27 replies to this topic

[redlion]

In a Reuters Article the British finance minister labeled the GOP leaders exactly what they are: right-wing "nutters".

The GOP is risking the American Credit Rating, are they out of their minds? I for one would not like to be a second class world citizen after 70 years of superpower status. Fucking morons are destroying us from the inside out. It's idiots like Eric Cantor that give Americans a bad name internationally. Establishment pukes. It's what happens when there are only two parties.

Discuss.

[Juturna]

I'm too stupid to really understand what's going on, but from what I can tell, this is nothing new. The GOP has been making stupid decisions for a while. (Cutting spending where we need it, refusing to heighten taxes in this recession, etc) I'm not surprised at they're being stupid like. *sigh*

[MsRose]

I'm confused. What's so wrong with expecting more budget cuts? We are 14 trillion dollars in debt That's a lot. I don't agree with all republican views, but let's get realistic here.

Here's some fun facts:
- To pay off the debt each American would have to pay roughly 45,000$ per person. (keep in mind this includes children and infants...I couldn't find population by age group)
- So how hard is it to spend a trillion dollars? If you spent one dollar every second, you would have spent a million dollars in twelve days. At that same rate, it would take you 32 years to spend a billion dollars. But it would take you more than 31,000 to spend a trillion dollars.
- Barack Obama’s most recently proposed budget anticipates $5.08 trillion in deficits over the next 5 years.
- The U.S. national debt on January 1st, 1791 was just $75 million dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt rises by that amount about once an hour
- The U.S. government has such a voracious appetite for debt that the rest of the world simply doesn't have enough money to lend us. So now the Federal Reserve is buying US debt, and the only reason they can do that is because they basically create the money to lend us out of thin air.

Talking about the debt always puts me in a bum mood.

[redlion]

MsRose, on 25 July 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

I'm confused. What's so wrong with expecting more budget cuts? We are 14 trillion dollars in debt That's a lot. I don't agree with all republican views, but let's get realistic here.

It is not realistic to cut spending in a recession. We shouldn't increase it either, but we do have unfunded mandates in the Iraq and Afghani wars that must be funded for global stability. Without passing the debt ceiling, those wars are in default, same as us. We got into Iraq to stabilize the price of oil; withdrawing now would undermine the whole point. What I'm driving at is that it's convenient for the Republicans to yammer on about reducing spending while they're not in the White House or the Majority, but they weren't saying 'cut spending' when they invaded two countries without so much as a thought as to how to fund them.

What kind of infant do they take us for? I understand government, and I understand the democrats: they want to be socialist in all but name. The Republicans though... they're getting scary with this propaganda shit. Saying one thing and meaning another isn't misspeaking: it's propaganda. Secure our borders! That means turn away non-whites, militarize the border regions. Tax cuts for the rich! Which keeps the poor proportionally more fucked. What is it that's so hard to understand about the inherent racism and xenophobia in the Republican platform? Fuck that. Don't call it realism. It's not. It's racism. Protectionism. Market manipulation by war. Fascism. I thought Americans were educated, but I guess we export college graduates now. That's one commodity we still have plenty of.

MsRose, on 25 July 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

Here's some fun facts:
- To pay off the debt each American would have to pay roughly 45,000$ per person. (keep in mind this includes children and infants...I couldn't find population by age group)
- So how hard is it to spend a trillion dollars? If you spent one dollar every second, you would have spent a million dollars in twelve days. At that same rate, it would take you 32 years to spend a billion dollars. But it would take you more than 31,000 to spend a trillion dollars.
- Barack Obama’s most recently proposed budget anticipates $5.08 trillion in deficits over the next 5 years.
- The U.S. national debt on January 1st, 1791 was just $75 million dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt rises by that amount about once an hour
- The U.S. government has such a voracious appetite for debt that the rest of the world simply doesn't have enough money to lend us. So now the Federal Reserve is buying US debt, and the only reason they can do that is because they basically create the money to lend us out of thin air.

Talking about the debt always puts me in a bum mood.

A couple things.
1, no American could ever be expected to pay off their percentage of the national debt, so stop throwing those numbers out like we're going to get a bill from the Fed, because it ain't happening. I don't care how fast we're spending money: it's worth it. We stay ahead as a nation in so many ways. If only we could learn to spread that opportunity around a little bit, instead of giving all the funding to the companies and Agencies, who promptly slough off ten or twelve percent for bonuses. Regardless, your stats are scare tactics.

2, Stop using Barack Obama's name like he's in control of the IRS, the Congress, the multitude of federal agencies and black ops spending budgets or anything of the sort. His budget proposals are mostly passed on from the various committees in congress, with his personal touches added for consideration. The federal agencies spend the next year figuring out exactly how to implement the two paragraphs of budget proposal that pertain to, say, the entire FDIC legal division. It's such a convoluted bottleneck that we're essentially strangling ourselves by insisting that one man have control.

3, The national debt 200 years ago is irrelevant. Who cares? You've no context to support the comparison between 1790 and today. The value of money changes. The expenditure of government changes. Otherwise, how could we ever keep up with the times?

4, Fiscal power is only one facet of why we're fucked as a nation, but you're partially correct, printing money is not the solution. But it's a damn sight better than not raising the debt ceiling, and risking downgrading american sovereign debt. Fools.

[Waser Lave]

I'm not saying what he said doesn't have credence but I personally wouldn't take any notice of a single member of our current government (the same government which advocates swingeing cuts to education and local government to pay for the mistakes of the bankers and the uber rich).

[redlion]

Waser Lave, on 25 July 2011 - 09:08 AM, said:

I'm not saying what he said doesn't have credence but I personally wouldn't take any notice of a single member of our current government (the same government which advocates swingeing cuts to education and local government to pay for the mistakes of the bankers and the uber rich).

Live and die by your country eh? They'll see when emigration picks up to match suit. The poor will find work in the Euro Zone or North America before taking that shit.

I was using the article more as a pointed statement that Americans need to realize the grandstanding occurring right in front of us. The GOP are playing with fire and most Americans couldn't give two shits about it.

[Waser Lave]

redlion, on 25 July 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:

The poor will find work in the Euro Zone or North America before taking that shit.

They really won't, very few would go to work in Europe because of the language difference (we British don't tend to learn foreign languages) and very few would go to North America because of the distances involved (and in the case of America things like the lack of healthcare, cost of education etc).

[redlion]

Waser Lave, on 25 July 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

They really won't, very few would go to work in Europe because of the language difference (we British don't tend to learn foreign languages) and very few would go to North America because of the distances involved (and in the case of America things like the lack of healthcare, cost of education etc).

Wishful thinking on my part then... but I'd hope there were some media outcry over this in the UK, notwithstanding the obvious glee to be expressed by NewsCorp.

[Rikku]

redlion, on 25 July 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

In a Reuters Article the British finance minister labeled the GOP leaders exactly what they are: right-wing "nutters".

The GOP is risking the American Credit Rating, are they out of their minds? I for one would not like to be a second class world citizen after 70 years of superpower status. Fucking morons are destroying us from the inside out. It's idiots like Eric Cantor that give Americans a bad name internationally. Establishment pukes. It's what happens when there are only two parties.

Discuss.

I'm assuming that you’re the type of person that thinks that California is a great state, and has absolutely no budget problems right? Well guess why runs it? Left wing Liberals!!! You people can't even run a state, and now you're blaming this crisis on the conservatives? I for one am tax paying citizen who really can't afford yet another tax hike so that you idiots can had out the money left and right to the illegals who need food stamp and need healthcare and need this and that. That's bull shit! If you aren't here legally, then you shouldn't get any of our taxpayer's money, including but not limited to: schooling, welfare, Medicare, or any of the other hand out programs. That's exactly why California has been on the verge of going bankrupt for the past several years.

Secondly, your beloved president has done NOTHING to cut the deficit. As a matter of fact, the very first thing that he did was pass the ridiculous health care reform, which most of the country still disagrees with. And what did that do for our budget? You guessed it! NOTHING! It's just going t spend more of the taxpayer money, and give it away to people who abuse the system.

And get your facts straight, the democrats are the ones that have through the years have always wanted to cut our military’s budget. Without fail, the first things to always go when a liberal is elected into the White House are all of the military programs that are there to help our troops.

Also, last i checked we invaded Middle East to "Fight Terror" not stabilize the oil prices. This war has done nothing but raise oil prices, so I’m not exactly sure where you're coming from there.

Now i don’t agree with the 2 party system ether, seeing as how every time I vote, I feel like I’m choosing between bad and worse. It seems to me as though neither party has been able to nominate a decent candidate in the last 20 years. The only people that get elected, or re-elected are the ones with deep pockets and a hand in the oil company's financial jar. Look at Obama for example: it is estimated that he already has more than a BILLION dollars lined up for his upcoming campaign. As it is, he is using the political office to go out and campaign for reelection while the country is in a middle of a financial meltdown. Maybe it's just me, but the guy always seems to ether be on vacation or campaigning.

Don’t even get me started on this.

[Waser Lave]

redlion, on 25 July 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

Wishful thinking on my part then... but I'd hope there were some media outcry over this in the UK, notwithstanding the obvious glee to be expressed by NewsCorp.

That would reduce the space available for inane celebrity gossip though.

[redlion]

...

[Bone]

Rikku said:

I'm assuming that you’re the type of person that thinks that California is a great state, and has absolutely no budget problems right? Well guess why runs it? Left wing Liberals!!! You people can't even run a state, and now you're blaming this crisis on the conservatives? I for one am tax paying citizen who really can't afford yet another tax hike so that you idiots can had out the money left and right to the illegals who need food stamp and need healthcare and need this and that. That's bull shit! If you aren't here legally, then you shouldn't get any of our taxpayer's money, including but not limited to: schooling, welfare, Medicare, or any of the other hand out programs. That's exactly why California has been on the verge of going bankrupt for the past several years.

Hold on. What does any of this have to do with illegal immigration?

Rikku said:

Secondly, your beloved president has done NOTHING to cut the deficit. As a matter of fact, the very first thing that he did was pass the ridiculous health care reform, which most of the country still disagrees with. And what did that do for our budget? You guessed it! NOTHING! It's just going t spend more of the taxpayer money, and give it away to people who abuse the system.

What has he done? He's gradually pulling us out of the recession that the Bush administration launched the country into. Deficit reduction generally isn't the top priority when the income gap is rapidly expanding and the world economy needs to be stabilized. Health care reform, although weakened by Congress, was just him catching up to the rest of the developed world. Unless you want to be abused and taken advantage of by pharmaceutical companies, you'd be complaining that the reform is too insubstantial.

Rikku said:

And get your facts straight, the democrats are the ones that have through the years have always wanted to cut our military’s budget. Without fail, the first things to always go when a liberal is elected into the White House are all of the military programs that are there to help our troops.

Hm, to me it seems that the Obama administration has gradually ended combat operations in Iraq and shifted focus to the troops in Afghanistan. If you think the military budget isn't big enough, your priorities are disturbing.

Rikku said:

Also, last i checked we invaded Middle East to "Fight Terror" not stabilize the oil prices. This war has done nothing but raise oil prices, so I’m not exactly sure where you're coming from there.

You might want to check again. Bush began the invasion of Iraq under the guise of preventing them from using nuclear weapons, which they never had. It's pretty well known that the war as always over oil.

Rikku said:

Now i don’t agree with the 2 party system ether, seeing as how every time I vote, I feel like I’m choosing between bad and worse. It seems to me as though neither party has been able to nominate a decent candidate in the last 20 years. The only people that get elected, or re-elected are the ones with deep pockets and a hand in the oil company's financial jar. Look at Obama for example: it is estimated that he already has more than a BILLION dollars lined up for his upcoming campaign. As it is, he is using the political office to go out and campaign for reelection while the country is in a middle of a financial meltdown. Maybe it's just me, but the guy always seems to ether be on vacation or campaigning.
Don’t even get me started on this.

What does his campaign funding have to do with anything? The reason campaign funding has spiraled so out of control (for both Democrats and Republicans) is the lack of regulation. Citizens United v. FEC and its protection of corporate personhood all but ensured that it will only get worse each year.

tldr; you are wrong about everything.

[redlion]

Rikku, on 25 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm assuming that you’re the type of person that thinks that California is a great state, and has absolutely no budget problems right? Well guess why runs it? Left wing Liberals!!! You people can't even run a state, and now you're blaming this crisis on the conservatives? I for one am tax paying citizen who really can't afford yet another tax hike so that you idiots can had out the money left and right to the illegals who need food stamp and need healthcare and need this and that. That's bull shit! If you aren't here legally, then you shouldn't get any of our taxpayer's money, including but not limited to: schooling, welfare, Medicare, or any of the other hand out programs. That's exactly why California has been on the verge of going bankrupt for the past several years.

Okay first, let me say that you are laboring under a misapprehension. I don't think that California is a great state. At least in governance.

I do think it has budget problems, but this stems not from who is in control now, but the fact that in 1992 they passed a piece of legislation stating that tax increases had to be approved by public referendum. That means a vote. Can you imagine the amount of money the citizens of california have poured into the campaign process on behalf of their interests? Billions. The whole point of having a legislature is to elect smart or at least connected people to represent you. If the vote comes down to idiots, things can never get better. Besides, California is run by a Republican Governor, everyone knows that

Rikku, on 25 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Secondly, your beloved president has done NOTHING to cut the deficit. As a matter of fact, the very first thing that he did was pass the ridiculous health care reform, which most of the country still disagrees with. And what did that do for our budget? You guessed it! NOTHING! It's just going t spend more of the taxpayer money, and give it away to people who abuse the system.

Most of the country? Ridiculous reform? More tax payer money? Check your argument at the door, or start laying down some proof of those bold claims. What do you think this is? Serfs and feudal lords? Not everyone who receives government social program help abuses the system. I'd argue the vast majority don't. Of course people that were criminals before the system will find ways to commit new crime within the system, but that doesn't demonstrate an inherent flaw, just the resilience of the problem.

Rikku, on 25 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

And get your facts straight, the democrats are the ones that have through the years have always wanted to cut our military’s budget. Without fail, the first things to always go when a liberal is elected into the White House are all of the military programs that are there to help our troops.

Also, last i checked we invaded Middle East to "Fight Terror" not stabilize the oil prices. This war has done nothing but raise oil prices, so I’m not exactly sure where you're coming from there.

Democrats and Republicans both take big campaign contributions from defense corporations. I'm not leveraging the blame disproportionately onto the Republicans. Plenty of Democrats have used military action when necessary or 'deemed necessary' e.g. the Balkans in the 90s, Libya right now, so on and so forth.

But is it wrong to stymie this monstrous growth? Dwight said it best in 1961 "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence–economic, political, even spiritual–is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." And this is a US president! Republican no less! General no less! General during wartime no less!!!

We invaded Afghanistan on a pretext that they were harboring Bin Laden, a relative of the Saudi ruling line, noted friends of the Bush family. We invaded Iraq because, according to Bush Jr. "He tried to kill my dad." They had all sorts of pretexts, there were weapons of mass destruction, there were civil rights issues, there were economic issues, but there was no justification based on eminent threat that I could see. Playing with fire with the persians is old hat in Iraq. Fucking with the US after seeing what they did in the first gulf war? No way.

Full text here:

Spoiler

Good evening, my fellow Americans:

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle–with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research–these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs–balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages–balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence–economic, political, even spiritual–is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system–ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we–you and I, and our government–must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war–as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years–I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So–in this my last good night to you as your President–I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I–my fellow citizens–need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

Rikku, on 25 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Now i don’t agree with the 2 party system ether, seeing as how every time I vote, I feel like I’m choosing between bad and worse. It seems to me as though neither party has been able to nominate a decent candidate in the last 20 years. The only people that get elected, or re-elected are the ones with deep pockets and a hand in the oil company's financial jar. Look at Obama for example: it is estimated that he already has more than a BILLION dollars lined up for his upcoming campaign. As it is, he is using the political office to go out and campaign for reelection while the country is in a middle of a financial meltdown. Maybe it's just me, but the guy always seems to ether be on vacation or campaigning.

Don’t even get me started on this.

Deep pockets are necessary in a non-parliamentary system. Too bad we aren't a fucking parliament, so we could have multi-party caucuses at least. As it is, we've got two or three independents that caucus across the isle, but other than that, legislation is either pure republican or pure democrat. Sometimes with riders attached to ensure an easy vote.

Who cares if he has lots of money? That just means people believe in what he's doing enough to help reelect him. It's the nature of incumbency.

[talbs]

<<< Right Wing Nutter

not into arguing politics though, even though it is srs biz

[punkrockbigmouth]

Bone, on 25 July 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

tldr; you are wrong about everything.

I agree, but honestly, the majority views things his way.

The last time I tried reasoning with a Republican, a co-worker labeled me "the socialist". I have had old white men complain about the prices on their medication, blaming it on "THAT NIGGER OF A PRESIDENT". Because, apparently, Obama controls the retail pricing of name brand medications as well as oil.

There is nothing productive that comes from this arguing. People who hate Obama will never see the good he does, and those that like him will never hear a word against him.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone can just go fuck themselves.

[redlion]

This is current events... I was looking at the Amy winehouse thread and two threads about Norway when I put it in GC.

[ToxicS]

It is a current event, but it turned into a debate now

[redlion]

Nonsense. The debate section is where good threads go to die.

[Tanuki]

As an aside, I really don't get how Americans can label Obama/the Democrats socialist. If that's the case, then places like Canada and Australia are full on Marxist states, and god knows what China is...

Frankly I'm not enough of an expert on American politics to comment too deeply on this issue. But I've never understood the huge opposition to increasing the tax on the richest citizens (or getting rid of the "temporary tax cuts", whatever) considering your huge problem with debt. Strikes me as selfish and unpatriotic to the maximum. The cost of living in the States is also far, far cheaper than a place like Australia (dear god, your petrol- gas, sorry- is like half the price of ours!), and your wages can spiral much higher than anything here. And yet you have a far poorer welfare system for the worst off citizens. So why exactly is there an outcry when you consider helping out the "plebians"?...

[punkrockbigmouth]

Tanuki, on 25 July 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

As an aside, I really don't get how Americans can label Obama/the Democrats socialist. If that's the case, then places like Canada and Australia are full on Marxist states, and god knows what China is...

Frankly I'm not enough of an expert on American politics to comment too deeply on this issue. But I've never understood the huge opposition to increasing the tax on the richest citizens (or getting rid of the "temporary tax cuts", whatever) considering your huge problem with debt. Strikes me as selfish and unpatriotic to the maximum. The cost of living in the States is also far, far cheaper than a place like Australia (dear god, your petrol- gas, sorry- is like half the price of ours!), and your wages can spiral much higher than anything here. And yet you have a far poorer welfare system for the worst off citizens. So why exactly is there an outcry when you consider helping out the "plebians"?...

The outcry is caused by Americans' absurd sense of entitlement. We believe we have the right to do whatever we want, and get whatever we want, whenever we want it. We feel we deserve fast, friendly customer service at the lowest price, and if we are not satisfied, we feel we are entitled to a free milkshake or giftcard. It's our constitutional right to be able to say whatever we want, even if it is wrong, hateful, or destructive. We demand respect without earning it. We deserve all that is great in this world without making the effort required to obtain greatness.

Rich people who can afford to pay higher taxes feel like they're entitled to tax cuts. Poor people who can't afford food and medical expenses feel like they're entitled to those things for free. It's a vicious cycle.

[MsRose]

redlion, on 25 July 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

It is not realistic to cut spending in a recession. We shouldn't increase it either, but we do have unfunded mandates in the Iraq and Afghani wars that must be funded for global stability. Without passing the debt ceiling, those wars are in default, same as us. We got into Iraq to stabilize the price of oil; withdrawing now would undermine the whole point. What I'm driving at is that it's convenient for the Republicans to yammer on about reducing spending while they're not in the White House or the Majority, but they weren't saying 'cut spending' when they invaded two countries without so much as a thought as to how to fund them.

What kind of infant do they take us for? I understand government, and I understand the democrats: they want to be socialist in all but name. The Republicans though... they're getting scary with this propaganda shit. Saying one thing and meaning another isn't misspeaking: it's propaganda. Secure our borders! That means turn away non-whites, militarize the border regions. Tax cuts for the rich! Which keeps the poor proportionally more fucked. What is it that's so hard to understand about the inherent racism and xenophobia in the Republican platform? Fuck that. Don't call it realism. It's not. It's racism. Protectionism. Market manipulation by war. Fascism. I thought Americans were educated, but I guess we export college graduates now. That's one commodity we still have plenty of.



A couple things.
1, no American could ever be expected to pay off their percentage of the national debt, so stop throwing those numbers out like we're going to get a bill from the Fed, because it ain't happening. I don't care how fast we're spending money: it's worth it. We stay ahead as a nation in so many ways. If only we could learn to spread that opportunity around a little bit, instead of giving all the funding to the companies and Agencies, who promptly slough off ten or twelve percent for bonuses. Regardless, your stats are scare tactics.

2, Stop using Barack Obama's name like he's in control of the IRS, the Congress, the multitude of federal agencies and black ops spending budgets or anything of the sort. His budget proposals are mostly passed on from the various committees in congress, with his personal touches added for consideration. The federal agencies spend the next year figuring out exactly how to implement the two paragraphs of budget proposal that pertain to, say, the entire FDIC legal division. It's such a convoluted bottleneck that we're essentially strangling ourselves by insisting that one man have control.

3, The national debt 200 years ago is irrelevant. Who cares? You've no context to support the comparison between 1790 and today. The value of money changes. The expenditure of government changes. Otherwise, how could we ever keep up with the times?

4, Fiscal power is only one facet of why we're fucked as a nation, but you're partially correct, printing money is not the solution. But it's a damn sight better than not raising the debt ceiling, and risking downgrading american sovereign debt. Fools.

What about my post pissed you off so much? I'm not republican or democrat, I don't dislike the president, and of course I don't support racism. My point is just, we're spending money frivolously.

[Kyouma]

Being young and healthy, my thought rests on one single thing.

Social Security


It needs to be revised

[necospes]

punkrockbigmouth, on 25 July 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

THAT NIGGER OF A PRESIDENT

Racist.

Rikku, on 25 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Secondly, your beloved president has done NOTHING to cut the deficit. As a matter of fact, the very first thing that he did was pass the ridiculous health care reform, which most of the country still disagrees with. And what did that do for our budget? You guessed it! NOTHING! It's just going t spend more of the taxpayer money, and give it away to people who abuse the system.

You are wrong. From the CBO website: "CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."Furthermore, the president is trying to get congress to pass a proposal to raise the debt ceiling that meets nearly all of the GOP's demands but is getting shot down because the GOP can shoot it down. The GOP's plan is to procrastinate raising the debt ceiling for a while so they can shoot down the president again. It really seems like if Obama is bad, then the GOP is horrible. Just watch Obama's Address.

[Frizzle]

If wonder if Americans have realised they are all right wing nutters yet?

[Bone]

Frizzle, on 28 July 2011 - 02:04 AM, said:

If wonder if Americans have realised they are all right wing nutters yet?