get behind.

I do want both parties to figure out why they didn't get an overwhelming mandate. The Republicans have a LOT more work than the Democrats, but neither party presented a compelling story - either they didn't have a compelling story (which is my suspicion) or they did not communicate it well.

And both parties allowed an alarming number of vicious, and often inaccurate advertisements to play. You can claim that it wasn't the party's fault - but then you are admitting that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. The mudslinging is unforgivable in my book. Doesn't matter who is flinging!

You can continue to attack the 1% (if you are a Democrat) or the 47% (if you are a Republican) but that won't solve a thing. And it marginalizes the real issues.

We have financial problems. We have social problems. We have enemies.

Anyone think perhaps we should be chasing these boogeymen instead of each other?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> > On both sides of the aisle there is this demonization of the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> False equivalence.



No, it isn't. Not all Republicans are the same. My good friend and client, Dean Butler of "Little House On The Prairie" fame is not Karl Rove. And Hillary Clinton is not Dennis Kuchinich.


----------



## Niah (Nov 9, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> dcoscina @ 9/11/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Glad I don't live in the U.S.
> ...



Maybe it would the best if dcoscina would have posted a follow-up to what he said and the specific reasons why he is saying that but really I can't see how it is "clearly an insult" to our american users here.

If memory serves me correctly dcoscina was born in the US and moved, perhaps this just reinforces the fact that he is glad that he didn't stay. Only he can respond to that.

However I can't see how someone, anyone, who says "I'm glad I don't live in the US" is somehow directing something towards the american people and not the country itself. If users here can joke about europeans still living in caves and europeans not being insulted, in fact even joining the fun...then I can't see how this can be an insult to anyone. But if that's the case lets hear it from the offended and not make assumptions.


----------



## passenger57 (Nov 9, 2012)

Wow I just can't wait for my tax rates to go up, so excited to have less money in the bank!
Gotta pay for our governments mismanaging of our money somehow - go team!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2012)

Niah @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > dcoscina @ 9/11/2012 said:
> ...



I don't care. The last thing we need here in the US is another composer :twisted:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker wrote:



> No, it isn't.



It absolutely is.

The Democrats do not share more than a fraction of a single percent of the blame for the political gridlock. It is a problem of Republican regressive making.

And it's a testament to the forces of sanity in the universe that their despicable agenda was voted down.

Bill:



> That's not actually how it was envisioned, and it is not how it worked when it worked.



Well, I'm paraphrasing her, but I think you're arguing semantics that I don't believe you believe.

What I do think you believe is that Romney had credible ideas. He didn't - they were not credible and they would have made the country a worse place to live (for conservatives too). You voted the wrong way.

That aside, I suspect you would agree that enlightened systems of government all have in common the idea that serious debate is a good thing. I say we've had less and less of that here, and you think that what the Republicans offer is serious.

That's our disagreement, not the semantics.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 9, 2012)

passenger57 @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Wow I just can't wait for my tax rates to go up, so excited to have less money in the bank!
> Gotta pay for our governments mismanaging of our money somehow - go team!



it will depend on how much, when and for how long. if some think it will be never ending then theres always the house in the uk and switzerland. oh but wait a moment. theyre in the same trouble only worse. :lol:


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2012)

Here's what's next:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... icans?lite

The same non-issues we had before the election. The two parties keep spewing this drivel because it excites their bases. Nobody seems to care if it will actually accomplish anything.

There's no leadership in Washington. I agree with a lot of what Obama stands for but he's one of the least-capable leaders we've ever elected to the presidency (hence the continuing gridlock in DC). It's been going on long enough now that I think we can call it a trend. Gone are the days of Washingtons and Lincolns. What matters nowadays is how well you play the role of fear-monger and demagogue. That's not leadership, at least not the type of leadership that made America great.

Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain). The number of insulting and childish anti-Romney posts on my Facebook feed are a perfect example - there was nothing like that from my conservative friends. The Dems need to inject a bit of pragmatism and rational thought into their choices. Just because a guy is charismatic and has good ideas doesn't mean he's the right one to lead the cause. To be a leader, you need to have leadership skills. And as I said in 2008, better that you demonstrate them before getting to the office of President of the United States.

Take a look at the post-election analysis: it discusses how effectively the Obama campaign managed its advertising. No mention of ideas, no mention of agendas, no mention of leadership, no mention of anything other than effectively targeted spending.

We better hope something changes. Soon...

rgames


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 9, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> dcoscina @ 9/11/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Glad I don't live in the U.S.
> ...



Ned, I'm American. I live in Ontario, Canada and have since I was a wee lad.

I used to be a very proud American but I've found the polarization in party ideologies over say the past 2 decades has gotten uglier and uglier. It's put me off.

My grandmother was a staunch Republican for most of her life (96 years old and she just passed away last August). She held what many would call good Republican/Conservative values. But she became disenchanted with that party and actually voted for Obama in 2008. That's huge being a white woman originally from the South and living in New Hampshire. 

Anyhow, it wasn't meant to slight Americans- otherwise I'd be insulting all of my extended family most of whom I have a tremendous amount of love and respect for. But living in Canada and being American, I feel as though I have a unique perspective in that I'm not so tied to one country or another. Up until 2000, I still had a lot of pride and good feelings towards the country of my birth. But I've seen it decline and frankly believe the U.S. is in its twilight years as far as a world leading country is concerned. It's only getting by on its powerful media engine bludgeoning people with the belief that everything is great and it's still the greatest country in the world- not too dissimilar to the propaganda machine in Stalin-era Russia if I'm not mistaken. 

Anyhow, I honestly don't purport to be a poli-sci expert nor do I want to be. With the ever shrinking time I have to composer music, I'd much rather talk and write music. 

I'm actually surprised this forum allows for political discourse because it clearly isn't relevant to music, technology or art in almost all cases....


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to read Woodward's book "The Price of Politics" before you make that blanket statement.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

> Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain).



How do you square that with the fact that the Republican party is on the wrong side of every single issue?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

> You need to read Woodward's book "The Price of Politics" before you make that blanket statement



I know what he says, but a) I know what was on the table during the stand-off, b) I disagree with his assessment of what Obama could have done given the recalcitrance he was up against, c) the blanket statement I'm making is omitting the trail of appropriate expletives that go from my house to the moon.

These people suck, in other words.

And while ad hominem isn't an argument, it is worth pointing out that Woodward is the same guy who wrote the book beatifying Greenspan - probably the single biggest villain in this mess we're in.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> > Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain).
> 
> 
> 
> How do you square that with the fact that the Republican party is on the wrong side of every single issue?


Well, first of all, at least you know what the issues are. Since Obama was re-elected, look at all the news coverage of demonstrations on what issues people want Obama to address: immigration, climate change, etc. Shouldn't they have considered his stances on those issues before voting? His campaign was built mostly on the same "I'm not Bush" platform he used four years ago.

Second of all, when Republicans do stupid things (like make idiotic comments about rape), they lose their elections. That's rational. When Democrats do stupid things like go into rehab, offer plea deals to try to avoid jail time for gross misappropriation of funds, and disappear for months on end, they win 65% of the vote in their districts (Jesse Jackson Jr). That's irrational.

Third, leadership is an issue for everyone regardless of his stance on any issue. Obama seems to think that blaming the Republicans is leadership. Anyone who stops to think about it for a minute comes to the same conclusions: isn't it his job to LEAD the Republicans into his camp? That's what leadership is, and he has failed miserably at it. (By the way, leadership doesn't have to come from the president - it can come from the Congress, e.g. Gingrich).

Blaming others is the antithesis of leadership. Your job as a leader is to lead. If you can't lead, you're not a leader. QED.

rgames


----------



## park bench (Nov 9, 2012)

> If you can't lead, you're not a leader.


Excellent Deduction Sherlock. :D


----------



## bdr (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick, are you going some long term performance piece sending up intolerance? I've never seen anyone so convinced of their own correctness apart from religious fanatics.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 9, 2012)

rgames @ 9th November 2012 said:


> isn't it his job to LEAD the Republicans into his camp? That's what leadership is, and he has failed miserably at it.



It's kind of hard to lead people who have made it their mission to see you fail. 

Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Maybe this will change -- we will see some compromise -- now that Obama's reelection has been settled but, watching the stock market swoon and seeing the positions staked out already, it seems doubtful.

It looks like a bruising fight over the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling, followed by blaming and rhetoric. Not an auspicious start to the next four years.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> rgames @ 9th November 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > isn't it his job to LEAD the Republicans into his camp? That's what leadership is, and he has failed miserably at it.
> ...


Overcoming that obstacle is the essence of leadership.

Hitler wanted the Allied Generals to fail. Apple wants Samsung to fail. The Yankees want the Red Sox to fail. Lots of groups want the other groups to fail.

Those that don't fail have strong leadership.

Those leaders who say "It's just too hard" are not, in fact, leaders and have no business being in a leadership position.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> rgames @ 9th November 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > isn't it his job to LEAD the Republicans into his camp? That's what leadership is, and he has failed miserably at it.
> ...



In McConnell's defense, that is only part of what he said. What gets left off is along the lines of:"We don't want him to fail, we want him to change. If he were to take a Clintionian turn to the center, we could maybe get some things done together".

Everyone should read the Woodward book. I am a Democrat but I value knowing the whole story more than solidarity to my party.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 9, 2012)

I think the rest of what he said was platitudes and window-dressing. I think it's been pretty clear what the agenda has been for the past two years, basing my view not so much on what was said but what happened.

But either way, that fight is done and Obama's reelected. On to the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling redux.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> I think the rest of what he said was platitudes and window-dressing. I think it's been pretty clear what the agenda has been for the past two years, basing my view not so much on what was said but what happened.
> 
> But either way, that fight is done and Obama's reelected. On to the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling redux.



Once agin, read the book and you will see that there is plenty of blame to go along. When Woodward gives his opinions, one may disagree but when he states something is a fact, you can take it to the bank.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

> Nick, are you going some long term performance piece sending up intolerance? I've never seen anyone so convinced of their own correctness apart from religious fanatics.



I'm not intolerant, I just see no reason to pretend that a massive collection of ridiculous arguments is valid just because it's held by lots of people. Religious fanatics believe their religion; I believe reality.

Seriously - name an issue and I'll explain exactly why the Republicans are on the wrong side of it. The only exceptions are issues like abortion and the death penalty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

Jay, Obama already is in the center.

All McConnell said is that because the House is still controlled by Republicans, he's willing to allow Obama to kiss his sagging jowls.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> > Nick, are you going some long term performance piece sending up intolerance? I've never seen anyone so convinced of their own correctness apart from religious fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nick, one day you will accept the fact that you are, in fact, a religious fanatic.

Your religion is Liberalism and your Messiah is Paul Krugman 

Robert Reich is in there somewhere - an Apostle or something like that...

rgames


----------



## wst3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Bill:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am absolutely NOT questioning your semantics! But that's interesting<G>!



Nick Batzdorf said:


> What I do think you believe is that Romney had credible ideas. He didn't - they were not credible and they would have made the country a worse place to live (for conservatives too). You voted the wrong way.



I believe that both candidates had some good ideas, and some really awful ideas. And giving credit to the candidates for those ideas is probably way off base, but that's another issue entirely.

The trick to not being a one issue voter is to weigh the benefits of the good ideas and the pain of the bad ideas and finding the least offensive solution. It's always been that way, at least for as long as I can remember. It just didn't used to be so difficult to find the actual planks in the platform!

As one example only - many Churches suggested that you have to vote Pro-Life - which led many voters to use the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issue as their sole litmus test. That's foolish - and I think you'd agree. It really doesn't even matter how you or I view the issue, it should not be the sole reason one votes one way or another.

As another example, many of the Super PACs lit on tax strategies as a way to 'encourage voters'. Some ads said they were going to take all your money to pay for the "Obama-Phones". Others suggested that we need to tax only the rich. 

Besides the fact that both are inaccurate, it's a poor reason to choose a President. First of all, the President does not, CAN NOT, levy taxes. But the whole issue is so much more complex. Basing your choice on a perceived tax strategy only is a bad strategy.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> That aside, I suspect you would agree that enlightened systems of government all have in common the idea that serious debate is a good thing. I say we've had less and less of that here, and you think that what the Republicans offer is serious.



So we seem to agree on the idea that debate - serious debate - is good. It is an opportunity to 'air out' ideas. And it is the only opportunity to find common ground.

You seem to think that none of the positions that the Republicans put forth are serious. That's a huge mistake on several levels.

First, they are serious. You may not like them, or their ideas, but they are serious.

Second, one can poke holes in positions put forth by the Democrats just as easily.

Third - making such attacks is not serious debate, and it does NOTHING to move closer to real debate.

We've got a real mess in Washington! Character assassination, threats, dismissive statements, and the like won't help resolve that. And if we're doing it here, in a composer's forum, we can't really fault our elected officials for doing the same.

Chicken and egg? I don't know...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2012)

Well, if like me you recognize that every single Republican position has no merit, then it's a deadly serious debate!

And I am serious that I disagree: there is not one single policy advanced by Romney that made sense, whether it's his tax policy, his ideas about dismantling Medicare and "replacing" Obamacare, his promise of creating 12 million jobs, repealing Dodd-Frank, his wanting to spend all that money on the military...and so on. It's all a load of bollocks.

Now, whether I'm going to convince anyone by calling a spade a fucking shovel is another matter.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Well, if like me you recognize that every single Republican position has no merit, then it's a deadly serious debate!


Lots of the Republican positions had merit.

Romney's approach to fiscal recovery made sense - reduce deficits by reducing deductions, credits, and exemptions. That will increase revenues. Obama's "Tax the rich" plan will have essentially zero effect. It makes for great campaign sound bytes because it incites class warfare, but it won't have any impact on anything. Go ahead and enact the higher taxes on the 1%. In fact, double Obama's planned increase. You still will have basically no impact on the country's fiscal problems. So why do we continue to discuss it? (Answer: it excites voters who don't stop to think).

Romney's approach to health care made sense - allow options. Sure, have a government system so that small businesses can have the same advantages of larger corporations. But also maintain the private-sector system. What's wrong with competition? If the government program is so great, people will opt-in for that one, right?

Romney's approach to defense spending made sense - keep it strong. There is no responsibility the federal government holds that is more important than their obligation to "provide for the national defense", to quote that seemingly inconsequential document known as the United States Constitution. Most social issues can be dealt with most effectively on state and local levels - they become ineffective at the national level (health care is an exception). Furthermore, a huge portion of defense spending is health care for troops and veterans, education via the GI Bill, and funding for science. Assuming you're a supporter of health care, education, and science, shouldn't you also be a supporter of robust defense spending?

Most importantly, though, Romney's approach to leadership made sense. That is to say, he has actually demonstrated the ability to lead. Multiple times. Obama has yet to do so. Shouldn't that disqualify him for a leadership position? As I explained above, blaming Republicans is not leadership.

I think you could argue that liberal positions might have been better served if Romney were elected. After all, he is a known moderate and he can actually get things done. Obama's record is one of gridlock as president and, before that, well, I still don't know what he did before 2008 (other than campaign). I like Obama, too, but let's face it: he's just not effective as President of the United States.

My beloved Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets just fired their defensive coordinator. He was a nice guy and had good ideas. But, in the end, he just wasn't effective and the defense is performing poorly. Sound familiar? When a leader is not effective, he needs to be removed from the leadership position.

We all have different skill sets. Not everyone is made to be a leader.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 9, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Well, if like me you recognize that every single Republican position has no merit, then it's a deadly serious debate!
> 
> And I am serious that I disagree: there is not one single policy advanced by Romney that made sense, whether it's his tax policy, his ideas about dismantling Medicare and "replacing" Obamacare, his promise of creating 12 million jobs, repealing Dodd-Frank, his wanting to spend all that money on the military...and so on. It's all a load of bollocks.
> 
> Now, whether I'm going to convince anyone by calling a spade a [email protected]#king shovel is another matter.



actually, creating 12 million job will happen with or w/o him. its been voiced by many economists. 

but in general i think he navigated all his campaign on generalities. no single well out detailed policy. just general feel good republican mumbo jumbo. no tax increase but more military spending.. like wtf/.?!!? how s that going to happen. by cutting pbs funding?

if we would of go more moderate and not so much coocoo tea party and made more defined plans, he would of won. wasnt obamacare modeled after his healthcare act in MA?

now, im not republican but i do feel there is a lot of spending going on. and raising taxes to the rich wont fix that problem. it will add a band aid. seems to be the main problems now. 

like all the millions spend abroad to keep influences. free money to big farmers to make sure they can grow food. military spending is out of control. 

and not even talk about california. like the 8th biggest economy and so much debt. 
tech companies, movie industry, agriculture etc and cant get our act straight.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 9, 2012)

random thought. 

but ever wonder if republicans would be so against obama if he were white?


US does have some serious deep, undercurrent race issues. 

i saw it cause mitts policies were very obama while in MA and obamas policies are not that different from clinton's. 

obama has been very steady, good paced and doing a good job. the only "big" thing was obama care which controversial is something good that other 1st world countries have. 

but from the right side there is all this evil and hate for policies that republicans and democracts backed before. and not even polcies but wierd lies, like he is a socialist and other random things that make no sense besides some racial undertone thing going on.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 9, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain). The number of insulting and childish anti-Romney posts on my Facebook feed are a perfect example - there was nothing like that from my conservative friends. The Dems need to inject a bit of pragmatism and rational thought into their choices.
> 
> rgames



As the person who started this thread, as a liberal (though not a Democrat) who voted for Obama, as someone who did no celebrating or gloating at Obama's victory, but simply moved on to the pragmatic as illustrated by the question posed, I think it's amusing that you immediately went for the insulting, demeaning tone that you say your conservative friends never use.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 9, 2012)

dcoscina @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > dcoscina @ 9/11/2012 said:
> ...



I certainly wasn't the one who "reported" you. I was a bit taken aback by your statement, but you have every right to make it, and I responded in a way I thought was both appropriate and true.

By the way-that's the whole point of this sub-forum....off-topic discussions! (and universe repair, though it seems we're gonna need a lot more duct tape and superglue.) Musicians do think of other things occasionally, or so I've heard.....


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 9, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain).



Good lord.

It's a little odd watching this from several thousand miles away. On election night / following morning, the BBC had a little interview in Nevada with a democrat and a republican. The republican woman said she was terrified that her country was turning into some kind of communist state, the sheer horror of what Obama's trying to do with medicine etc. From what I've seen, her views are very widespread. And insane. And completely irrational.

In much of Europe (the UK is actually IN Europe, btw, even though it often feels like we're not), universal healthcare is pretty much accepted. Although the right wing are always trying to chip away at it, they know that to openly decry it would be political suicide. All the talk of "socialized medicine" is utterly bizarre to us - whether from left or right. I can't emphasise this enough - I genuniely look at voters like the Nevada woman and think they are insane to make equivalence between Obama's health care policy and Chairman Mao. It is as far away from reality as it is as possible to get - she may as well have said that she's worried about how she's terrified that they're gonna turn all of America's highways into melted cheese. Of course not all Republican's think like her, but the general issues are widely accepted (and health reforms vilified).

How do we view Obama? Are there any devoid-of-realty issues? Anything where we look aghast at what appears to be a huge propaganda campaign or something driven purely by a fringe ideology? Nope. Obama seems pretty conservative, actually. Unlikely to upset too many apple carts.

The hyperoble in the statement above is breathtaking. No doubt there are emotional voters on both sides. But the notion that ALL democrat voters are irrational, I have to say, is a statement so ludicrous and distanced from reality it kinda negates everything else.

PS - dcosina's original post read absolutely fine to me in the context of this thread - it was clearly not a personal attack. Bizarre over-reaction to it.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 9, 2012)

Travel to Europe of China and you'll get a new sense of reality.
If he's glad to be in Canada, I can't certainly understnad why. One trip to our crumbling inner cities that are bottomless pits where cash evaporates is not seen in such extermes in Europe or any industrialized nation I've seen.
THese 2 partys have failed and will continue to do so, but the only way out is to build the infrastructure using AMERICAN workers. I don't care if they are illeglal immigrants, I am speaking aboiut the General Contractors.
We don't hear the real story of the Energy Contracts and Public Pensions strangling California, but finally I have seen through my friend in Vegas who is set to take over 2 big projects in San Francisco and LA are 17 billion. But these aren't fake numbers form DC where 1.2 Trillion disappears into the pockets of wealthy Liberals and Conservatives. Trumpka phased in the money this time with limited partnership contracts, the more that were signed the more money cane in, SEIU just threw in 80 million in the last weekend, AFL-Cio must have scored big as these jobs are now on the books. Just read your locals paper insted of Hannity or Maddow. There was more truth in the OReilly/Stewart deabte, which exempliflies our media, ,distraction and entertainment.

Infrastucture whever it is built means boom economy, if the money is borrowed, well who knows what that means. Harvey Milks Junk Bonds built Vegas, and had 60-70,000 tradesmen blowing ungodly amounts of money at fast food joints, Whore Houses, gambling, and as bad as that seemd the Public Unions have no unfunded pensions, are we have no State tax. They have other ways to get money from us in really well name taxes that seem so charitable.

California is being bailed out at the right time with these massive jobs from LA to Fresno to Barstow to San Francisco.But we will boom for 3-4 years then the ecxess coal we stop burnung is still being used to pay down the debt in China. I fish the Cumberland, Kentucky Lake and Ohio every year, then stop in St'Louis to see family and the barges number in the thousand, So many they wait in groups of 50 and I counted 300 in St,Louis from the top of the Arch 2 years ago.

We'll be just fine. Have Faith.
Themistocles created the Western Democraies with a big lie of another Persion invasion. Sometime such lies are what it takes.


----------



## bdr (Nov 10, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain).
> ...



If you've read up on American history, the revolution, the fact that it is the only country to have been founded on a philosophy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then even though you might think the view crazy you might get some understanding...universal healthcare would be seen as another massive govt. imposition and thus closer to tyranny. Personally I'm for it as we have it here in Oz and it works reasonably well. But I understand the thinking. What's interesting to me is how many Americans don't seem to understand what made their nation the greatest in history, and how they seem to want it to just become like another mediocre European type state.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2012)

The Constitution is a fabulous document and the Revolution invited millions of immagrints to come from Europe and elsewhere, so as we now have 1600 times the people we had when these grand ideas were concieved, time has changed many things.
Benjamin Franklin made it public at the time he didn't want European Proffessors in American Universities as they were bound to religion, which the founders realized cannot become a part of Government. I couldn't agree more.

But it's the Evangelical Infiltration that ruined the true Conservatives that started changing in Reagans mid term elections.
So it's also another reason why I want Federally funded campaigns where everyone gets a certain amount of money, the elections are 90 days long and let the smartest folks win.

We have discovered that Benghazzi and the attack on our Recon drones were swept under the rug, as an election was seen as more important. We see the media is complicit in elections, again due to their pay scale that stems from Corporate ads and campaign ads that benefit them. This is the Pinnacle of Corruption.

It's the big machine of Wall Street banks, Media, the Federal Reserve and Pentagon that troubles me. These collusions in this square of control and power decide who wins, which laws are paid for, and where our children are deployed.

We really need to unleash that Cherokee woman from Massuchussetts, Elizabeth Warren on these Banks and break them up for monopolistic reasons.
We attack Microsoft and anyone who approaches a monopoly from sheer brilliance and capital. Yet tax payers are forced to keep paying on these monopolistic decisions coming from the Federal Reserve which isn't even a branch of Government.

But it is certain that the philosophical discipline of endless mediocrity is in play again.
You can only defy Physics for so long. People demand more social programs and rivers of honey, this utopia will never occur, but yet it's human nature to strive for perfection, but no matter how many times we try, we end up with endless mediocrity.

I trained for years in Classical Piano and Theory & Composition, went through 3 record deals from the age of 19 until 25. We never sold on a national level and lived like Dogs.
So no matter how hard I tried, I myself live in a world of endless mediocrity, but my sounds and synths blow away the laptop kids who sit and play. Their medocroty is even worse than mine.
My wealth comes from being a grandfather at the age of 40 and having raised 2 families.
I guess I am wierd, but that's what I describe as wealth and success. And my talent is performing for the folks 40-65 who spend lots of money here, and yell Freebird and Led Zeppelin at us. That's endless mediocrity at it's most basic example...


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 09 said:


> rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats seem to be exclusively emotional voters these days (the same is true of many Republicans but they leave at least a little room for the rational brain). The number of insulting and childish anti-Romney posts on my Facebook feed are a perfect example - there was nothing like that from my conservative friends. The Dems need to inject a bit of pragmatism and rational thought into their choices.
> ...


There's nothing insulting about my statement. Leadership certainly requires an appeal to the emotional side of those being led. You must have both rational and emotional buy-in in order to be an effective leader. Obama has only one.

As an independent who voted for three Democrats and one Republican on Tuesday I can also say that I am moved to pragmatism. However, part of that pragmatism requires that we evaluate our leaders for their ability to lead. Democrats seem to have forgotten about that part.

Consider this fact: in September 2001, the United States suffered an attack at least as severe as the financial meltdown in 2008. It would have been extremely easy for Bush to blame Clinton for failures of intelligence because he had only just entered the office. In fact, those intelligence failures are more directly related to the federal government's obligations than anything to do with the US economy, so they would have been much more justifiable than blaming Bush for stupid individuals' investment choices.

But Bush didn't blame Clinton. He didn't make it his primary campaign slogan for five years. He didn't because it was his job to address the issue, not play the blame game. Obama, however, has railed for four years about how Bush created the fiscal mess while doing nothing to repair it, a fiscal mess that by any rational metric has more to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a repeal signed into law by - drumroll please - Bill Clinton. Because that repeal had Clinton's signature on it, Bush again could have blamed Clinton. Again, though, he did not.

Bush's actions showed leadership. Playing the blame game riles people up and gets them to vote for you but it does absolutely nothing to move the country forward.

If Obama had done anything to show leadership over the past four years odds are that I would have voted for him. I had high hopes until he got into the heat of the campaign and went to the ridiculous fear-mongering, demagoguery and sound-byte politics that are at the heart of America's problems. He needs to LEAD people away from that behavior, not continue to embrace it.

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 10, 2012)

talked to several neighbors today and the consensus is the only interest is in the budget statement.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2012)

George, then your neighbors are either clueless or they have a vested interest that's at odds with the good of our republic.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> ...






rgames @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Fri Nov 09 said:
> ...



You didn't say "an appeal to the emotional side". You suggested that emotion and irrationality were the total rationales of liberal voting. If you'd like to modify your statement, fine-but that's what you stated originally.

The idea that I, along with my liberal cohorts, voted on pure emotion rather than rational thought is an insulting and incorrect generalization . The idea that conservative Republicans have acted nobly and rationally though this election and beyond is ludicrous, starting with the fiction of their own polling and including the outrageous cheerleading of Rupert Murdoch's media empire . The Rove- ian chickens are coming home to roost, as the politics of exclusionism, anti-women, Congressional stonewalling, taxation that further favors the rich and many other anti-middle class initiatives do not seem to have appealed to the majority.

Romney might have been a good man, but by the time the far right pushed him to the bleeding right edge to procure the nomination, he lost any appeal he had to the center that makes up much of this country. I realized he'd be the candidate 3 years ago, and said at the time " I could vote for him". By the time the nominating process was over, he was a completely different entity who I could never have voted for. 

Obama has led. The fact that you do not agree with his positions or want to go where he's leading does not indicate a lack of leadership. I am in favor of national healthcare, winding down endless wars, being pretty good at fighting covert wars, slowly bringing the economy back (Romney had no magic pill for immediate prosperity), making sure the social safety net stays intact, etc etc. I think the military budget is somewhat insane in an era in which none can challenge us in an actual armed conflict. None of these are irrational positions- you simply don't agree with them. It is the unfortunate policy of polarization that makes one call someone who disagrees with you "irrational". 

I have not been delighted with Obama. He needs to learn to reach across the aisle better, and he needs to get his people in Congress to line up with him. There is a desperate need for compromise to move the country forward- but Grover Norquist and his ilk are not compromisers either, and they're a danger to the nation. if some "no new taxation, signed in blood" pledge continues to dictate Congressional policy, I predict four more years of "irrationality".

Oh- as to Bush's vaunted "leadership" - as it considers the fertile ground somewhere between Iraq and New Orleans, history will judge whether decisiveness was consistent on Bush's part, and whether or not it is better to be decisive and completely wrong or judicious and less wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2012)

Reconstructing what got eaten up twice while the forum crashed - gsilbers, I agree with a lot of what you said.



> actually, creating 12 million jobs will happen with or w/o him, its been voiced by many economists



That's right, but what i'm talking about is how he got to that number, which is a bunch of total BS:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html)

As to the spending, note that we've already cut a bunch of federal spending. And that's not a good thing at all, because we should be increasing spending to get out of this mess sometime before the year 2100!

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-conten ... re_low.png


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2012)

> part of that pragmatism requires that we evaluate our leaders for their ability to lead. Democrats seem to have forgotten about that part.



You are as pragmatic as a Rube Goldberg invention. The policies Mitt Romney advocated SUCK, and there is no excuse for anyone voting for them. It's amazing that it's socially acceptable, because they're totally sociopathic.

It's beyond me how anyone who has a soul could advocate getting rid of Obamacare, thus sentencing tens of thousands of people a year to die because they don't have coverage. And the idea of financing tax cuts for the very top by cutting aid to the very poor - including Medicaid to poor children, the elderly, and the disabled...well, that's why I'm not one of these people who pretends that it's just a matter of opinion that Republicans are the biggest problem facing our country.

These policies are shameful. Thank goodness the forces of insanity didn't prevail again. We saw what happened last time: it was even worse than anyone expected.


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> whether or not it is better to be decisive and completely wrong or judicious and less wrong.


There's the rub, isn't it? I agree that Bush bungled a lot of things. I am not a Bush fan but, he was, on the whole, an effective administrator and leader. He got things done. The issue of whether those things were worthwhile is a separate issue.

The bottom line is that I think Obama has a genuine desire to do better for America. I think he has some good ideas and has acted on some of them. However, he just is not an effective leader. The continued gridlock in DC and his insistence that he's a victim of Republican roadblocks is absolute proof of that fact - leaders don't act that way.

Coaches don't blame their teams for their losses. Generals don't blame their soldiers for their defeats.

Leaders don't pass the buck.

rgames

Nick - Romney absolutely favored national health care but in a form different than Obamacare. Obamacare is a great idea. I think the majority of the voters would also agree that having the government give everyone a Maserati is also a great idea. Unfortunately not enough of them would stop to think if the country can actually afford it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > whether or not it is better to be decisive and completely wrong or judicious and less wrong.
> ...



I'm fascinated by the notion that decisive and clearly wrong-headed leadership is something you admire for the sole reason that it is, umm..what? Leaderly? How can the issues of whether leadership is good or bad be separated by the qualities that define leadership? Give me a leader who shilly-shallys rather than one who leads us into conflicts that spill the blood of our citizens and takes money out of our pockets to pay for it. Not that I'm in favor of shilly-shallying-I simply think that it is demonstrably preferable to horriblly wrong decisive leadership.


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2012)

OK - forget about Bush. It seems you can't grasp the concept of compartmentalization in evaluating a person. Wagner wrote music that I appreciate. And he was a horrible anti-semite, a fact that makes him a terrible human being in my book. But I am still able to appreciate his music despite his other gross flaws.

I, and many others in the middle, decided not to vote for Obama because he doesn't have the leadership skills one would expect in a US President. For Obama's supporters, his lack of leadership ability is not an issue. Let's just leave it at that.

But here's a timely example of leadership: I just saw the post-game interview with Nick Saban, the Alabama coach (#1 Alabama lost to Texas A&M, a huge upset). Saban's first comment was "I take full responsibility."

That's Leadership 101. If a college football coach gets it, don't you think we should expect it of President of the United States?

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> OK - forget about Bush. It seems you can't grasp the concept of compartmentalization in evaluating a person. Wagner wrote music that I appreciate. And he was a horrible anti-semite, a fact that makes him a terrible human being in my book. But I am still able to appreciate his music despite his other gross flaws.
> 
> I, and many others in the middle, decided not to vote for Obama because he doesn't have the leadership skills one would expect in a US President. For Obama's supporters, his lack of leadership ability is not an issue. Let's just leave it at that.
> 
> ...



Poor Richard. It must be difficult to be the only one on the bus able to grasp concepts. Heavy lies the burden of genius.

Here's one I posited that you blatantly ignored-it's better to have an indecisive leader than a decisive and terrible one. Agreed or not? 

Just in case you're having difficulty grasping the concept, pick a leader:

1. John Kerry
2. Adolph Hitler

Need another? Let's make it simpler and more in your ballpark.

1. Fidel Castro
2. Jimmy Carter

I would agree that a strong, decisive leader is ideal, but only if that leader is judicious and temperate, otherwise you end up with a wrong-headed tyrant or a weak-willed tool of corporate interests (see Bush,Cheney, Iraq, Haliburton, et al).

I didn't argue with your choice of candidates, that's just silly. I took issue with the tone of your argument against the 51% of the country who disagreed with you, which was sneering and inflammatory. Over, half of the country is purely ruled by emotion and irrationality? Gosh, it's good that we have you and the other 49% to do the reasoning for us . Let's just leave it at that.

Btw-I'm a sports fan, and not all coaches take responsibility for failure. Bobby Valentine, late of the Mets and more recently of the Red Sox, has always been a pissant who called his players out in the media, deflecting criticism onto them. Ozzie Guillen. Dallas Green. They are legion.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2012)

(this is getting kind of fun-it's become a contest of "who can not address the other's points more efficiently". Fox meets MSNBC in a death match. Awesome!)


----------



## Mike Marino (Nov 10, 2012)

Politics Makes Us Worse

I found it rather interesting. Take a listen:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 10, 2012)

kclements @ Wed Nov 07 said:


> It is an odd system. And we have a Party that in the past went on record saying their _only_ job was to make sure the President didn't get a second term. They choose not to work with the President or the American People, instead blocking everything they could to stall progress.
> 
> Now that Mr. Obama has won a second term I am hopeful they will stop acting like third graders and actually come to the table and have a real discussion/debate/compromise about what needs to get done.
> 
> ...



Not historically accurate!

It is ALWAYS the objective of the opposing political party to get their person elected 4-years later. Senate Leader Harry Reid stood up and said that they would not cooperate with Mitt Romney if he won. It's not just one party it's both.

Cooperation is a 2-way street. We/You should be asking Congress to learn how to work a calculator and FIRST do everything possible to cut government waste and fraud. In Medicare alone that's a $1 Trillion in savings over a decade. And that's just Medicare. 

I disagree. We do not have an odd system. We are the only country ever founded on the ideal that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

To achieve this we have created a document called The Constitution the first three words of which are, "We the people." This means that we elect leader who report to us. We the people are government provided we execute both our duty and responsible to hold our electable leaders responsible and accountable. WE do not report to them. THEY report to US. 

If you believe that the Congress is acting like third graders, you're in good company. But your duty and responsibility is to tell them that and if they don't listen, fire them in 2014 and 2016.

If you fail to execute your duty and responsible, then you/we will be the ones reporting to the leaders instead of the other way around. 

My historical perspective with this comment: if you have the time to post here, you have the time to post online at your Congressman's and Senator's web site all of which receive e-mail.

*NOTE:[/quote] I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but not in 2012. 

@ Guy - The Brits have had a National Health Service (NHS) since, I believe, the end of WW2. The US has never had one. Your system has health centers (as I see in Doc Martin reruns on Netflix) where anyone can go in for health service, and if you want beyond that, you can buy separate med ins. 

From my perspective - trying to switch from our system to NHS is desperately difficult. The reason many of us have been against Obamacare is because it was felt by the electorate that more discussion was needed and we needed to know what was in the bill BEFORE it was passed. ALL Americans are virtually UNITED in the belief that the system has to be changed to something far more fair. 

I personally pay nearly $20K in med ins PREMIUMS annually. You think I can grow a business with those fees? No way. I wish we had an NHS! 

So the request was please discuss this more openly so that We The People had our voice heard, as the Constitution requires, instead of being shouted down, and told what we were going to get. 

The US system works like this: THEY report to US. It's that simple, as long as it's followed and We The People require it to be followed. 

PA

PA*


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 10, 2012)

> Well, if like me you recognize that every single Republican position has no merit, then it's a deadly serious debate!



Nick - thanks so much for such a perfect demonstration of Rules For Radicals. 

It works in 3 steps:

1. you shout the lie.
2. you put the other person on defense
3. you create division.

Republican positions have merit. They may not present them well, but they have merit, just as the Democratic party's positions have merit. But if you refuse to listen then you have set yourself up as omniscient which is its own religion. See Pharaoh and Caesar as historical examples.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 10, 2012)

Apart from Larry's excellent point about strong leaders, there's also the small matter that under Bush, he frequently had majorities in the House AND the Senate. Then you can do pretty much what you want.

As for Bush's "strong leadership" post 9/11 - oh boy. Yes, full marks for failing to get Bin Laden and instead start a war on a country that had no WMDs or any connection whatsoever with the attack. Oh, and do we give him credit for not blaming the Democrats when a CIA report shown to him a month earlier was called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."?

Richard, your take on the world does not seem entirely rational to me, I have to say. But I'd have voted Democrat, so I'm just over-emotional I guess.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 11, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> Apart from Larry's excellent point about strong leaders, there's also the small matter that under Bush, he frequently had majorities in the House AND the Senate. Then you can do pretty much what you want.
> 
> As for Bush's "strong leadership" post 9/11 - oh boy. Yes, full marks for failing to get Bin Laden and instead start a war on a country that had no WMDs or any connection whatsoever with the attack. Oh, and do we give him credit for not blaming the Democrats when a CIA report shown to him a month earlier was called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."?
> 
> Richard, your take on the world does not seem entirely rational to me, I have to say. But I'd have voted Democrat, so I'm just over-emotional I guess.



I'm not fully disagreeing with you. But what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. You mention Bush, but Obama had we call a super majority for 2 years. So let's mention that to be in historical balance.

Additionally, it is historically true that the Clinton administration was given 9 opportunities to take out Bin Laden and didn't.

The former CIA head of the Bin Laden writes here, you might enjoy reading some of his material and books including Imperial Hubris which is a critique of the Bush Administration. I have it. Troubling reading. 

http://non-intervention.com


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Sun Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from Larry's excellent point about strong leaders, there's also the small matter that under Bush, he frequently had majorities in the House AND the Senate. Then you can do pretty much what you want.
> ...



If it reads anything like "The Dark Side" by Jane Meyer, it is troubling in the setting up of a 'golden shield' of legal defense that the Bush Administration had written to give its position on torture a legal condom. That said, once an executive branch gets those sorts of powers, they never really give them up. None of the powers Bush's people assigned him have been rolled back under Obama. I don't know if they're still black bagging, renditioning and torturing suspects under Obama, but they have legal precedent to do so thanks to John Woo and his ilk.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> kclements @ Wed Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > It is an odd system. And we have a Party that in the past went on record saying their _only_ job was to make sure the President didn't get a second term. They choose not to work with the President or the American People, instead blocking everything they could to stall progress.
> ...



Peter- where idid he say that, please?


----------



## rgames (Nov 11, 2012)

Larry - relax.

I get what you're saying.

rgames


----------



## KEnK (Nov 11, 2012)

To anyone supporting GOP positions-

Look at the data.

Reaganomics over a 30 years arc has done a great deal of harm to the economy.
Romney would have continued this process of gradual disintegration of the Middle Class.

The data shows that these ideas have failed, 
unless the goal is to turn the USA into a 3rd world banana plutocracy.

On the idea that the Dems are even marginally responsible for the gridlock,
again the data-

Look at the record of Boener's vs Pelosi's congress regarding work actually done.
Look at the highest level ever of filibuster threats.
Look at the debt ceiling debacle- resulting in the Tea Party's lowering the credit rating of the US. 
That's their legacy.

The data does not support the idea of "equal blame to go around".
The data does support the somewhat bizarre notion that the GOP has become treasonous.

You can't "lead" someone who has declared that you are their enemy and must be defeated at all costs. 
ALL COSTS!- like being willing to tank the whole economy! 
(because you don't have the votes to instill your minority ideas)

Sorry - the GOP _is the problem_

k


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2012)

I voted for China and the Federal Reserve and won, I haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about....

But one thing is certain, elections bring out the best liars, and we have exactly that right now. Obama lied and wiggled better than Romney and all of his Mittches.
We find out about Benghazzi and the incident over the Gulf of Arabia, so somebody wants war.
If Obama really has this power everyone speaks of, we will avoid war. But the Pentagon and CIA seem to keep information away from the Obama Propoagandists who think movies and spiking the Ball ( like Bush ) is OK.
If a pair of Russian fighters can't shoot down a Drone, anyone who has ever served know this is bull shit.

2 options.........it never happened and the true rulers are seeking to get a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but call it the Gulf Of Arabia Resolution.

2nd option......The Iranians are trying to provoke a huge conflict where surely they know we have troops in Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Sudan, Israel and Jordan and Subs with entire fleets surrounding their coastline. B2's on standby in Diego Garcia, all of the Chessboard pieces have been set up. And they are really poor shots.

I don't know what course of action we will take, but Obama has already proven is not afraid to send in the teams if need be.
So I think the Benghazzi boys are history first....
Then if Obama is a good leader, we will avoid another Gulf War.

This is where I make the decision if someone os a good leader, or he goes along with Military and Pentagon Brass.
So far he is taking orders, but that's the pressure of a 1st term.

Give the guy a chance. He has definately made my family smile by exempting us form the Repeallable Health Care Act, but by the time Junior is 18 it will be 2014, so the jurys' not out on that one yet.

But 8000 USD worth of Clear Braces saved me and Momma a bundle.
My gut said to vote for Romney but I saw that 47% percent dance and it was a huge turn off, plus once I saw Obama vrs. Romney 1st debate it became clear that the rulers were striving for a 50/50 balance to give the appearance of a real and fair election. They succeeded.

I think once again the Middle has elected Obama as the right is just too insulting by wanting religous based control of abortions, making Gay marriage an issue when it is not what most of us are concerned with, and all of this is due to new Republican Party which has been infiltrated by the Evangelicals.
Organized Religion, like the Vatican, and these Benny Hinns and Jimmy Swaggarts from the tax free status created Bible Belt have no place in politics.
Conservatives would win every election if they would just stop preaching.

Guess I am still a Reagan Democrat, but look at the results of his Leadership.
Ruusia falls, Europe unites, the EU and USA bring 500 Million Chinese out of Poverty.
So I see the big picture, and nobody has achieved what Reagan did.
FDR was the total opposite of Reagan but there's a guy who side stepped Congress and led like nobody before him.

These are big shoes to fill, so give Obama a chance.

Look at it this way if he fails, the GOP will take over everything as that's the way the Fall Guys game and Shell games take place.
2016, I can see it now.........the GOP will use a Latino or a Black Women, and the Dems will be the racsists.
Same game every election cycle since Bush Sr. took his lumps.....

Here's to some new Infrastructure thanks to China......... o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 11, 2012)

Good morning, Everyone. Welcome to Congress!


----------



## Mike Marino (Nov 11, 2012)

This whole discussion reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYP0kml7TmI


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> Larry - relax.
> 
> I get what you're saying.
> 
> rgames



Thanks for the acknowledgment, Richard- it makes it easier to move the discussion forward. Good metaphor for the thread! Btw, relax-wise, I am so chill I frost the sun :wink: 

So, to YOUR point-leadership, and where Obama has been lacking. The three biggest and interrelated problems as I see them:

1. Inability to form across the aisle coalitions. Dems can argue 'til the cows come home about an obstructionist House, and some of it would be correct, but some it was simply the inability or unwillingness to find some way to draw in some more moderate Repubs when he had both houses.

2. Inability to get his own party to line up behind him. In the same time period, to be beset by "blue dog " Dems and recalcitrant top leadership, well, not good leadership and not a formula for success in progressing the nation.

3. Inability to present a budget for far too long.

I suspect the efficiency and alacrity, or lack of both, with which the fiscal cliff crisis is avoided will define the next four years and illustrate whether there is any hope of compromise and progress. Should they fail to reach ANY agreement and send us over, plunging us into a serious new recession, or kick the can farther down the road as I fear might happen, we'll get a gloomy glimpse of the near future.

It's time for both parties and the President to sit down at the table, lock the doors to the room, and not leave until compromises are hammered out.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> George, then your neighbors are either clueless or they have a vested interest that's at odds with the good of our republic.



fuck the republic. theyre just very rich.

re the nhs in the uk. when i live there i dont use it and go private. the nhs system in the uk would never work here. the country would go bust overnight. it only just works over there but i sensed that its being moved more to private basis more and more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2012)

> Nick - thanks so much for such a perfect demonstration of Rules For Radicals.
> 
> It works in 3 steps:
> 
> ...



Peter, you're very thoughtful but not one of the three is what I'm doing. First, it's not a lie; second, the other person is on the defense because his arguments are heartless and vile, not because I've forced him into them; and third, the division has been created by the lies being shouted by the Republicans...and so really this goes full circle. It simply false equivalence to say that the Democrats are creating the division or behaving like children, as you put it. The country is divided because the Republican party has been taken over by a bunch of irrational teabagging idiots, and that is 100% what has created the division.

Now, your argument about healthcare is - true to your character - thoughtful, but it still makes *me* mad - and touch wood I've personally been incredibly fortunate to be in great health, so my healthcare costs have been very low (not that people close to me haven't some issues we've had to deal with). The reason it makes me mad is that we waited 223 years for the ideal system! How much longer do you want to take to discuss this?! We had a huge debate - and a really horrible one, because THE RIGHT misrepresented the facts all over the place! - until we now have a system that warts and all is light years ahead of what we had before.

If it were dismantled, 30 million fewer people would have healthcare and there would be tens of thousands more deaths each year! That's why I get mad. I'm not lying, and for heaven's sake of course I'm not refusing to hear the arguments I reject! Why would they make me want to vomit if I hadn't heard them?!

The details of healthcare financing are incredibly complicated, but the basic premise is very simple: if we want to cover everyone (including sick people, of course), then everyone including healthy people has to pay into the pool. And then for that to happen, we need to subsidize people who can't afford to do that. Period.

I'd rather have a single-payer system or a public option because it's more efficient, but the basic concept of shared risk doesn't change. There's no fairer system to come up with after more discussion and more people have lost their lives.

And that's just healthcare. The Republican arguments about every other issue are wrong too - and again I'm not telling lies or refusing to listen, I'm saying that after lots and lots of thought!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2012)

One more point: there is NOTHING radical about anything I say!

I honestly do respect your thoughtfulness and know that you're a good person, Peter, but by any objective standard it is the American right (meaning the Republican party) that has become radical - so much so that it rejects what not long ago were its own proposals!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 11, 2012)

Lord save us from ideologues of every stripe


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2012)

That's odd that anyone thinks it's just 1 party that creates the division. 
A 2 party system is the definition of division. And to claim your side is better than the other is at most a personal opinion.

If this was an honest Government (which it isn'), we wouldn't see these 2 fake partys' weeks before an election after they've drained the wealthiest for cash, suddenly pretend to care for the middle class.
If that was so where's the Shovel Ready Jobs.....? Well maybe this next 4 years, or else the AFL-CIO and LIUNA will never back the fake left again.

I think we'll be fine because the wealthiest people in the world invest here and run our politics by lobbying whores to sell legislation.
But I do feel proud to see these wealthy elites beg for my help every 2 years, as I feel important for a few weeks, even though I know it's fake, at least I am mentioned.

Once these guys get to DC we are of little use for them. Lobbying for Billions to help the "poor" is a perfect position to be a middle man and gain power and wealth, so of course they always need more money than the year before as Americans are just too stupid to ever help themselves and require divine intervention.
Then the other clowns are off collecting cash from the wealthy, as our money is free just for showing up.

So if you really think these elites are there to serve you, you have my sympathy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2012)

Hey Jay, there's nothing ideological whatsoever about anything I believe. The ideology on the right is...well, it's all forlorn crap: small government, the free market, etc. I don't believe in the opposite of that, nor do I believe in large government for its own sake or markets that are restricted for no good reason. That's how most liberals are. (And of course the right only pretends to believe in that ideology - when it comes down to it, they believe in small government for other people, and laissez-faire economics when it benefits them.)

Chimuelo, I consider it odd that anyone rational thinks there are two sides to this problem. It is an objective fact that my side is better than the other, not a subjective claim. That is, unless you want a shrinking economy with higher unemployment, tens of thousands of deaths due to lack of healthcare coverage, Medicare and Medical turned into inadequate voucher systems, nothing done about global warming...

Note that there's a huge difference between competition between rational sides of issues - which I'm in favor of, as I said early on in this thread - and the divided country we have now. The country is divided because the right has gone off the rails, leaving the left and center no option but to dig our heels in.

And while I'll probably argue (because I enjoy discussion  ), anyone is welcome to call me intolerant, arrogant, or whatever else you want. I happen to have the virtue of being right.

But I will say that this is only true of today's Republican party. Hopefully it won't always be the case. Also, I'm not saying all Democrats are always right, just that it's false equivalence to say both sides always have a point just because there are two sides.


----------



## rgames (Nov 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> both sides


There are more than two sides. There are at least two sides and a middle.

You are correct that one group can be completely wrong and another completely right. if Group A says the Earth is flat and Group B says the Earth is round, the truth is not in the middle. The truth is in what Group B says. Your dilemma is that your world consists of only two groups, *both* of which are saying the equivalent of "The Earth is flat." They're both wrong.

In actuality, it's not that the ideas of the two groups are wrong. The approaches of both groups are wrong - both have ideas that have merit. But, for the past several years, both Democrats and Republicans have descended into sound-byte politics that are focused only on inciting people to vote out of anger rather than any rational discourse. As I said above, emotional buy-in is important and necessary, but it cannot be the only method of deciding on elected officials.

But that's what people want nowadays. What we need is someone to lead the country away from that mentality, not continue to enforce it. The country needs leadership; what the country has is follower-ship.

If history is any indication, that leader is not in the group of politicians that have been sent back to Washington.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> If history is any indication, that leader is not in the group of politicians that have been sent back to Washington.
> 
> rgames



While that may or may not be true, his opponent certainly did not demonstrate leadership by allowing himself to be pushed into an ideology he didn't share-but that's the only way he would have been nominated, wasn't it.

Leadership can be dodgy if those you want to lead actually want you to be someone you're not.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> Chimuelo, I consider it odd that anyone rational thinks there are two sides to this problem. It is an objective fact that my side is better than the other, not a subjective claim. That is, unless you want a shrinking economy with higher unemployment, tens of thousands of deaths due to lack of healthcare coverage, Medicare and Medical turned into inadequate voucher systems, nothing done about global warming...


Both sides have created the Monopolistic Insurance rackets, and instead of regulating their activity as they are suppose to they take it over in a most decieptful way, and using the old ankle example where our President demonized Doctors by saying they will amputate the ankle first as it makes them more money......yeah, that's a great way to unite people. Hope you don't mind me using my excellent memory to recall these bogus scare tactic lies that your idols seem quite comfortable with. 
We have always taken care of the uninsured in Emergency Rooms, and Well Clinics, but the Feds are mad as the trial lawyers they take money from rasie the costs of malpractice insurance so high that the costs of taking care of the unisured's visits to the Emergency Room is too costly, and politicians do not like people taking "THEIR" money.
Clean Coal technology was funded by the DOE and the Republican Congress long before your beloved Liberals started their scare tactics of Global Warming, so there's another example of yours shot down. I know as I built one, and the Coal Trains are coming there everyday.
Funny how Ohio and Wisconsin have lower unemployment and growing economies under Republican Governors, even after millions were wasted on a recall failure. Those only seem to work with Movie Stars in California.
Your talking points work in speeches, but not in reality.
However I admire anyone who has strength in their convictions, but at the end of the next 4 years, we will see all of these promises, AGAIN evaporate like a fart in the wind.
What we are seeing, are shakedown artists using good peoples emotions to help them further their own self serving careers.
And one last fact, we are not a divided nation unless you watch the TV and read too many blogs.
These pundints on both sides get wealthy and we see no changes as it's easier to blame someone else and pretend you tried as you rake in the cash.
Case in point. Tax reform is several signatures in all 3 branches of Government. The 2 years where there were only a small handful of GOP members crying in the corner helpless to stop ANY legislation, and only when the Conservatives routed the DNC so the balance was 50/50 do we hear about how we need to get more taxes, as they know now that with such a balance that it will never pass.
I always voted on the issues that I was concerned with and being an AFL-CIO member naturally I voted that way. Which meant Reagan the first time, since the Unions backed him over whatever Liberal was trying to recover from the Carter disasters.
Reagans administration was the last time I remember something was achieved. We brought down the Wall in Europe, that led to the EU that also led to the USA and the EU raising 500 Million Chinese out of Poverty.
All I have ever seen is Liberals giving "poor" folks enough money to stay home and eliminating work requirements. So they have spent trillions since 1968 with another failure under their belt.
The day anyone can achieve something as great as the EU and the USA did thanks to Reagans policies, I might start believing these assholes again. Until then, their divisive rhetoric is unappealling, and doesn't fool anyone who has seen greatness in their lifetime.
How about naming some achievements that your Liberals have done oither than some warm and fuzzy laws that are symbolistic at best...?
So I guess I am a Reagan Democrat as those were days of honor and pride.
Bush, and Obama dance for the man, nothing more.
After 4 more years, we'll see what these geniuses have done.
When Obama said they have had great succees at crippling Irans economy, I agreed as he definately has experience at doing that right here at home...
But it's Bush's fault, or Congresses fault, or the Tsunami, etc.etc.
And FWIW Bush didn't blame anything on Clinton, but thanked him for leaving a surplus and a healthy economy. He screwed that up and I realize Obamas proffessors had a tough go of things. But I agree it was Bushes fault, but the resentment I have is the divisive tactics and lies this administration uses, and there are so many they can't even keep their stories straight. It's embarrassing, but since I am Union, I'll be fine. I suggest to others that they talk their kids into taking a Union or Federal job, as the private sector is being dismantled, and that isnt an accident, or side effect.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 11, 2012)

> It is an objective fact that my side is better than the other, not a subjective claim.



Thus endeth discussion and compromise. You have closed your door. No point wasting any more electrons!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 11, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> > It is an objective fact that my side is better than the other, not a subjective claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus endeth discussion and compromise. You have closed your door. No point wasting any more electrons!



Nick, I'm on your side but Peter sure has a point. It's ok to say that, but only if you reference genuine objective facts. Maybe I missed them (quite possible), but I don't really see any. You've raised important issues and important moral points, but that's very different to objective facts.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> > It is an objective fact that my side is better than the other, not a subjective claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus endeth discussion and compromise. You have closed your door. No point wasting any more electrons!



I sort of agree. I have big issues with the Rebublican stance in this election, but I just don't think you can write off 49% of the people in America and expect to progress the nation. Winning an election doesn't assign carte blanche power-the balance in Congress will require mutual sign-offs and compromise. Without that, things will be worse in the next 4 years than they were the past 4.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 12, 2012)

Ironic.

I have 2 good friends: one is Mr. Batzdorf here, an impassioned liberal who when pressed, actually CAN make cogent arguments for his positions without all the overheated rhetoric.

The other is a doctor named Marc who is a Conservative who can also make cogent arguments for his positions without overheated rhetoric.

If the three of us would go to dinner, they would like each other and be entertained by each other with a great discussion.

The next day, each would tell me, "He is a great guy but he is totally wrong" and they would both be wrong. 

They would then say, "but he is a little bit of a wack job" and they would both be right 

Seriously though, the US needs them BOTH and we have to find away to get them to work together.

http://www.nolabels.org


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2012)

These 2 parties have failed us for 14 years now, it's time to look at the hard data of the racial demogography of Independants where there is no division.
They want religion out of politics, and want social safety nets.
There want a strong military but redeploy unless host countries want to foot the bill.
So many common sense ideas that are the best of both parties.
But common sense in not common in DC these days.
Instead we get these 2 my way or the highway groups that both have ruined the economy and now have us at record deployment numbers, record debts, but somehow one of Obamas women with a mans haircut will sooth Arab tensions...?
First of all it's an insult to send women to Arab nations where the real war on women exists to negotiate. 

I am finsihed with both of these groups and really think we should go off of this "fiscal cliff" to show Americans how useless these 2 extreme groups really are.

California voted 43% Republican this time, my God that had to be painful as Californians were always a bastion of the Progressives, which do have some great ideas, and they even raised their own taxes which shows they are finally concerned with their future and want to avoid being the first State to have Mommy come and save them from ruin.

There is 17 billion slated in Federal infrastructure contracts as the books at the Carpenters Union is allowing transfers to Locals in LA and San Francisco. This is the best way to boost the economy, and was where the stimulus money was suppose to go 4 years ago.

But now the politicians have feasted and built railroads and bridges on their properties and gained enormous wealth through buying out foreclosed homes en masse, I guess they decided the Shovel Ready jobs should start up.

In Nevada we have an option called none of the above. A 3rd party vote isn't considered discontent, but the none of the above goes directly to the heart of the issue that politicians of these 2 jive parties is unacceptable,
This law was passed that created this option after Nixons' Watergate.

I am done with these clowns, and want so badly to see real representation instead of wealthy politicians telling us they know whats best for us, and send our kids to fight their unnecessary battles, or gaurd voting booths in Afghanistan. 

We have Gods messengers telling women what they should do with their bodies, and the DNC providing them with contraceptives when it's none of their business. It's like saying we know you are all a bunch of whores, so let us help you out...........2 terrible appraoches to a non existant problem.
You have the Abortion Clinics called "Planned Parenthood." Margeret Sanger would be proud, if you want to have an abortion, go do it.

Go to Mogadishu if you want to see poor, or Riyahd, Kabul, Cairo....there's your war on women.
Too bad these 2 parties don''t go after their real enemies as much as they do themselves, and to think 6 billion dollars to have these elites bore us to death for a year and a half could have been better spent on research or help out the victims of Sandy. This is just out of hand, and out of touch with real America.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2012)

Just seems to me that both sides are of course looking at the Obama reelection through their own ideology and coming to wrong conclusions.

Democrats are thinking that their side is vindicated and that America has endorsed their class warfare and economic ideas. And Republicans with their head so far up their asses that I can't even understand what they're talking about any more.

Either way it's looking pretty Grimm right now.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

Respectfully, Jose, you're looking at the election through your eyes and in my opinion coming to partially wrong conclusions (as well a partially right ones  ).

THERE IS NO CLASS WARFARE. That's the Republican bullshit spin, used to sweep one of the two great issues facing our times (income inequality leading to a declining economy) under the rug.

And I for one am not stupid enough to have misread the election as being vindication for rational thought.

The Democratic sweep in 2006 didn't eradicate the Republican scourge, the teabag sweep of the House in 2010 wasn't the end of all things good for all time...and so on. It'll swing back to the dark side again at some point, if for no other reason than because of the "throw out the bums" mentality.

***

Peter, Jay, Larry, nbuk...whoever else: I'm not saying that the Democrats are 100% right, I'm saying the Republicans are 100% wrong. Believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of the Democrats.

And if you think I'm not coming up with cogent arguments, let me repeat my challenge: list one issue that the Republicans are on the right side of.

I'm still waiting....

I'm still waiting...

Jay, I'm not saying that there are no conservatives who say anything that makes sense, because that's clearly not the case. Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, and sometimes David Stockman do quite often. I may not always agree with them, but I don't think they're irrational.

What I'm saying is that the Republican party has been taken over by crazies who make no sense. (By the way, if you think your friend would consider me a wackjob...while you're thinking about an issue the Republicans are on the right side of, please tell me one policy I advocate that's wacky.)

Larry, you're right about one thing: my bluntness isn't going to sway any Republicans. But that also doesn't make anyone who disagrees with me right. 

Chim, I like the idea of a "not Democratic or Republican" party a little, but what I'd really like is *several* of them. We need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral college system. That won't happen, but I think it's the solution to gridlock.

Actually, the bigger solution to gridlock is to take the money out of our political campaigns. It's true that money doesn't always buy elections, but of course it helps, and politicians need lots of it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

> You have closed your door.



So be it, but actually you're wrong. My door is wide open to rational arguments on any issue, in fact - while it may be hard to believe - I *want* the Republicans to be offering rational arguments.

Okay, they're pretty much in sync with the Democrats overall on foreign policy. I'll give you that.

But anything to do with economics?!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Just seems to me that both sides are of course looking at the Obama reelection through their own ideology and coming to wrong conclusions.
> 
> Democrats are thinking that their side is vindicated and that America has endorsed their class warfare and economic ideas. And Republicans with their head so far up their asses that I can't even understand what they're talking about any more.
> 
> Either way it's looking pretty Grimm right now.



I am not a Democrat, but as a liberal I don't feel vindicated as much as relieved that the majority has rejected regressive control of women's bodies, denial of the need for universal healthcare, the odd notion that we should cut the social safety net for the neediest but increase spending for the military industrial complex ( because apparently the military budget isn't big enough to keep us safe) etc etc.

Now granted, not all of these factors influenced the way any one person voted, and indeed it would seem that it was single women's alarm at the dottiness of conservative positions on women's reproductive issues that carried the day, but ultimately the election was a repudiation of the conservative agenda at a time when the current administration looked plenty vulnerable to me. 

The question of whether Romney would have been an effective financial manager for the country is one we will never have answered. The question of whether Romney could or would have led his party back towards the center won't be answered either, but both questions are intriguing to me. I do know, and I said it to friends on both sides of the aisle throughout the process- " whoever is elected, the country will muddle through". The hysteria confounds me. My best friend, a Libertarian musician, was almost foaming at the mouth. Still, as I said earlier, I am relieved.

To your point- I don't even know what the term "class warfare" means. If it means I think multi million/billion-aires should pay a slightly higher percentage of taxes than the middle class and the working poor, ok, I'm in, I'll go get my uniform and gear and strap in. That doesn't strike me as ideology- it strikes me as fairness. Nick likes the term "false equivalency" so here's one- " shall I get the kids braces or put money away for college and retirement or pay the rent this month" doesn't equate with " shall I buy a second yacht or another Renoir" to me. I'm all for success and capitalism, tempered by a bit of social justice, fairness and good sense.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Respectfully, Jose, you're looking at the election through your eyes and in my opinion coming to partially wrong conclusions (as well a partially right ones  ).
> 
> THERE IS NO CLASS WARFARE. That's the Republican [email protected]#t spin, used to sweep one of the two great issues facing our times (income inequality leading to a declining economy) under the rug.
> .



Obama has said that the classes went to war. Those aren't my words.

And, I haven't made any conclusions so I can't have wrong ones. I'm just gathering info. And right now. It looks bleak. Both sides are make assumptions that aren't true. If it continues, we're in a lot of trouble. I'm not an alarmist. But, it's looking pretty messed up right now.

It's one of those elections that came as a shock to everybody except Nate Silver. I don't think Obama expected to win by as much as he did, and of course the Republicans didn't expect to be wiped out.

So both sides are reeling trying to find an answer.

Right now the Dems are leaning towards it being a vindication of their economic policies, which of course, would be a grave error. I know that you don't think so Nick, but that's besides the point.

Republicans are saying that the reason they lost is because their message wasn't heard by anybody other than conservative white males. That would be a huge error. It was heard by plenty, not liked and rejected.

I think that if you look at life through some half baked lens only showing lefties and righties then things look skewed. At that's what's happening. Both left and right are trying to frame the election win through their ideology, and not seeing the truth.

NYC Composer is right. It should be looked at as a rejection of right's insane policies, but not as a vindication of liberal thinking. Because trust me, almost everybody I talked to has said that the Democrats are scary, but the republicans are down right terrifying.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> And if you think I'm not coming up with cogent arguments, let me repeat my challenge: list one issue that the Republicans are on the right side of.
> 
> I'm still waiting....
> 
> ...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

> The question of whether Romney would have been an effective financial manager for the country is one we will never have answered.



That's true, but what he and his party advocates goes against everything learned about economics over the past three generations. Balancing the budget too quickly, as he wanted to do, is a prescription for disaster. And trickle-down economics simply doesn't work.

The "class warfare" framing is the tip of the iceberg. Richard likes to state the obvious over and over: taxing the rich a little more isn't going to make a huge difference. But it's an important first step to solving the big problem we have of income inequality.

As I keep saying, that's one of the two great issues of our age! (The other is climate change.) It won't go away by making it worse, and the compromises being sought are just a matter of how bad the "solutions" to the "deficit problem" are going to be.

My hunch is that what a fellow I know advocates - greatly expanded ownership of things that make money (through profit sharing, employee stock ownership, and things like that) - is at least a big part of the answer.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> > The question of whether Romney would have been an effective financial manager for the country is one we will never have answered.
> 
> 
> .
> ...



That would be great. I hope things do move in that direction.

As far as balancing the budget to quickly, that's a debatable position. Rather how the budget is balanced that's important, not that it happens too fast.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

Jay, those are small-picture details that dwarf the Republican agenda. I'll give you that they're rational - yet wrong - but if that were all they advocated my blood pressure wouldn't be raised.

1. Raising personal income taxes 3% on income *over $250K* (i.e. the amount you pay on the first $249,999 stays the same) is going to "hurt small businesses?" That's all the crippling Bush tax cuts do. It's true that there are some small businesses that make over $250K and report it as personal income, but I've read that it's a couple of percent, and the answer to that is to change the tax rules to accommodate them.

Framing the issue as whether $250K is "rich" is irrelevant - although it could be a bargaining point. The fact is that our top tax rates are at modern historical lows, and if you're making $250K you can afford to pay 3% more on income over that amount.

2. Limiting tax deductions rather than raising rates...well, why is that good? Assuming the revenue goes up - which is dubious - think about what that would do to, say, academia, which relies on that.

It's not a totally crazy policy idea, but it's not a good one. And it's just political. Politicians like to cut taxes AKA buy votes with our own money.

3. Hype. Social Security doesn't need means-testing, because it doesn't have a projected shortfall until 2033. And it already has a progressive benefit structure. If the income subject to SS tax were raised a little, that would eliminate the shortfall forever.

More importantly, if SS really were in trouble because of shifting demographics - and it isn't - wouldn't the answer be to import more young workers from Latin America to pay into it? That's not where the Republican mouth or its money is.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

> Rather how the budget is balanced that's important, not that it happens too fast



Both are very important, in my opinion.

You could balance the budget this afternoon, but the country would be thrown into decades of depression. The time to balance it is during normal times, when interest rates can be lowered to compensate.

Also, as Robert Reich pointed out, you have to look at the budget in at least three broad categories: past obligations (those have to be paid; can't do anything about them); present spending (which should be balanced - at the right time); and future spending (if something is going to pay off, then it's good to borrow and invest in our future).

Bill Clinton and others advocate tying budget reduction to economic performance (GDP growth and unemployment shrinkage). I'm with him on that.

And it's worth repeating: the deficit is not an immediate emergency. It was going down before the crash and it's going down now.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2012)

Too bad most of the things you mention Nick that I agree with aren't policies of either Gang in DC.
Hell, Simpson and Bowles found 300 Billion in waste and duplicity, and that's w/o the Federal Fraud.
Has either Gang retrieved these funds yet.....how about the money we were paid back by the "stimulus bail outs." Where's that money, why can't that be recycled for "Shovel Ready" jobs.....?

I'd love to debate who has better ideas, but isn't that a waste of time..?
I'll explain why. Ryan has really stupid ideas but he never plans on seeing those implemented, they are meant to feed the fires of Liberals.
They announce some bold new way to collect revenues or stop paying money on something they dont like, and Conservatives say here's my idea.......

So none of these ideas exist anywhere, they are simply stupid comments to keep the game at it's extreme places, where most Americans do not take a part in.
So debating the dreams and ideas of either of these fake partys is a total waste of time as they will never happen anyways.

I remember Guantanamo was a great idea, it's so big now we had to build them a Soccer Stadium. The Pashtuns versus the Hazaras, and the losers get waterboarded..... :D 

Blaming that on the Conservatives is a real joke when there were what 25 of them in the House during the Pooper Majority...? They couldn't even get a cup of Coffee delivered and sat silent after voting no on the stimulus, then begged for millions....

It's a joke bro, the whole jive ass game.

Our guys are dying while people are pole dancing for cash.
Not one of our finest hours, and I pray Obama goes after those jergovs like he did Romney, then we'll get a little more respect in the region. Right now we are seen as jokes, clowns pole dancing for cash.

I am none of the above from now on, I dont care which new candidate either of these Clown Posse's conjur up, you can polish a pice of shit all you want, and it's still a Turd.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 12, 2012)

As long as our monetary system dominated the world as long as there will be more and more misery and hardship!

The wildlife is far superior to us!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

> Bill Clinton and others advocate tying budget reduction to economic performance (GDP growth and unemployment shrinkage). I'm with him on that.



Sorry, I should have said *deficit* reduction, not budget reduction.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> As long as our monetary system dominated the world as long as there will be more and more misery and hardship!
> 
> The wildlife is far superior to us!



Wildlife are not generally burdened with the ability to reason. On the other hand, the same could be said for many members of our own species.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> As long as our monetary system dominated the world as long as there will be more and more misery and hardship!
> 
> The wildlife is far superior to us!



Ha! Yeah we should all be wiping our ass with our hand and flinging our poo. :roll:


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as our monetary system dominated the world as long as there will be more and more misery and hardship!
> ...



So you're saying you don't then??


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2012)

Only to people I don't like.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm likeable. Ask anyone. Okay, maybe not anyone.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 12, 2012)

You're likeable enough, Larry.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

Ask Peter! :wink:


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 12, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Ask Peter! :wink:



I borrowed from what Obama said to Hillary Clinton. >8o Even so, you're _still_ likeable enough!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Peter! :wink:
> ...



Words cannot express my relief. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2012)

Okay, this is really worth reading. Is Frank Rich doing performance art sending up intolerance too, or is it just what Jay calls "rhetorical overkill" on my part?

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

I can't help it - attempted justification of mass insanity raises my hackles.


----------



## rgames (Nov 13, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> That's true, but what he and his party advocates goes against everything learned about economics over the past three generations.


Which economics would that be, conservative economics or liberal economics? 

We've discussed this before: Economics is not science. There is no "correct" economic theory. That's why we have "conservative" economists and "liberal" economists - each is based on an ideology. And each has been proved wrong time and time again.

Your idea of rational thinking seems to be to defer to a liberal economist. Alas, though: you are simply deferring to another person whose arguments are based on an ideology. (Actually, there are some economists who are not ideological, but they seldom get mentioned anywhere. And they're wrong just as often as the ideological economists.)

Fact-based endeavors (like science) are not based on ideologies. Have you ever seen an interview with a physicist who was introduced as a "Liberal" physicist or "Conservative" physicist? Of course not. Why not? Answer that question and I think you'll see a fallacy in relying on economics as a factual basis for any type reasoning.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using economic theory as a basis for reasoning. Just don't confuse it with fact-based science. As I've said before, Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics but I'm guessing you're pretty likely to discount his trickle-down economic theories, right? 

Also, I gave plenty of examples of where Romney's platform made factual sense. I also gave examples where Obama's platform does not make factual sense.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 13, 2012)

There are still facts, such as...

1) Military spending is often less effective for stimulus than spending on infrastructure because much of the money ends up overseas and little of it contributes to increased productivity.

2) Money given to people with little money will tend to spend it in the local economy. Money given to wealthy people might not get spent. (It might get spent or invested - or put in an account in the Cayman Islands. Its path is less predictable.)

3) The income gap between the richest Americans and the middle class has increased over the past three decades.

There are other facts as well, but conservatives tend to ignore these three.


----------



## rgames (Nov 13, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> There are still facts, such as...
> 
> 1) Military spending is often less effective for stimulus than spending on infrastructure because much of the money ends up overseas and little of it contributes to increased productivity.
> 
> ...


I agree with #3 though I'm not sure what you're implying or why you think conservative ignore it. I kind-of agree with #2 but I'm not sure why it matters - rich people don't get gov't money.

#1 is wrong and obviously so. National security requirements dictate that the US rely, obviously, on US manufacturing for defense purposes. If you go to war with China, you probably don't wan't to rely on the Chinese to manufacture the weapons you use against them, do you?

Let's dig deeper, though: which part of military spending? The part that covers health care for the nation's largest workforce? The part that covers college education? The part that funds most of the country's science spending?

Currently, health care accounts for about half of defense spending on personnel and about 10% of the total defense budget. Currently, R&D spending accounts for about 13% of the total defense budget. I've never seen data on GI bill spending but let's ignore it because even without it you've got about 25% of the defense budget going to health care and science.

I, for one, am in full support of gov't spending on health care, education, and science. Anyone who supports those endeavors would, logically, support robust defense spending since they are a huge portion of the DoD budget.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Nov 13, 2012)

rgames @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > That's true, but what he and his party advocates goes against everything learned about economics over the past three generations.
> ...



Firstly, Romney never expressed a platform other than basic republican talking points. So you can't make that conclusion. As for Obama, his platform makes perfect sense for what he's trying to do, which is invest directly back into the economy through public programs. You may not agree, and that's fine, but to say that it doesn't make sense says only that you don't agree with him.

And secondly, I'm so tired of you thinking that your opinions are facts. It's annoying. They're just opinions. You think they are facts and you reason backwards to support your opinions, but in the end, that's what's wrong with the republican party and conservative "thinking" in general right now. They have opinions that they think are facts, these opinions may or may not be true, most are so utterly false it's astounding that they can't see how false they are. They reason from these opinions then are completely "dumbfouded" when reality doesn't support their faulty reasoning. Thus the last election. The facts told them that they are losing, they ignored that of course, and created a whole new set of facts that showed them winning. The only problem is their "facts" weren't real. So they came to perfectly valid conclusions, but valid conclusions based on faulty data or untrue opinions still lead to wrong answers.

Given that the Republican party is so prone to delusion, the only fact that you can come to is that they're crazy.

And if you look through history, you'll find out that every republican president in my lifetime has increased the deficit and ended their reign in complete financial collapse. In spite of saying the exact opposite. Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Romney would have been no different. IMO, a lot worse.

Granted Dems haven't faired much better, but at least we got Clinton :D 

I applaud your effort to be "pragmatic", it's a noble goal. But remember that in order to reason, you have to start out with facts that can be verified in the real world. Not "facts" that you think should be true.

The only republican making sense right now is Bobby Jindal, who said, "the republican party needs to stop being the part of 'stupid'".


----------



## rgames (Nov 13, 2012)

Jose - I never said all of Obama's policies make no sense (in fact, I said exactly the opposite). Some do. Some do not. Unfortunately, he seems to focus on the ones that make no sense.

Take a look here: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... icans?lite

Now do this: double the amount of revenue generated by this idea.

Next, take a look at what impact it will have on the nation's fiscal problems (answer: almost zero).

Now ask yourself: if the "Fair Share / Tax the Rich" idea will have nearly no effect, why does Obama spend so much time talking about it?

(Answer: it gets him re-elected)

That's what I have a problem with: a man who employs useless emotion-laden sound bytes to get himself back in office. That indicates a person who puts partisan politics ahead of a real desire to solve the country's problems.

And yes, the Republicans are guilty of the same behavior. It's a "lesser of two evils" problem.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> There are still facts, such as...
> 
> 1) Military spending is often less effective for stimulus than spending on infrastructure because much of the money ends up overseas and little of it contributes to increased productivity.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more, but when the Liberals had 2 years w/ ZERO opposition it appears as though they ignored those 3 facts as well.
Again great ideas w/o implementation and pretending some 25 or 30 GOP members could stop anything is just more lies.

You're tight about the wealthy liking the Carribean Islands to shelter cash.
The Biden family Hedge fund is a favorite for both of these " arch enemies."
Joes brother seemed to get involved with some criminal as a partner, but all they needed to do was get rid of him and take over the entire operation.
And we thought Liberals despised those evil rich guys hiding their money. Mark Rich got a great deal too back in the days where Eric Holder was used to keep the heat off of Hillarys' brother while they were selling Pardons to criminals.

In my eyes, there's no difference between these 2 partys. 
I have learned to face the facts and reality. We live in a corrupted society, where our leaders are no longer role models that represent America, they represent themselves, and their gang.
Hell even our Generals are involved in nefarious activites, other than killing people so is it any wonder we saw such violence across the Middle East and SW Asia.
We look like viscious, rabid animals, and in their eyes, we need to be put down.

I can handle all of the grandstanding bull shit these Posse Clowns do here at home, but when we are being attacked at our Embassies, and Americans are advised to leave 13 countries for their own safety, somebody isn;t doing their job, and having Generals and heads of the CIA living in fear of being caught or even blackmailed is just too much for me.

And to think we pay Trillions in taxes so these "leaders" can Roll Deep is something I find very troublesome. How would they act if they were given regular pay like most of us make....?
Money is destroying our system, whether it's debt or corruption is debateable, but the fact is w/o these trillions of dollars that grows on trees in DC, I don;t think we'd have these problems.
And google how much the TSA and all of it's machines and slaries/pensions will cost us, and the 4 or 5 terrorist plots that have been stopped were by passengers on planes, or vendors in NYC, not one single event has been stopped by this annoying Federal Scare machine....

FWIW................TSA stands for " thousands standing around."

But here in Las Vegas we love the GSA. Those guys have major cash, politicians sons and daughters drive around 2013 Cars already, and they're not electric either.
But they spend millions here on parties and conventions, so at least some dollars are coming back.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2012)

> We've discussed this before: Economics is not science. There is no "correct" economic theory. That's why we have "conservative" economists and "liberal" economists - each is based on an ideology. And each has been proved wrong time and time again.



You can say that, but it's simply not true. Economics is not a multiple-choice endeavor with no tested models that reflect reality. There is plenty of correct economic theory.

The reason we have conservative economists is that a number of them allow ideology to influence their analysis - which makes sense, because that's what the set of ideas passing for conservatism today is: fantasy ideology that has little relationship to reality.

The economists who predicted that, for example, we would not see massive inflation if the Fed expanded the monetary base under the present conditions have been 100% right. They also predicted that the austerity being tried in Europe would have exactly the results it's had: a shrinking economy with more unemployment, and it's creating the same drag in this country. And that limited stimulus would have limited results.

The few honest conservatives around like David Frum agree with that.

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2012)

And of course this *nonpartisan* economic report was censored by the Republicans. It just shows what we already know - that the marginal tax rates have nothing to do with growth - but it violates the sacred ideology and therefore must be stifled.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 14, 2012)

That report shows a tied-at-the-hip relationship between top tax rates and the growing economic gap.

It used to be that rich people funded the government by paying taxes. Today, rich people fund the government by making loans - and they want that money back - with interest!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2012)

That seems to be the case as these Banks get interest free laons, then tell us with great credit we can get 13.1% from them.....??? WTF is that Country Club Crap.

I bet you like the Cherokee chick that beat Scott Brown.

I rather enjoyed seeing Elizabeth Warren win, I think she's perfect for breaking apart these Banks that flourished under Bush and Obama. They are so strong now, they don't even need permission from some politician in DC, they go straight to the Federal Reserve.

She is very original too which is odd for politicians as they usually read scripts others hand them, this gal has Presidents taking her punchlines.

That "You Didn't Build It" comment was taken way out of context but she makes valid points that all citizens take the Governments infrastructure for granted.

I wish she could replace that ancient fossil Harry Reid. He is a do nothing mouthpiece these days, at least Elizabeth Warren would take the fight where it belongs. 
I would love to see real vigor like she has and Bernie Sanders unleashed on Corporations and wealthy tax dodgers.

My friends will think I am outside of the box, but these are what I consider as real representatives. Look at their voting record, notice they aren't wealthy like Pelosi and Reid, Dodd, Frank and the big fat cat Liberals who we made richer than they already were.

These are people who earned their way w/o cutting corners and lining their pockets.
If they are given some real power instead of more of the same self enrichment tactics while giving lip service, we will see some hope and change.

Obama himself came up with meger wealth, you'd think he'd like having more of those kind of people advising him and working with him instead of these super wealthy Liberals, who are no different than the hypocrits from the Other gang members and their Yachts....


----------



## rgames (Nov 14, 2012)

There are correct economic theories. Correct, that is, right up until the time where they're proved incorrect. Economics is, at its most basic level, a theory of human behavior. Never in the history of the world has there been a lasting theory of rational human behavior. Irrational, sure - put a person in front of a hungry lion and he'll try to run away. We can predict that sort of behavior. But theories that try to predict the outcome of less-reactionary, more rational human behavior have always failed.

Your faith in liberal economists is analogous to a Christian's faith in Jesus Christ. It really is. And that's fine - emotions are an aid in every part of human life, including decision making. But don't confuse it with fact-based decision making. It is not. Rather, it is a system of beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with having a religion, Nick. Really, it's OK 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2012)

You're so confident in what you're saying about economics, yet you're blissfully unaware that you're completely wrong.

Just saying that economic theories are right until they're proved incorrect is what we pseudo intellectuals like to call "a blah blah blah statement." It means exactly nothing, because you aren't coming up with logical reasons the theory is going to fail. The analogy isn't right, but if I said that Einstein's theories were only true until they aren't, you'd laugh at me.

"Rational expectations" and "intertemporal maximation" are common jargon in economics (especially microeconomics). But if the government writes someone previously unemployed a check to do something useful, there's no psychology involved - he has money in his hands that he can spend (or she). Likewise, if economic reason says that there's no danger of hyperinflation when the the Fed expands the monetary base under the current conditions (because it doesn't create the required situation with too much money chasing too few goods), the human behavior doesn't matter.

What's really going on is that you're a devotee of the religion of If RGames Says It, It's true.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 14 said:


> You're so confident in what you're saying about economics, yet you're blissfully unaware that you're completely wrong.
> 
> Just saying that economic theories are right until they're proved incorrect is what we pseudo intellectuals like to call "a blah blah blah statement." It means exactly nothing, because you aren't coming up with logical reasons the theory is going to fail. The analogy isn't right, but if I said that Einstein's theories were only true until they aren't, you'd laugh at me.
> 
> ...



And I , ever the centrist would opine the following:

1. There are economic theories that have been mostly proven true given a certain set of expectations.
2. Technology has changed things at an absolutely breathless pace in the past 20 years, with the result that former expectations may not prove to be a good basis for the immediate future or beyond.

Given that set of assumptions, you both may be right. Of course, regardless, you both ARE right-I know, I don't even have to ask either of you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2012)

We're not both right. 

Technology has changed lots of things. But the underlying macroeconomic principles as applied to policy really haven't. Richard is right that economies are chaotic and the details can only be estimated, but he's wrong that there's no difference between correct and incorrect ideas about macroeconomics.

Now, if you don't like the idea of the government doing anything to help people in principle because of some soulless ideology you believe in, well, what can I sneer. Say, I mean say.

But that's opinion. When an economist denies economic reality to justify his ideology, it's not opinion - it's wrong. Trickle-down economics has been proven to be a load of bollocks. QE during the current conditions doesn't produce hyperinflation. Stimulus really does stimulate. Our interest rates are not going through the ceiling. Yet there's no shortage of conservative economists who refuse to admit they've been proven wrong.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2012)

Stimulus really does stimulate-ASSUMING you can eventually increase GDP. That's what i meant about the changing environment-there may be no near-term way to address the fact that reasonable paying manufacturing jobs have left permanently to cheaper, more needy economies, and that technology, while creating some jobs, has removed the need for many more than it has created. In that combined scenario, you have stimulus creating an artificial economy that can only perpetuate itself for so long before it collapses. 

There, now I'm an economist, and by the way, I've had it with the lot of you-you're ALL wrong, and *I* am the only one who's right. Have a nice day! :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2012)

Okay, I see what you were saying.

You're talking about underlying "structural" issues - manufacturing gone, technology increasing productivity without humans. Those are longer-term issues that existed before the crash, but they didn't really figure into its cause (people were working before and now they're sitting idle only because of financial issues, not structural ones).

While I don't call it artificial (next paragraph), stimulus is for the immediate emergency we're in right now: people are not working. That creates problems for years and years, and paying people to do useful things solves that problem.

The reason I say it's not artificial (any more than anything not related to basic needs is): if people have money, they can spend it. That demand puts people to work creating stuff people want to buy - such as sample libraries - and you have a loop.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 15, 2012)

This thread suffers from cyberbalkanization.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2012)

Even if the samples aren't looped?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 18, 2012)

I just watched an old clip of Baghdad Bob, and it reminded me of Obama or Romeny with their visions of rivers of honey and righteousness of the American Way.
What is the American way these days, bail outs and wars, poverty and lying officials, cheating Generals, hot sexy babes with Security Clearances.?

One thing is certain, I am a Yankee Doddle Dandy regardless, but we must be such excellent entertainment for the rest of the world, and a serious motivating factor for any enemy to strike us now.

I mean Susan Rice, Napolitano, Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren.....my God just the site of their faces as heads of Defense Commitees or Security, would encourage our enemies to invade the entire continent...

I did see a sexy chick who was running for some GOP seat and lost, but I really want to meet her.
She had her own Squadron she ran in Iraq of A10 Thunderbolts, affectionally known as the Warthogs.
I have never met or dated a women with so many Tank kills using that massive flying Gattling Gun. 
I cannot picture her being a dull date, just hearing of how she chafed her way out of missiles, then truned into the guns and took them out, and a few more tanks before she RTB'd has to be invigorating.

She needs a gig at the Pentagon, and I bet there's many Generals who sent her emails with their shirts off.

She even sued the Feds over Rumsfelds policy and won. Can't believe I never heard of this gal, I would have voted for her regardles off gang affiliation.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... iW37mvCSkg


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 18, 2012)

Might wanna check out John Whitehead, her free legal counsel from the Rutherford Institute. Seems his main agenda has been to try to get religion back into schools.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 18, 2012)

Hey that's a great idea....Teachers and School officlals could get a tax free status like the way those laws created the Bible Belt.

Now that I think about if I played Christian or Zionist music in the Casinos I should qualify for tax free status. Get a bunch of fine chicks like in the addicted to Love video, sequence everything, and call the band Reverend Jim and the Fine Trim.....
Man's Soul cannot lee-ive, on shrimps, clams and poke chops.

Thanks for the inspriration I shall investigate the legality of it, but FWIW, Pro Bono Lawyers really suck, look at the DOJ, they can't prosecute crooks from Wall Street Banks, much less an athlete who lied to Congress, used steroids, and has a list of witnesses a mile long, with circumstantial evidence and motive.

I learned that you get what you pay for, similar to 88 note controllers.


----------

