Politics

[ACamp1900]

this notion that you don't need to work for pay is STUUUUUPID,...

Add to that the often partnered notion that those who are working aren't giving enough... and you sum up my biggest political sticking point (We all have them I suppose) right there. It's the single biggest reason I left the democrat party.

 

[connor_in]

I think we can all agree that all of our nation's problems can be healed by simply posting pics of hot asian girls on this website.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think we can all agree that all of our nation's problems can be healed by simply posting pics of hot asian girls on this website.

You got my vote.

 

[chicago51]

These guys voted for an $800 billion dollar bailout but voted no on a bill extending unemployment benefits that had offsetting spending cuts.

 

[chicago51]

Does the NFL Need a Billion Dollar Subsidy Annually from Taxpayers? | Tax Justice Blog

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

These guys voted for an $800 billion dollar bailout but voted no on a bill extending unemployment benefits that had offsetting spending cuts.

The banks have already paid back the money. Will the unemployed?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Oh. My. God.

Warren Wants To Turn Post Offices Into Banks - Business Insider

 

[connor_in]

Obama the Bill-killer | New York Post

Paul Ryan has always been a voice of welcome for immigrants. So when the GOP’s former vice presidential candidate says the obstacle to an immigration bill is his colleagues’ distrust of President Obama’s commitment to enforcing any immigration law they pass, it’s worth a listen.

On ABC’s “This Week,” Ryan put it this way: “This isn’t a trust-but-verify, this is a verify-then-trust approach.”

The GOP distrust is well-founded.

It’s grounded in those senators who remember the way then-Sen. Obama used poison-pill amendments to help derail the 2007 reform bill that had the remarkable backing of George W. Bush, John McCain and Teddy Kennedy.

But this distrust has only grown as Republicans see the president ignore laws he doesn’t care for, whether he’s declining to enforce the employer mandate in ObamaCare, contravening the Immigration and Nationality Act by suspending deportations of children here illegally or refusing to enforce federal marijuana laws.

Now this distrust has hardened after the president’s State of the Union, where he declared that if Congress does not go along with what he wants, he will act “wherever and whenever” he can without it.

Add all this together and many Republicans reasonably conclude that no matter what immigration law they pass, the president will simply not enforce provisions he doesn’t like — in particular those dealing with securing the border.

Throughout the immigration debate, press attention has largely focused on a GOP that’s divided by the issue. Maybe there ought to be equal attention to Obama himself, who as senator helped killed one chance for a bipartisan compromise on immigration and is now on a path to do so again as president.

 

[chicago51]

Obama the Bill-killer | New York Post

Deportations are up under Obama. Obama has actually been enforcing border security just fine.

Prediction on what will happen on the immigration bill:

There will be no vote in the House on gang of 8 immigration bill this session for several reasons:
1 - GOP chicken s*^t of a primary challenge.
2 - Opportunity for a more Republican friendly bill next session of Congress if the Senate goes red which is very realistic more so because of geography and the states that happen to have Senate seats up for election

There will be something done on immigration next session of Congress because:
1 - Potentially reason # 2 from above. Obama who already is pretty much a lame duck President will likely want some face saving legacy for his second term and will sign from a democrat perspective a watered down bill.
2 - GOP knows they need to do something or they fell they will get trounced again among latino voters in the presidential election. Personally I think based on friends I have of Mexican/ Latin American descent some whom are Republican I think it is a mistake to consider them one issue voters and to think immigration will solve all there problems with this voting block.

Whatever reform eventually comes out of this the big thing for me is to focus on employers that hire illegally. If you end illegal hiring you pretty much solve illegal immigration.

By the way this is one more example of how deficit reduction really doesn't mean crap to either party. As the Republicans won big in 2010 saying they would make deficit reduction the most important issue. Well immigration reform is projected to lower the deficit $250 billion or so this decade another $700 billion the next. Obamacare lowered the deficit yet Republicans have tried 40 times to repeal it. Democrats have simular talking points the deficit as well even though there votes say the opposite. Bottom line any polictician that says the deficit is the most important issue them is full of crap.

 

[chicago51]

The banks have already paid back the money. Will the unemployed?

The government does get some money back from the unemployment, as those on unemployment insurance spend virtually 100% of their unemployment checks. The money they get from UE insurance goes right back into the economy and creates jobs thus more tax revenues for the government. The multipiler effect was much more subsantial before globalization and before we stopped enforcing the Shermman Antitrust Act but there is still small multiplier effect when money is spent.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Deportations are up under Obama. Obama has actually been enforcing border security just fine.

Prediction on what will happen on the immigration bill:

There will be no vote in the House on gang of 8 immigration bill this session for several reasons:
1 - GOP chicken s*^t of a primary challenge.
2 - Opportunity for a more Republican friendly bill next session of Congress if the Senate goes red which is very realistic more so because of geography and the states that happen to have Senate seats up for election

There will be something done on immigration next session of Congress because:
1 - Potentially reason # 2 from above. Obama who already is pretty much a lame duck President will likely want some face saving legacy for his second term and will sign from a democrat perspective a watered down bill.
2 - GOP knows they need to do something or they fell they will get trounced again among latino voters in the presidential election. Personally I think based on friends I have of Mexican/ Latin American descent some whom are Republican I think it is a mistake to consider them one issue voters and to think immigration will solve all there problems with this voting block.

Whatever reform eventually comes out of this the big thing for me is to focus on employers that hire illegally. If you end illegal hiring you pretty much solve illegal immigration.

By the way this is one more example of how deficit reduction really doesn't mean crap to either party. As the Republicans won big in 2010 saying they would make deficit reduction the most important issue. Well immigration reform is projected to lower the deficit $250 billion or so this decade another $700 billion the next. Obamacare lowered the deficit yet Republicans have tried 40 times to repeal it. Democrats have simular talking points the deficit as well even though there votes say the opposite. Bottom line any polictician that says the deficit is the most important issue them is full of crap.

That's a simplistic approach to a very complex problem.

And to cut through the whole immigration BS... Obama wants to expand it because it will likely increase the voting block for the Democratic party. The Republicans want to limit it for the same reason.

The projections for immigration reform are BS as well.

And the affect of Obamacare is still to be determined. This I do know... no way in he** it will decrease the deficit. To think otherwise is obsurd.

Bookmark this post... open it up in ten years.... and tell me if I am right or wrong.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The government does get some money back from the unemployment, as those on unemployment insurance spend virtually 100% of their unemployment checks. The money they get from UE insurance goes right back into the economy and creates jobs thus more tax revenues for the government. The multipiler effect was much more subsantial before globalization and before we stopped enforcing the Shermman Antitrust Act but there is still small multiplier effect when money is spent.

"The government" gets the money from the taxpayers, who in turn are not paid back for their contributions to unemployment insurance.

 

[Buster Bluth]

"The government" gets the money from the taxpayers, who in turn are not paid back for their contributions to unemployment insurance.

Sure they are, should they become unemployed.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Anyone see the CBO on Obamacare? Defend that!

 

[ACamp1900]

Don't worry, they will

 

[chicago51]

Anyone see the CBO on Obamacare? Defend that!

Did you read the CBO report or just look at the article title from Fox News?

Obamacare does not kill 2 million jobs. It is basically saying people are more likely to work less hours, retire early, and leave to start their own business the loss of hours is worth 2 million joobs over a 10 year period. However companies are going have to hire other people that would have been unemployed otherwise. There is nothing in the report that says the economy is going to tank because of Obamacare and lose 2 million jobs.

Not saying the report is a good thing by any means. Obamacare is what it is. It is an imperfect way of covering the poor, the sick, and those in pricey individual market places while still leaving insurance companies in charge of healthcare with a few consumer like out of pocket cost caps and having to spend 80 percent of premiums on patient care.

Obama basically had to get the insurance companies permission to pass the bill (and let them write parts of it). So basically the promised more customers subsidized by tax payer money (mostly on those over 250k and the health care industry) in exchange for them covering sick people, not offering BS coverage that doesn't cover squat, and not letting the people that get really sick go bankrupt.

People did got helped by this and yes younger healthy people mainly males have higher premiums.

This is and always was an imperfect law. This what you get when you a small number of companies take over a market (like the insurance market) because there we don't break up big trusts. This what you get when you don't have campaign finance restrictions (and the SC made it worse), when you no longer require public broadcasting stations to report actual news, and when allow partisan fear and hate "news" to actually be called and advertise as news. All of which have caused an ill and misinformed electorate and politicians that now have ask corporations permission to pass bills.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sure they are, should they become unemployed.

The majority are not, and it isn't close.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Did you read the CBO report or just look at the article title from Fox News?

Obamacare does not kill 2 million jobs. It is basically saying people are more likely to work less hours, retire early, and leave to start their own business the loss of hours is worth 2 million joobs over a 10 year period. However companies are going have to hire other people that would have been unemployed otherwise. There is nothing in the report that says the economy is going to tank because of Obamacare and lose 2 million jobs.

Not saying the report is a good thing by any means. Obamacare is what it is. It is an imperfect way of covering the poor, the sick, and those in pricey individual market places while still leaving insurance companies in charge of healthcare with a few consumer like out of pocket cost caps and having to spend 80 percent of premiums on patient care.

Obama basically had to get the insurance companies permission to pass the bill (and let them write parts of it). So basically the promised more customers subsidized by tax payer money (mostly on those over 250k and the health care industry) in exchange for them covering sick people, not offering BS coverage that doesn't cover squat, and not letting the people that get really sick go bankrupt.

People did got helped by this and yes younger healthy people mainly males have higher premiums.

This is and always was an imperfect law. This what you get when you a small number of companies take over a market (like the insurance market) because there we don't break up big trusts. This what you get when you don't have campaign finance restrictions (and the SC made it worse), when you no longer require public broadcasting stations to report actual news, and when allow partisan fear and hate "news" to actually be called and advertise as news. All of which have caused an ill and misinformed electorate and politicians that now have ask corporations permission to pass bills.

I sure did read it, did you watch the Congressional hearing? Or did you get highlights from MSNBC?

Obamacare encourages ppl to work less, will cost 1 Trillion $. We are 17 Trillion in the hole and adding every day yet your love for this president has blinded you to what this will do to our country.

 

[phgreek]

I sure did read it, did you watch the Congressional hearing? Or did you get highlights from MSNBC?

Obamacare encourages ppl to work less, will cost 1 Trillion $. We are 17 Trillion in the hole and adding every day yet your love for this president has blinded you to what this will do to our country.

Devout disciples (words chosen intentionally) unwilling to question leadership and tactics...hmmm, that kind of zealotry is usually separated from management of the state...but progressive faith is right there in the mix.

the number of folks wanting to be associated with Democrat/progressive, or Republican for that matter continues to dwindle...smells like a wave of change for the sake of change is coming...GOP will benefit...but hope a viable 3rd party arrives on the scene...DC needs an enema.

Hang in there man, it seems like a lot of folks are starting to see the progressive stuff as a sermon you can't follow in real life...

 

[chicago51]

Hang in there man, it seems like a lot of folks are starting to see the progressive stuff as a sermon you can't follow in real life...

It worked pretty well economically in 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Liberal means different things to different people. To be it basically means a fair opportunity (not necessarily equal results) and a democracy that represents "we the people not we the corporation".

I have my criticism's of the Democrat Party but at least they still believe in democracy (a few Republicans that passed campaign reform in the past did to as well) and weren't the one's that blew up the constitution saying somehow the 14th amendment was written for corporations having the rights of person hood. Yea Abe Lincoln fought the Civil War for the corporations.

I think a true conservative like Jefferson would be alarmed at the size and at times over step of government. He would have some fair amount of criticisms for the Democrat Party but I think would be more alarmed at the so called "conservative" policies (including those from Democratic president's) that have allowed economic royalist to game the system and undermine Democracy as we know it in America. Jefferson didn't foresee the industrial revolution but he saw an ideal nation as one of independent farmers; so basically he saw small business owners. I don't think he would be happy that 5 or fewer companies pretty much control 90 percent of every kind of product market imaginable. I also don't think he would appreciate the cost of education of higher education and the student debt in America considering his distrust for the Federalist banker types like Hammilton and the fact that he worked so hard during his post polictical career in founding the University of Virginia as a free college. On Jefferson's tombstone it didn't say POTUs but it did say founder of the University of Virginia.

 

[chicago51]

I sure did read it, did you watch the Congressional hearing? Or did you get highlights from MSNBC?

I actually gave up watching MSNBC. I have a paid digital subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune (conservatively owned) and I read free stuff from the a few media outlets that would be considered more liberal. I do listen to talk radio to and from work of people are feel aren't corporately backed.

Reagan in 87 and in Clinton in I believe 96 or 97 (not sure on the year) pretty much ruined news media by helping pass telecommunications bills that were a pile of crap. There was something called the Fairness Doctrine for the big news outlets that were on public airways CBS, NBC, ABC, etc and it required them to report on a wide variety of news not just some juicy stuff that people wanted to hear. They also had devote equal time when covering political candidates during campaigns. Basically being on public TV used to require public service which include real fact based news.

 

[wizards8507]

I actually gave up watching MSNBC. I have a paid digital subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune (conservatively owned) and I read free stuff from the a few media outlets that would be considered more liberal. I do listen to talk radio to and from work of people are feel aren't corporately backed.

Reagan in 87 and in Clinton in I believe 96 or 97 (not sure on the year) pretty much ruined news media by helping pass telecommunications bills that were a pile of crap. There was something called the Fairness Doctrine for the big news outlets that were on public airways CBS, NBC, ABC, etc and it required them to report on a wide variety of news not just some juicy stuff that people wanted to hear. They also had devote equal time when covering political candidates during campaigns. Basically being on public TV used to require public service which include real fact based news.

The problem with the fairness doctrine is that someone (the government) gets to enforce it with their version of what, exactly, "fairness" means. This is basic, revolutionary-era stuff. "I may but agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[potownhero]

It worked pretty well economically in 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Yeah, because it's the same world as it was then...I mean it's not like the other industrial economies were destroyed from some war or anything...SMH.

...and since when was the economy good in the 70's? Curious as to your gauge.

Answer this:

Why is the state of NY offering businesses that move there a 10 year tax-exemption if your progressive, high-taxing, big government, job killing economic policies work ?

 

[Bluto]

Devout disciples (words chosen intentionally) unwilling to question leadership and tactics...hmmm, that kind of zealotry is usually separated from management of the state...but progressive faith is right there in the mix.

the number of folks wanting to be associated with Democrat/progressive, or Republican for that matter continues to dwindle...smells like a wave of change for the sake of change is coming...GOP will benefit...but hope a viable 3rd party arrives on the scene...DC needs an enema.

Hang in there man, it seems like a lot of folks are starting to see the progressive stuff as a sermon you can't follow in real life...

Do you honestly think there have been any "progressives" in any meaningful positions of power in large numbers the last 30 years? You could probably count them on one hand currently. The current president is basically a moderate Republican if you look at the party platforms from the past couple decades. All the while the GOP has become increasingly xenophobic and backward looking. I'm seriously at a loss why "conservatives" piss and moan so much. Large corporate interests (aka capitalists and free market cheerleaders) pull every single lever of power in this country in every state at basically every level. Isn't that what all self professed modern day "conservatives" want?

 

[phgreek]

It worked pretty well economically in 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Hmmm, some of that is debatable...

I do think we need liberal and conservative voices in the discourse...

I don't think we need the "by any means necessary" BS that seems to rule the day for progressives...

 

[phgreek]

Do you honestly think there have been any "progressives" in any meaningful positions of power in large numbers the last 30 years? You could probably count them on one hand currently. The current president is basically a moderate Republican if you look at the party platforms from the past couple decades. All the while the GOP has become increasingly xenophobic and backward looking. I'm seriously at a loss why "conservatives" piss and moan so much. Large corporate interests (aka capitalists and free market cheerleaders) pull every single lever of power in this country in every state at basically every level. Isn't that what all self professed modern day "conservatives" want?

Do you honestly think there have been any "progressives" in any meaningful positions of power in large numbers the last 30 years? You could probably count them on one hand currently. The current president is basically a moderate Republican if you look at the party platforms from the past couple decades. All the while the GOP has become increasingly xenophobic and backward looking. I'm seriously at a loss why "conservatives" piss and moan so much. Large corporate interests (aka capitalists and free market cheerleaders) pull every single lever of power in this country in every state at basically every level. Isn't that what all self professed modern day "conservatives" want?

This president is NOT a moderate republican in any timeframe. He isn't even a moderate Democrat. He isn't moderate...in any way.

...when you unilaterally pick and choose what laws to enforce, and use EO's like an adjunct to congress, you are in no way any man's moderate. And spare me the comparison to other Presidents based on numbers of EOs...Previous presidents seemed to understand implementation and executive restraint vs. flat augmentation and over-reach. They seemed to be able to work with congress...even hostile congress. As well, in his own words, he set out to use EOs in a way that was menacing, and in his own words set out to fundamentally transform America...you seriously think saying he's moderate makes people witnessing all of this go...oh yea, what was I thinking.

Xenophobic ...oh my... No one said NO immigration...they did say follow some rules...what the hell is wrong with following the rules or changing them by the defined process...

Who do you know that is Xenophobic...honestly...anyone? The melting pot theme was pounded into everyone's head from the age of 6...we all have lineage...we know somewhere there are immigrants...most have some ties less than 3 generations ... Almost NO one is Xenophobic. This Nation has a history of welcoming massive numbers of immigrants...but in a way that preserves the economy, language, traditions, and governmental systems...that's not Xenophobia...that's reading your world history and learning from the mistakes of others who did not manage immigration...its ok to know WE are the successful place, and WE should try and preserve who WE are so WE are still here for others who want to come here and deserve to be here. Again not Xenophobia...maybe a little prideful, but not Xenophobic.

And the levers of Power...Err, wait. Aren't the economies of the coastal states basically the National GDP, aren't the governors generally Dems? Hollywood/Media anyone? What now re the levers of power? Are you going to go into a military industrial complex tirade now?

 

[GoIrish41]

Hmmm, some of that is debatable...

I do think we need liberal and conservative voices in the discourse...

I don't think we need the "by any means necessary" BS that seems to rule the day for progressives...

It wasn't the progressives who continuously threatened to tank the economy over the debt limit and who shut down the government to get their own way in the past couple of years. I have heard a lot of Republicans since Obama take office suggest that compromise was a dirty word, and that they were there to ensure their constituents get what they want ... dare I say, by any means necessary. The Senate majority leader stated in Obama's first term that his party's No. 1 goal was to ensure Obama didn't get a second term. To that end, the party began a pattern of obstruction that this government has never seen in its history. You statement strikes me as absurd because it completely ignores the facts as they have played out over the past five years.

 

[connor_in]

Didja' hear the one about the Anti-Voter ID demonstration...that required photo ID?

Anti-Voter ID March Requires Participants Bring Photo ID; Most Media Outlets Omit Hypocrisy | NewsBusters

 

[T Town Tommy]

It wasn't the progressives who continuously threatened to tank the economy over the debt limit and who shut down the government to get their own way in the past couple of years. I have heard a lot of Republicans since Obama take office suggest that compromise was a dirty word, and that they were there to ensure their constituents get what they want ... dare I say, by any means necessary. The Senate majority leader stated in Obama's first term that his party's No. 1 goal was to ensure Obama didn't get a second term. To that end, the party began a pattern of obstruction that this government has never seen in its history. You statement strikes me as absurd because it completely ignores the facts as they have played out over the past five years.

Did you forget the obstructionism by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid during the whole healthcare debate? They violated every rule of decorum to push through something that an overwhelming majority of Americans were oppossed to.

And just because Obama has failed miserably at building a consensus on any issue, that doesn't constitute obstructionism by the Republican party. Obama needs to understand the role of the Executive branch of governement in relation to the Legislative branch. And that isn't a phone and a pen.

 

[connor_in]

It wasn't the progressives who continuously threatened to tank the economy over the debt limit and who shut down the government to get their own way in the past couple of years. I have heard a lot of Republicans since Obama take office suggest that compromise was a dirty word, and that they were there to ensure their constituents get what they want ... dare I say, by any means necessary. The Senate majority leader stated in Obama's first term that his party's No. 1 goal was to ensure Obama didn't get a second term. To that end, the party began a pattern of obstruction that this government has never seen in its history. You statement strikes me as absurd because it completely ignores the facts as they have played out over the past five years.

I think you are being disingenuous here.

There is a very old saying that is very true...It takes two people to have an argument.

In this case, D's wanted one thing and wouldn't move...R's wanted another and wouldn't move. This is what lead to what happened. It is not like the D's were bending over backwards to reach any kind of agreement. BOTH sides brought things about...no just one