LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Geezer]

I've posted it before (in this thread I believe) but I'll say it again. The voting system we have greatly contributes to creating this two headed monster. As long as we have a plurality voting system, 3rd parties really have zero chance. Plurality voting tends polarize on every issue and in every election. Unfortunately congress is elected by this system and without a HUGE outcry from the populace, will not change a system that entrenches their two parties. There is also nothing in the Constitution that states how we are to vote, just that we are to. Plurality voting is one of the worst systems out there. The two party system in the USA started from day 1 with the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalists.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/better-voting2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://rangevoting.org/ConstVt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes yes yes. Reforming the way we vote is absolutely vital, which is why it will never happen. Something also has to be done to keep corporations from buying congressional representatives too, but that's never going to happen either.

Why is corporate buying of politicians worse than the buying of politicians by unions, lawyer groups, billionaires such as George Soros, foriegn governments, the Hollywood mega-rich and others? You often rail against corporations which is your rightful opinion but do you find it acceptable that pols sell out to these other special interests?

[Geezer]

Education should be free, period.

I agree. Eveything should be free. Free food, housing, entertainment, transportation and hockey tickets.

[HomerPenguin]

Why is corporate buying of politicians worse than the buying of politicians by unions, lawyer groups, billionaires such as George Soros, foriegn governments, the Hollywood mega-rich and others? You often rail against corporations which is your rightful opinion but do you find it acceptable that pols sell out to these other special interests?

Yes, great, let's take all outside money out of the political process. Let the debate be about issues instead of fund raising and airtime. I'm all for it.

[shafnutz05]

Yes, great, let's take all outside money out of the political process. Let the debate be about issues instead of fund raising and airtime. I'm all for it.

I wish it could be so. Geezer made a great point...all we ever hear about is the evil corporations. It is ridiculous how much George Soros' spending gets overlooked....and don't even get me started on the influence of Hollywood celebrities. Ironic that most of these idiots either dropped out of high school or couldn't cut it in college, and suddenly their stardom makes them authority figures on world affairs.

[doublem]

Yes, great, let's take all outside money out of the political process. Let the debate be about issues instead of fund raising and airtime. I'm all for it.

I wish it could be so. Geezer made a great point...all we ever hear about is the evil corporations. It is ridiculous how much George Soros' spending gets overlooked....and don't even get me started on the influence of Hollywood celebrities. Ironic that most of these idiots either dropped out of high school or couldn't cut it in college, and suddenly their stardom makes them authority figures on world affairs.

Are we really comparing companies that make billions of dollars of profit that but people off and influence the world to George Clooney? I don't the outrage about Hollywood celebrities. There are conservatives too.

[shafnutz05]

doublem, the celebrity thing was just a side argument that annoys me. The real issue is Soros.

[doublem]

Education should be free, period.

A high school education? Absolutely. But free college? Come on man. It's the same thing with the health insurance debate...everyone thinks the humanitarian argument that everyone should be entitled free health insurance courtesy of their government is completely unattackable. Everyone should get free college as well? Who is going to pay for that? Are we going to build hundreds (if not several thousand) additional universities to accomodate the increasing demand?

My brother-in-law did the Vo-Tech program at our high school....he is now making upwards of $150,000 a year as a construction foreman 10 years out of high school. Healthcare is not a constitutional right...and neither is a college education. How many things are we going to make rights? Central air for people living in the south? A car? A backyard with a white picket fence?

There is a reason why so many European countries are swinging back to the right at the present time. The citizens are realizing that you cannot simply make everything free without consequence, and the European Left is experienced the backlash. This is what scares me about so-called "progressive" liberal thought. It is centered around the notion that government has a responsibility not just to ensure the security of her citizens, but to provide for every single need (and often desire) that the individual requires. This is simply not a sustainable system.

Does anyone actually believe the Liar of the House Pelosi when she says this bill is going to be "budget-neutral"? Look at the cost projections for Medicare, Social Security, and countless other bills from when they first came out. The estimates were a fraction of what the cost turned out to be...if that trend holds true with Obamacare (and I am sure it will), this country will be completely bankrupt. And by the time we, our children, and our grandchildren suffer the horrible consequences, the people that orchestrated this mess will be long dead.

Please think with your brain, as well as your heart. While it might seem logical that every single American (legal or not) should have the "right" to free healthcare, education, and God knows what else, it is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Even the Europeans are finding that out right now.

I wouldn't say it should be free, but the increasing costs are going to put a lot of people out of the market. The problem is that the price keeps going up just like in the healthcare debate. I think everyone in this country should have the opportunity to go to college if they don't want to that is fine, cost should not be an issue in the "greatest country in the world". Debt is another huge issue, I thought we were trying to get rid of debt? I hope we build more colleges and universities just means more jobs for more people, seems like a good idea to me.

Would I rather pay for education and healthcare then bailouts and these two wars. I would pick education and healthcare. Those things would be just a drop in the bucket compared to other things we have been paying for. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if they went to educating citizens. What is more important then education or healthcare? Those seem to be very reasonable things the country could get behind. I also don't buy the it could led to argument, that is what people against gay marriage say, what are they going to do next, marry a horse? We are falling behind the rest of the world in both education and healthcare. They have figured out something that we haven't. We aren't number 1 anymore. The number of college degrees has fallen for the first time in decades. Obama said it was one of his goals to get the country back at the top again.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.hou ... tID=150826

Interesting side by side comparison of the number of jobs the White House predicted the stimulus would save/create (net increase), and the actual decrease in jobs that has resulted since the stimulus passed. Granted, the WH projections are for December 2010. But i feel pretty safe in saying the net job increase (or decrease) will be nowhere near what Obama promised.

[Sarcastic]

There is a reason why the last two administrations have been citing problems with education as one of our biggest challenges. I could have sworn Obama himself say this is our #1 issue. I have some links somewhere stating that about 45% of kids in the US public school system drop out of high school. It's 50% for black students in NYC. The numbers are staggering. Out of the ones who do stay, how many go to college? What are we left with? Do you see what is happening? 10 years from now, we are going to have millions of uneducated people walking around, unable to find jobs, maybe standing on the street with a beer in their hand. This a problem for the entire nation. Kids should be encouraged to stay in school, one, and two, something like a college education shouldn't seem so out of hand, as it is for many. There was a story in the news few months ago, saying that a number kids won't be able to afford tuition at this time and will have to drop out. We are heading in a very dangerous direction. Countries like India and China and Russia are building up their economies, while we are clearly heading down. We outsource so many jobs already and actually import young college-educated workers from India and such, instead of employing our own people. Our middle class is shrinking and the poverty class is growing. I don't want to be an alarmist, but this isn't funny anymore.

[shafnutz05]

I hate to say it, but the excess of government assistance programs does not help the dropout rate. If children believe that there will be a giant safety net to catch them and protect them no matter how they do in school, there will be no desire to improve. This, of course, is just a part of the larger problem.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... YVn5B5q1AY

This is ridiculous...Barack Obama is ordering a 90% pay cut for the executives of all of the TARP money companies. Before everyone immediately starts screaming that they are getting what they deserve, think about this for a second. Obama is cutting their salary to 1/10 of what they made previously. Regardless of the salary they were making before, 90% is an utterly insane pay cut. It's almost as if this is a personal "let's stick it to the man", petty attack on the executives, without any regard for their current situation.

I am sure there will be several "it's about time they got taken down a few pegs" comments, but be reasonable. While I think the executives should have to make some sacrifices, asking them to immediately cut their income by 90% without advance notice is an abuse of power.

[shafnutz05]

Not to mention the fact that these executives are going to just move to a different company that is not owned by Obama. That will certainly put these corporations in a GREAT situation....all of their top executives are going to jump ship, leaving no one at the top to run things.

I can't even try to figure out what this idiot is doing anymore......what is he trying to prove? The only end accomplishment of this action is to

a) placate his left-wing base that hates everything about corporate America
b) give a personal "F U" to the execs he has made out to be evil in the past

Obama is one of the most power-hungry, megalomanical people I have ever seen.

[eddysnake]

Obama is one of the most power-hungry, megalomanical people I have ever seen.

whoa, you are fired up today

[HomerPenguin]

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.hou ... tID=150826

Interesting side by side comparison of the number of jobs the White House predicted the stimulus would save/create (net increase), and the actual decrease in jobs that has resulted since the stimulus passed. Granted, the WH projections are for December 2010. But i feel pretty safe in saying the net job increase (or decrease) will be nowhere near what Obama promised.

Except that the administration's jobs claims related to gross jobs created, not net jobs created. So once again Republicans eschew what could be a reasonable argument in favor of a lie and a distortion. Why can't we get a credible opposition party in this country?

[Sarcastic]

I hate to say it, but the excess of government assistance programs does not help the dropout rate. If children believe that there will be a giant safety net to catch them and protect them no matter how they do in school, there will be no desire to improve. This, of course, is just a part of the larger problem.

No, government assistance programs have actually been pretty good. Problem is the prices. The prices. How much can a school charge for the housing and the classes? Same exact problem as with health insurance. They're doing the bill now, which does certain things which may work OK, but I don't see anything that will address the issue of high prices. It's all about profit, everywhere you look.

[shafnutz05]

whoa, you are fired up today

haha I know man....I didn't even eat my Wheaties today

[shafnutz05]

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.hou ... tID=150826

Interesting side by side comparison of the number of jobs the White House predicted the stimulus would save/create (net increase), and the actual decrease in jobs that has resulted since the stimulus passed. Granted, the WH projections are for December 2010. But i feel pretty safe in saying the net job increase (or decrease) will be nowhere near what Obama promised.

Except that the administration's jobs claims related to gross jobs created, not net jobs created. So once again Republicans eschew what could be a reasonable argument in favor of a lie and a distortion. Why can't we get a credible opposition party in this country?

What? Ok........the number that MATTERS is net jobs gained/lost. Period. Does it matter if the stimulus creates 3,500,000 jobs, if at the same time we lose 5 million? Can you really say the stimulus worked then? They aren't fabricating a lie, they are showing the number that REALLY counts.

This is been one of the biggest things that has irritated me with the president's defense of this stimulus. He keeps on touting "jobs created and jobs saved". For starters, how do you quantify this? How do we even begin to guess which jobs were "saved" by the stimulus? Or created for that matter? Every time a company hires someone, should they check a little box that asks "Did the stimulus create this job?"

"Jobs created/saved" is a completely arbitrary and nebulous figure that cannot be accurately quantified, which is why the administration is trying so hard to keep the focus there. The net jobs gained/lost is the only number that is an accurate measuring stick of performance, which is why the Republicans are using it.

Come on now...the White House is relying on numbers that cannot even come close to being calculated accurately, while the Republicans are releasing cold, hard data. And you accuse them of not having the valid argument?

[Sarcastic]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... YVn5B5q1AY

This is ridiculous...Barack Obama is ordering a 90% pay cut for the executives of all of the TARP money companies.

Yeah, but that doesn't seem to include bonuses. For the total compensation, the number is 50%, which is OK. No?

[shafnutz05]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... YVn5B5q1AY

This is ridiculous...Barack Obama is ordering a 90% pay cut for the executives of all of the TARP money companies.

Yeah, but that doesn't seem to include bonuses. For the total compensation, the number is 50%, which is OK. No?

Not really. The restrictions on bonuses is a whole another issue altogether. They are now having execs apply directly to the government for any total bonuses over $25k. So essentially, that is where the other shoe is dropping.

Here's the problem. This is a classic example of giving in to a popularist ideal no matter how shortsighted it is. Does anyone really think these execs are going to stick around to earn their $200k next year? And when they bolt, who are they going to hire at that salary? So the taxpayers invest $180 billion in AIG, and now we are going to find someone to run it for the same pay as the widget factory plant manager. Brilliant. That'll teach those Wall St fat cats. We got the last laugh on them.

[HomerPenguin]

What? Ok........the number that MATTERS is net jobs gained/lost. Period. Does it matter if the stimulus creates 3,500,000 jobs, if at the same time we lose 5 million?

Yes, if we were going to lose 8.5 million without it. I assume you get the difference between "gross" and "net," yes?

Can you really say the stimulus worked then?

The extra 3.5 million people who still had jobs would probably say it did.

They aren't fabricating a lie, they are showing the number that REALLY counts.

No, they're taking numbers that claim one thing, comparing them to different numbers that talk about something else, and then trying to vomit up a point from that bogus comparison. They may have an excellent argument to make about whether or not the stimulus was worth it, and certainly the veracity of the Obama projections can be questioned, but you don't make a credible argument by distorting what your opposition has said. That's called lying. This country would be infinitely better off with an opposition party that wasn't perpetually doing that.

[shafnutz05]

you don't make a credible argument by distorting what your opposition has said. That's called lying. This country would be infinitely better off with an opposition party that wasn't perpetually doing that.

I guess I see where you are coming from, but I think the only number that shows true economic performance is the net jobs gained/lost. You didn't address my main point. "Jobs created/saved by x" is not a quantifiable number. It's a meaningless number. You can measure how many jobs are created, but you CANNOT try and ascertain how many of those jobs were because of the stimulus bill. You know what's funny? For being a "stimulus" bill, isn't it odd that the majority of these funds are backloaded for 2010, 2011, 2012, and so on?

Kinda makes you wonder whether the stimulus was meant to:

a) provide an immediate and needed boost to the economy
or b) provide funding for pet projects, granted as favors to the members of Congress that voted for it.

[Guinness]

Not to mention the fact that these executives are going to just move to a different company that is not owned by Obama. That will certainly put these corporations in a GREAT situation....all of their top executives are going to jump ship, leaving no one at the top to run things.

I can't even try to figure out what this idiot is doing anymore......what is he trying to prove? The only end accomplishment of this action is to

a) placate his left-wing base that hates everything about corporate America
b) give a personal "F U" to the execs he has made out to be evil in the past

Obama is one of the most power-hungry, megalomanical people I have ever seen.

Firstly, they're not companies owned by Obama. TARP was Bush's baby. If anything, they'd be, "companies not owned by the Feds".

Second - too bad for them. In my view, they're on the dole now. They knowingly took public funds - they're now subject to public demands. As I see it, they're complicit with the Feds in the theft of the money from it's rightful owners (no, not the Federal Reserve. ).

[Guinness]

Can you really say the stimulus worked then?

The extra 3.5 million people who still had jobs would probably say it did.

But here's the problem with that, Homer - The Feds didn't "give" anybody money, because the Federal government doesn't "have" money. It can raise money through taxation, by printing it, or by borrowing it. If the money was acquired through taxation, that means that it was confiscated from elsewhere in the private sector and redistributed to these companies. What we don't think of, and what we're carefully NOT told, is the cost that taxation has on the economy. Maybe 50,000 mom & pop shops laid off the delivery guy because the tax onus was too great. Maybe a few niche carpentry workshops laid a few journeymen off each. Et cetera, et cetera... If the money was printed, then we're buying today on the tab of future productivity - yours, mine, and future workers not yet in the market - via perhaps the most pernicious taxation of all: inflation. Same goes with borrowing the money. So what then of the jobs that were lost that we DIDN'T hear about? What then of the jobs that will not be created in the future?

[Geezer]

Why is corporate buying of politicians worse than the buying of politicians by unions, lawyer groups, billionaires such as George Soros, foriegn governments, the Hollywood mega-rich and others? You often rail against corporations which is your rightful opinion but do you find it acceptable that pols sell out to these other special interests?

Yes, great, let's take all outside money out of the political process. Let the debate be about issues instead of fund raising and airtime. I'm all for it.

Me too. The best thing that could happen in our country would be to ban political advertising on TV. I think a case could be made that it's as big of a hazard as tobacco in its own way. Seriously , that's where most of the campaign money is spent. Voters should rely on voting records and investigative stories of what these candidates have done (not said) prior to a campaign although reporters would actually have to get off their butts and do some actual reporting. More people could actually read before elections if they wanted to make a more informed choice. Debates are okay to a degree but have some flaws. I'd rather see these cable networks have these candidates on during the same night for a set amount of time to give a canned spiel and then ask follow uo questions. I'd prefer independently of each other without either having seen the other's appearance. Their ratings should cover the cost of the show.

[bh]

Yes, if we were going to lose 8.5 million without it. I assume you get the difference between "gross" and "net," yes?

Just a question HP, but how is it possible to measure how many jobs "would" have been lost? I do get your point though.

No, they're taking numbers that claim one thing, comparing them to different numbers that talk about something else, and then trying to vomit up a point from that bogus comparison. They may have an excellent argument to make about whether or not the stimulus was worth it, and certainly the veracity of the Obama projections can be questioned, but you don't make a credible argument by distorting what your opposition has said. That's called lying. This country would be infinitely better off with an opposition party that wasn't perpetually doing that.

You are spot on here.