Jump to content

Another What If?


fmccap

Recommended Posts

cal50, I do have my disappointments with Obama - no denial there. Liberal Corporate Party and Conservative Corporate Party. The ones who really would do something about it - whether from the left or the right: the Pauls and the Kucinichs and the Naders and Perots get drummed off to the margins (maybe not so easily this time in the case of Paul. I am disappointed that Obama didn't do more of what he promised - the promises that got him elected in the first place. If he had, you would have hated it - but at least we would have a clean record to judge. As it is, it has been a morass of compromise (caving in), and political stalemate. The one major thing that he did get done was "Obamacare" - which was basically a thinly-reworked Republican plan (though they now howl at it as though they had just seen Satan himself - is that cognitive disconnect, or hypocrisy?), and I'm not sure how much of a change it really is, or that it isn't yet another boon for the insurance companies. We still have remnants of Roosevelt's America, but they are being stripped away. The real agenda: that we have to cut spending, that we have to reduce the deficit, that we have to limit the size of government - those are the buzzwords that both sides are talking about - Republican and Democrat. That is the center of the discussion now - and that agenda is Reagan's agenda. We are still living in Reagan's America. I love how the Republicans set fire to the house that Obama was about to move into, then claimed that we don't have enough money to make the improvements he was planning. Obama could not possibly have fixed the economy by now from the mess that it was (nor could McCain, or Paul, or anybody else in the same timeframe) - and Republican leadership has done everything in its power to stymy him at every turn: every appointment, every budget, every initiative - so it is disingenuous to lay the blame solely at Obama's feet. I don't see Romney making things better with more warmed-over supply side and redistribution toward the top. If he does take the Presidency, I will try to be more charitable and constructive in my view of him than I was the last guy (it depends on whether he gathers the entire PNAC around him as advisors or not), and to respect the dignity of the office. And, in that spirit, I am going to limit my criticisms of him (though his rivals within the Republican party are doing a pretty good job generating material for the Obama campaign right now. For that matter, so is he with his "envy" remarks and the like).

 

 

 

So how exactly did the republicans road block the "O" when he / they had control of the presidents seat and both houses?

There was more in fighting in their own ranks AND some republicans dragging their feet as well.

 

Obama is like a bad poker player or gambler that comes up short every time and each time he tries a new approach its not his money he is loosing. Yes, the republican put the brakes on a lot of his plans but the public / people voted a huge change of seats in the hose, that was a clear message most people did not like what Obama was doing and the direction he was heading.

 

Until government as a whole stops spending more than it takes from us and businesses we will continue to have deficits and add to it. Even if Romney get the presidents seat the same boneheads remain in congress and house or reps. Until those seats as well change to smarter people we can argue a lot and nothing really change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how exactly did the republicans road block the "O" when he / they had control of the presidents seat and both houses?

GOP Specialty: dirty politics.

 

Record Use of the Filibuster

For months, Senate Democrats have made the point that Republicans are using the filibuster in an unprecedented way to block President Obama's agenda. A useful chart of Senate cloture motions through the years seems to back up this assertion.

 

David Waldman notes that there have been about "the same number of cloture motions between January 2009 and today as between World War I and the moon landing. It once took 50 years to get the same number of cloture votes as we've had in just over one year with this Republican minority."

 

John Aravosis: "What the data clearly shows it that the GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too -- they didn't. Not like this."

 

LINK

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, looking at it objectively..nah..well just sitting back and looking at the big picture, I see the different ways people want things to run.

Some want middle of the road, others want righ and yet others want left.

I don't care if it's obama or bush or donald duck, I look at what THEY feel is the right direction. Some people I agree with their direction and others I don't. I feel obama is not only going in a direction I don't like/oppose but that he is actively doing something that noone will know until it's over. I think there is a hidden agenda (like any other politician) only his aren't purely money driven or driven by fame or a place in history. I feel he is actively working on changing/destroying what America was/is forever. His end game is a third world America that MUST play as an equal to every other country in the world. (one world gov?) Something very ominous is going on.

 

I am on the right, but I'll admit Clinton did some good things and Bush did some bad. But it's not even a point of checking the score card on "this was a bad decision" or "that was a mistake" with obama I truly feel he is pushing for socialism and trying to turn America into a North American Europe.

 

I hope he has to bow out, even if the dems win again it's not as bad as long as it's not him or his ultra left agenda.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, looking at it objectively..nah..well just sitting back and looking at the big picture, I see the different ways people want things to run.

Some want middle of the road, others want righ and yet others want left.

I don't care if it's obama or bush or donald duck, I look at what THEY feel is the right direction. Some people I agree with their direction and others I don't. I feel obama is not only going in a direction I don't like/oppose but that he is actively doing something that noone will know until it's over. I think there is a hidden agenda (like any other politician) only his aren't purely money driven or driven by fame or a place in history. I feel he is actively working on changing/destroying what America was/is forever. His end game is a third world America that MUST play as an equal to every other country in the world. (one world gov?) Something very ominous is going on.

 

I am on the right, but I'll admit Clinton did some good things and Bush did some bad. But it's not even a point of checking the score card on "this was a bad decision" or "that was a mistake" with obama I truly feel he is pushing for socialism and trying to turn America into a North American Europe.

 

I hope he has to bow out, even if the dems win again it's not as bad as long as it's not him or his ultra left agenda.

 

 

What exactly has Obama done that makes him a socialist, specific laws or policies, not right wing talking points.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LINK I'm going to re-link this separately, because I think it's important. If you can work your way through it, it is a good explanation of a criticism that should be in the mainstream discussion, but isn't. The reasons for that are obvious when you think about who controls the discussion. Pages 22 - 25 "The Neo-Liberal Box" is an especially concise summation of the pressures facing the disaffected middle in this country right now. It gets right to the heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

 

As to whether Obama or Romney (should he get the Republican nomination) are most likely to address the problem - frankly, I think they both move in circles that will remain in willful, self-interested denial about these issues for some time to come. But my judgement is that Obama's background and stated sympathies make him more likely to be able to get it.

 

 

 

 

By the way - that sunset:

 

377488_10150525945269573_793839572_8455241_944648355_n.jpg

Edited by retro-man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly has Obama done that makes him a socialist, specific laws or policies, not right wing talking points.

 

 

The only people who call Obama a socialist are those who don't know the meaning of the word socialist.

 

If "ObamaCare" is socialist then I guess the Heritage Foundation, Newt, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republican leardership in 1994 were socialists in 1994 when they came up with the very same idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if you didn't have a clue what caused the economic collapse that he has been trying to clean up, if you didn't recognize the fact that it was - as has been stated ad nauseam in the media "the biggest economic downturn since The Great Depression", if you believed that it was just another recession that we could bounce out of right away if we just cut taxes some more, or stripped away some environmental protections, or lowered the minimum wage, or if you have already fooled yourself into forgetting who was in office when it started (just as you have fooled yourself into believing that Obama won the last election using a teleprompter), if you had no clue that it was the result of 30 years of supply side orthodoxy (or as Bush I once called it "voodoo economics"), and if you were completely blind to the single-minded obstructionism that has characterized the party of no for the past 3 years - to the point of imperiling the whole country to accomplish their political objectives - all the while they have NO economic plan of their own except more of what got us into this, then I suppose you could imagine Obama getting his clock cleaned based on his "poor performance". It takes a special kind of cluelessness.

Problem is the causes are still here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Mitt used a teleprompter just like Obama? Would all the people who bashed and made fun of Obama do it to Mitt also? I think there will be some excuses and spin from it.

 

Funny thing is they said he will be using one from now on! The clown can't even speak and people want him to be POTUS.

Mitt using a teleprompter after the New Hampshire victory may raise eyebrows; but his use of it was probably because the outcome was pretty much known before the actual primary allowing for him to utilize the media to his advantage (like speaking to the people of South Carolina).

 

He didn't use one after the Iowa victory, instead giving more of a practiced stump speech.

 

Obama's use of the teleprompter has been (at times) humorous by virtue of the situations he's used it. He DIDN'T use it in front of a bunch of grade schoolers, but he HAS used them at press conferences--perhaps because he needed to be fed the answer(?)--which is a precedent.

 

Obama's reliance on the teleprompter could be summed up best (for me) by his pronunciation of the word "corpsman". (corpse-man)

 

In fairness, he (Obama) may have been suffering from lack of sleep at the time, but it seems to me that a (true) orator would have caught this and corrected himself.......but he didn't.......

. Is it possible that such a learned man had never seen the word "corpsman" spelled out? Sure. But Presidents (ALL Presidents) review and edit their speeches ahead of time.

 

Right now Mitt seems to be coming out of the mold he'd created for himself for the last few years. I think he's better now than he was four years ago. He may (probably will) win the nomination, but I'll admit I'd rather see Gingrich in a debate with Obama than Romney; if only Newt could suppress what at times (to me) is seemingly an "everybody in the room is dumber than I am" way of comporting himself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Ron Paul got elected and cut 1 TRILLION dollars in his first year? We would still need to borrow money to operate the Federal Government.

 

It's sad when you think about where "We The People" have let these politicians take our once great country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excess or not governmental spending needs to be reduced, and you're right he can't do it alone.

I don't question (at all) that government spending and the size and reach of the Federal Government need to be pared.

 

I just wish people would stop looking to the President as a king (and the Government as a provider).

 

It may be a better policy, but Paul's proclamation that "he" will cut $1 Trillion from Federal spending is no better (to me) than Obama's "rule on Day 1" (link).

 

It shows a lack of (capable) leadership when the leader has to "rule" by fiat, and not by making his case to the Congress (or the American people).

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The operative question is.......by doing WHAT in his first year?

 

Unless there is $1 Trillion worth of excess in the Executive Branch, he's not going to do it alone.

 

 

This is the question that most Ron Paul supporters can't answer......I like Paul's economic idealogy..but weak on national defense........he's not electable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the question that most Ron Paul supporters can't answer......I like Paul's economic idealogy..but weak on national defense........he's not electable....

What is the answer from the Rommney supporters or any other candidate about there supposed cutting of the baseline increases(not actual cuts) that they claim they are going to do?

 

Is there any difference?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It shows a lack of (capable) leadership when the leader has to "rule" by fiat, and not by making his case to the Congress (or the American people).

Paul makes his case to Congress and it goes unheard.

 

He also makes his case to the People and they are starting to listen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ask several and what I usually get is the same response that you gave.....a delfection to another candidate.....I know you are a long time supporter.....so enlighten me please......$1 trillion the first year...

#1 the veto.

#2 going to the People to tell there reps in Congress.

 

Now back to the question, is there any difference between him and the others? Why is that a fault you bring up in Paul but not the others?

 

Who are you supporting?

 

Also what do you think of the lies the other candidates are saying about there phantom cuts?

Edited by fmccap
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the question that most Ron Paul supporters can't answer......I like Paul's economic idealogy..but weak on national defense........he's not electable....

How can you say "weak on national defense" when he wants to bring our troops home where they would be better suited to defend our nation?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 the veto.

Here's how I see the weakness in that logic........

 

Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority. If President Paul decides to isolate himself to the point that Congress has no choice but to get a 2/3 majority just to get things done, you can bet whatever bill they send is going to have all the goodies necessary to garner that 2/3.

 

Simply put, in his attempt to solve the problem, he makes it worse.

#2 going to the People to tell there reps in Congress.

If a large portion of the electorate is dependent upon the government, what makes you think they'll choose to follow the man attempting to turn off the spigot as opposed to the one filling their trough?

Also what do you think of the lies the other candidates are saying about there phantom cuts?

There are two ways to get the people to stand on their own.....

 

You can either cut them off outright, OR you can make them WANT to stand on their own. In order for people to WANT to stand on their own, you can either make it so unattractive not to (e.g. cutting them off), or you can make it more attractive to (e.g. make getting a job easy). One is negative reinforcement and the other positive.

 

Positive reinforcement usually is more successful.

 

I fail to see Ron Paul's "positive reinforcement" strategy, but you are welcome to illustrate it for the rest of us.

Edited by RangerM
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I see the weakness in that logic........

 

Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority. If President Paul decides to isolate himself to the point that Congress has no choice but to get a 2/3 majority just to get things done, you can bet whatever bill they send is going to have all the goodies necessary to garner that 2/3.

 

Simply put, in his attempt to solve the problem, he makes it worse. I don't believe it will make it worse, at least the economic side of it because people are listening and like what they hear.

 

If a large portion of the electorate is dependent upon the government, what makes you think they'll choose to follow the man attempting to turn off the spigot as opposed to the one filling their trough? That's a false claim. He has said many times that there will be a transition period, nobody will just be left out to dry. You know how much he dislikes the Federal Reserve but has stated he would not just want to end it on day 1. He would allow competing currencies and just let it kill itself over time.

 

There are two ways to get the people to stand on their own.....

 

You can either cut them off outright, OR you can make them WANT to stand on their own. In order for people to WANT to stand on their own, you can either make it so unattractive not to (e.g. cutting them off), or you can make it more attractive to (e.g. make getting a job easy). One is negative reinforcement and the other positive.

 

Positive reinforcement usually is more successful.

 

I fail to see Ron Paul's "positive reinforcement" strategy, but you are welcome to illustrate it for the rest of us. I see it by having a currency that is not constantly being devalued, being able to keep the fruits of your labor and having true liberty and a true Free Market so people can make there own choices and be free. Sort of what this country was founded on and what made it great. Nowadays we don't really have freedom, just about everything we do has some government involvement in it under the disguise of what's best for us.

I just believe people are starting to pay attention and have had enough of what Washington has become. Example is the 2010 elections. I believe it is going to keep going in that direction. If you also look there are quite a few who "decided" to retire when there term is up. Funny part about that is they were looking at having a rough time to get reelected.

 

P.S. Just wondering what "Positive reinforcement" is coming from any other candidate, even the POTUS?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Ron Paul got elected and cut 1 TRILLION dollars in his first year? We would still need to borrow money to operate the Federal Government.

 

It's sad when you think about where "We The People" have let these politicians take our once great country.

I wonder why nobody said anything about this. Think about it, cut 1TRILLION that's TRILLION and we would still be borrowing money. Do any of you think there is really a way out of this?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a large portion of the electorate is dependent upon the government, what makes you think they'll choose to follow the man attempting to turn off the spigot as opposed to the one filling their trough?

 

Even I'm not quite so jaundiced as to see the electorate as pigs at a trough. More like sheep being led to slaughter. It seems to me we've got fewer and fewer people whose troughs are full. LINK

 

The Working Poor

 

The number of low income jobs is rising while the number of high income jobs is falling. This has created a situation where the number of "the working poor" in America is absolutely skyrocketing. Millions of Americans are working as hard as they can and yet they still cannot afford to lead a middle class lifestyle.

 

*Since the year 2000, we have lost approximately 10% of our middle class jobs. In the year 2000 there were about 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

 

*Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

 

*Between 1969 and 2009, the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

 

*According to a report released in February from the National Employment Law Project, higher wage industries are accounting for 40 percent of the job losses in America but only 14 percent of the job growth. Lower wage industries are accounting for just 23 percent of the job losses but 49 percent of the job growth.

 

*Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.

 

*Last year, 19.7% of all U.S. working adults had jobs that would not have been enough to push a family of four over the poverty line even if they had worked full-time hours for the entire year.

 

*The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

 

Seriously, if you can work your way through it, go back and read THIS LINK that I posted earlier. I apologize that it is 27 pages long, and pretty dry, but the concept of financialization is one that needs to be understood and brought into the common dialog.

Edited by retro-man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it will make it worse, at least the economic side of it because people are listening and like what they hear.

There are certainly people who like the message. I can certainly support the intent, even if the delivery is less than optimal.

 

BTW, when I said "he makes it worse", I should have said "he could wind up making it worse". That was my intent (with a poor delivery).

That's a false claim. He has said many times that there will be a transition period, nobody will just be left out to dry. You know how much he dislikes the Federal Reserve but has stated he would not just want to end it on day 1. He would allow competing currencies and just let it kill itself over time.

If his lament is with fiat currency, to what "competing currencies" are you referring?

I see it by having a currency that is not constantly being devalued, being able to keep the fruits of your labor and having true liberty and a true Free Market so people can make there own choices and be free. Sort of what this country was founded on and what made it great. Nowadays we don't really have freedom, just about everything we do has some government involvement in it under the disguise of what's best for us.

It's not enough to describe the problem (of government involvement) without effectively communicating why it is a problem. Sadly, half this country believes that government should control most every aspect of our public (and a fair portion of our private) lives.

I just believe people are starting to pay attention and have had enough of what Washington has become. Example is the 2010 elections. I believe it is going to keep going in that direction. If you also look there are quite a few who "decided" to retire when there term is up. Funny part about that is they were looking at having a rough time to get reelected.

The Tea Party is definitely travelling along that line of thinking. At times, even the OWS crowd has an anti-government message, but it is too closely aligned with an anti-U.S. Government message.

P.S. Just wondering what "Positive reinforcement" is coming from any other candidate, even the POTUS?

Very little (and none from the POTUS). Romney and Newt seem (to me, anyway) to come the closest. Theirs is a message of growth, and I believe that is the only thing that will get us out of the rut we are in. (simply cutting will not be enough)

 

There are 2 million fewer people working today than there were when Obama took office. The President isn't responsible for job growth, but he can certainly keep from stifling it. Unfortunately he hasn't, and (from what I can tell) will only continue more of the same.

Edited by RangerM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...