US Elections 2010

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Justin, i got one question for you.

Where were the Tea-party to protest one of the biggest expansion of government powers and spending under the Bush Admin? Obama was in office less then a yr before the tea party protest begin but Bush was in office 8 yrs and I did not see one Tea Party protest. If the tea-party was for small government why i didn't see one tea party protest against Bush?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ion-a-rebirth/

Bush wasn't out to fundamentally change America. Also Obama's policies and expansions of Government and spending, dwarf's Bush's by several times. Infact, it's not even a close comparison Xellos. Take a look at the yearly deficits under Bush. Also, remember that he didn't have a super majority in Congress like Obama has. AND, Democrats controlled Congress from 2007 on, so for 2 of Bush's years as President, he didn't even own Congress. Also, Bush was a moderate, not a Conservative. He tried to work with both sides on issues(and that was a major peeve of mine and others like me). He didn't blatantly ignore the will of the people as Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid have done. He didn't ram bills down our throats that will end up costing us trillions.

I do wish he hadn't passed "No Child Left Behind", didn't do the Prescription Drug plan, nor had he stuck with Rumsfield half as long as he did. I also wish he would have used his Veto pen a bit more when it came time for spending bills, but Democrats threatened to cut spending for the troops and war in Iraq if they didn't get their pet projects in.

The Republicans haven't had such a large super majority control of Congress as the Democrats have been enjoying, since well... Before my father was even born.

Thankfully, they will probably lose the House in November, and come close to losing the Senate then too(though I don't think they will lose it and it will be 52/48 Dem/Pub). As I said in the news thread, I just wish more of the GOP elites joined them on the way out...

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Bush wasn't out to fundamentally change America.

Okay, no. Bush's Tax Cuts did fundamentally change the country (lowering taxes would do that), as well as the extreme national defense measures (Patriot Act = a fundamental change to the country), etc. You can argue that these measures were needed or not, but you can't argue that they didn't fundamentally change the country. (And yes, Obama is also trying to change the country based on what he, and the half of the country he represents, believes.)

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also Obama's policies and expansions of Government and spending, dwarf's Bush's by several times. Infact, it's not even a close comparison Xellos. Take a look at the yearly deficits under Bush.

Actually, it was Bush's passing of the TARP (as well as many other economic endeavors near the end of 2008) that resulted in a lot of the huge deficit in 2009 (Obama certainly helped with his Stimulus package, but the total deficit is composed of both their contributions). Additionally, the majority of economic analysis predicts a drastic drop in the deficit within the next 2 years (as money is saved due to many of the economic plans from the Stimulus package as well as the Health Care Bill).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

AND, Democrats controlled Congress from 2007 on, so for 2 of Bush's years as President, he didn't even own Congress.

Bush did more than enough economic damage in his first 6 years of office to last a lifetime. (Though, it is true that the Democrats really dropped the ball when it came to many economic issues and indicators from 2005 onward.)

Originally Posted by justinstrife

He didn't ram bills down our throats that will end up costing us trillions.

The Tax Cuts and Iraq war have already cost us trillions and he doubled our debt during his 8 years (it was 5.6$ trillion in 2000, and became 11.3$ by the time he left office, more than doubled). So, yes, Bush incurred massive losses that will affect America for generations.

[solomon]

Oh brother, now it's time for the two year long campaign trail......sigh.

Wake me when the dust clears and actual policy is made.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by james0246

Okay, no. Bush's Tax Cuts did fundamentally change the country (lowering taxes would do that), as well as the extreme national defense measures (Patriot Act = a fundamental change to the country), etc. You can argue that these measures were needed or not, but you can't argue that they didn't fundamentally change the country. (And yes, Obama is also trying to change the country based on what he, and the half of the country he represents, believes.)

Yeah nothing like giving back money to the people who work. What a horrible thing. And how exactly did that fundamentally change the country? It certainly helped to stimulate the economy. I know I, and millions of other Americans enjoyed seeing thousands of dollars returning to our wallets where they belonged. Those tax cuts helped me afford my car hobby, which I've spent over 70k on in the past 7 1/2 years. But we wouldn't want to feed our own money back into the economy and supply hard working Americans with jobs now would we...

Actually, it was Bush's passing of the TARP (as well as many other economic endeavors near the end of 2008) that resulted in a lot of the huge deficit in 2009 (Obama certainly helped with his Stimulus package, but the total deficit is composed of both their contributions). Additionally, the majority of economic analysis predicts a drastic drop in the deficit within the next 2 years (as money is saved due to many of the economic plans from the Stimulus package as well as the Health Care Bill).

I have seen absolutely no proof that the Stimulus and Health Care Bills that have passed during Obama's Presidency, will drop the deficit in anyway shape or form. Care to show me proof of this fairy tale? You don't spend trillions of dollars of Federal Money and tell me the deficit is going to drop...

Bush did more than enough economic damage in his first 6 years of office to last a lifetime. (Though, it is true that the Democrats really dropped the ball when it came to many economic issues and indicators from 2005 onward.)

What economic policies did Bush pass that will cause a lifetime of economic damage? What policies exactly.

The Tax Cuts and Iraq war have already cost us trillions and he doubled our debt during his 8 years (it was 5.6$ trillion in 2000, and became 11.3$ by the time he left office, more than doubled). So, yes, Bush incurred massive losses that will affect America for generations.

The Tax Cuts raised Federal Tax Revenue. Where the increased deficits came in, were due to Congress's(and his) out of control spending. In no way have I said Bush was innocent of blame for much of America's spending problems, and I have more than once on this very forum, stated many of his policies that I dis-agreed with, and thought were harmful to America.

Just remember this though. The President does not make budgets. He can only sign or veto them. Congress is who makes the Budget.

[justinstrife]

Also to those of you who want to badmouth the Tea Party movement and say it's nothing more than a mindless group that does whatever the Republican Party tells us to do, maybe you should take a look at the Republican Primaries that have been going on since Obama became President. In almost every single Primary across the country, whoever the Republican Establishment picks as their choice, gets beaten in the Primaries. The Tea Party Movement doesn't just fall into line and do whatever the GOP tells us to do. The GOP will either bow down to the will of the people, or they will be voted out of office one by one.

[Kaijo]

Indeed, Fox News (a repblican outlet) loved to bash the tea party when it was against Bush, but are now friends with it because they are against Obama. When really, they are just against the establishment. Normal people who are angry, but sometimes can't really say why. They just know they've been hoodwinked, and I can't blame them. The whole current economic situation was the result of wall street, and yet 700 billion was given to those that destroyed caused the mess.

If money was taken from me, and used to put me out of a job, I'd be sick and tired, too.

As for Obama, well, I held a small amount of hope, I often wondered if he was too good to be true. I don't think he's as bad as Bush, but he has turned out to be another politician, albeit one who is better charming the masses. As usually, the Daily Show does a good job breaking down his presidency thus far.

For elections this year, I would encourage everyone to vote third party. Not Republican. Not Democrat. The main goal should be to weaken those two parties, and introduce more independents and third parties into congress and other positions. If there is no third party running, then vote out the incumbent.

I'm not kidding.

Part of the problem is these lifetime appointments. Congress has royally fucked up, and they need to be punished to be shown exactly who holds the strings here. Strom Thurmond was 100 years old; that's just wrong. Vote old people out. Vote incumbents out.

The only reason you should for an incumbent, is if their opponent is REALLY bad. I mean, they better be a KKK nazi racist and a convicted pedophile. And the incumbent better have had a great voting record. If you are unsure, default to voting the incumbent out.

Pass the word. It's the only way we'll get onto the path of fixing things, short of an actual revolution.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by solomon

Oh brother, now it's time for the two year long campaign trail......sigh.

Wake me when the dust clears and actual policy is made.

This is just for the current election run, not the next Presidential election (2012).

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Indeed, Fox News (a repblican outlet) loved to bash the tea party when it was against Bush, but are now friends with it because they are against Obama. When really, they are just against the establishment. Normal people who are angry, but sometimes can't really say why. They just know they've been hoodwinked, and I can't blame them. The whole current economic situation was the result of wall street, and yet 700 billion was given to those that destroyed caused the mess.

If money was taken from me, and used to put me out of a job, I'd be sick and tired, too.

As for Obama, well, I held a small amount of hope, I often wondered if he was too good to be true. I don't think he's as bad as Bush, but he has turned out to be another politician, albeit one who is better charming the masses. As usually, the Daily Show does a good job breaking down his presidency thus far.

For elections this year, I would encourage everyone to vote third party. Not Republican. Not Democrat. The main goal should be to weaken those two parties, and introduce more independents and third parties into congress and other positions. If there is no third party running, then vote out the incumbent.

I'm not kidding.

Part of the problem is these lifetime appointments. Congress has royally fucked up, and they need to be punished to be shown exactly who holds the strings here. Strom Thurmond was 100 years old; that's just wrong. Vote old people out. Vote incumbents out.

The only reason you should for an incumbent, is if their opponent is REALLY bad. I mean, they better be a KKK nazi racist and a convicted pedophile. And the incumbent better have had a great voting record. If you are unsure, default to voting the incumbent out.

Pass the word. It's the only way we'll get onto the path of fixing things, short of an actual revolution.

In 2008, I voted Independent on every single selection outside of the President on my ballot. The only reason I didn't do so on the Presidential part of my ballot, is because I viewed Obama as far worse than McCain(who I didn't vote for in the Primary). I will undoubtedly be voting Independent again on all the local and state parts of the election this year.

[justinstrife]

Also James, tell me when Bush and his Justice Department was suing states for laws that they passed for themselves...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0yCmn50hX

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I have seen absolutely no proof that the Stimulus and Health Care Bills that have passed during Obama's Presidency, will drop the deficit in anyway shape or form. Care to show me proof of this fairy tale? You don't spend trillions of dollars of Federal Money and tell me the deficit is going to drop...

Sure: Here's the CBO's current analysis, its a little dense, so here is a brief rundown. There are other organizations that also provide simialr numbers (some better, a few worse), but the CBO is generally the most respected.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

What economic policies did Bush pass that will cause a lifetime of economic damage? What policies exactly.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to start with .

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The Tax Cuts raised Federal Tax Revenue.

No they did not (I pointed this out earlier). They reduced revenue, as a percentage of GDP, to its lowest since 1959. In fact, this is the key reason for a large part of America's current economic woes: while Bush increased public spending by 70% (more than twice than twice the increase as under Clinton) he also reduced taxes, effectively lowering revenue while spending more than he had resulting in record deficits, effectively turning a 200+ billion surplus into a 300+ billion deficit (that then continued to increase).

As an aside, we shouldn't get too caught up in Bush's mistakes (potential or otherwise) in this thread. There are plenty of other threads where we can discuss these issues.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also to those of you who want to badmouth the Tea Party movement and say it's nothing more than a mindless group that does whatever the Republican Party tells us to do, maybe you should take a look at the Republican Primaries that have been going on since Obama became President. In almost every single Primary across the country, whoever the Republican Establishment picks as their choice, gets beaten in the Primaries. The Tea Party Movement doesn't just fall into line and do whatever the GOP tells us to do. The GOP will either bow down to the will of the people, or they will be voted out of office one by one.

While not technically true (the Tea Party candidate loses more than they succeded), the sentiment is justified.

As a rule for this thread, please do no unnecessarily attack the Tea Party as a "mindless group". It is inconsiderate (not just to justinstrife , but the honest people that make up this new political movement).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also James, tell me when Bush and his Justice Department was suing states for laws that they passed for themselves...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0yCmn50hX

I'm not sure what Bush has to do with this, but the majority of cases brought before the Supreme Court (either by the JD or not) deal with issues within a state (either support of a state's decision in a particular matter, or rejecting the state's decision.

That being said, this is not a constitutional issue (as I already explained), and the various laws and lawsuits brought against current administration are, realistically, nothing more than political grandstanding by, I imagine, politicians seeking to gain support by charging at windmills...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Yeah nothing like giving back money to the people who work. What a horrible thing. And how exactly did that fundamentally change the country? It certainly helped to stimulate the economy. I know I, and millions of other Americans enjoyed seeing thousands of dollars returning to our wallets where they belonged. Those tax cuts helped me afford my car hobby, which I've spent over 70k on in the past 7 1/2 years. But we wouldn't want to feed our own money back into the economy and supply hard working Americans with jobs now would we...

What you keep utterly ignoring is that while the middle class (e.g. *you*) got a few pennies back, Bush's buddies basically looted the Treasury with a combination of major tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, large contracts distributed with no accountability and no oversight, government agencies charged with regulating industry and market being eviscerated for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many.

There is no incentive for American jobs to be created because the tax structures encourage corporate executives to invest overseas.

Sadly, I think the Dems have dropped the ball too as they're being bought off as fast as the right side of the aisle was. The results of the last two years clearly favored individuals on Wall Street and corporate lobbies far more than the general public.

[ChainLegacy]

That's the main issue, like Kaijo pointed out. We need to stop this Republican vs. Democrat nonsense and realize both of them are out to screw us.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

That's the main issue, like Kaijo pointed out. We need to stop this Republican vs. Democrat nonsense and realize both of them are out to screw us.

Hence why you want to minimize the role of government. Oh how clever of you.

[ChainLegacy]

If we can't trust either of them with power, why let them have more and more of it?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Hence why you want to minimize the role of government. Oh how clever of you.

Problem is if you minimize government, you just go back to the "robber baron warlord" or "feudal" models even faster. Governments with checks and balances which somewhat reflect the best interests of the public are the only guard against even worse societal models.

What we've been seeing over the last 10/20 years is what happens when the checks are undercut.

Mutually cooperative anarchy only works when everyone is on the same page with their principles.

[Master_Yoma]

Here it is again mid-terms elections more ads on tv and both party talks the same thing but not going to do any thing about it.


Ill be in my room under the blankets watching anime tell this is done

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Problem is if you minimize government, you just go back to the "robber baron warlord" or "feudal" models even faster. Governments with checks and balances which somewhat reflect the best interests of the public are the only guard against even worse societal models.

What we've been seeing over the last 10/20 years is what happens when the checks are undercut.

Mutually cooperative anarchy only works when everyone is on the same page with their principles.

Though I don't think we need to repeal government to the point of the industrial revolution... We just need to find some kind of balance between what we have now (government with too much power, in bed with big business) and what we used to have (not enough government regulations protecting against monopolies and workers' rights).

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Problem is if you minimize government, you just go back to the "robber baron warlord" or "feudal" models even faster. Governments with checks and balances which somewhat reflect the best interests of the public are the only guard against even worse societal models.

What we've been seeing over the last 10/20 years is what happens when the checks are undercut.

Mutually cooperative anarchy only works when everyone is on the same page with their principles.

Bit of a false dichotomy, don't you think? There is a sliding scale of a level of government, not just "big" or "small" government choices. The important thing is to get more independents and third parties in, so anyone who wants to buy laws, has to spend so much more to do it (they can't just buy off the republican or democratic parties).

And what we're seeing over the last 20-30 years, is the ignoring of the constitution, and he realization of our overlords that they can get away with it. People might rage a little, but ultimately, they won't do anything about it. Bush wiped his ass with the constitution, started two wars, one of which he massively lied about to us, saddled our children with massive amounts of debt.... and was he punished at all? Did he suffer ANY negative repercussions?

Like I said, vote incumbents out, because they all fail. Vote republicans and democrats out. For a small tidbit of why, I will once again link to one of my favorite Daily Show clips:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...esponders-bill

You'd think voting for a bill to give free health care to the heroes of 9/11, and fund it via closing a corporate tax hole, would be an easy choice to make....

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What you keep utterly ignoring is that while the middle class (e.g. *you*) got a few pennies back, Bush's buddies basically looted the Treasury with a combination of major tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, large contracts distributed with no accountability and no oversight, government agencies charged with regulating industry and market being eviscerated for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many.

Eh. If I were him, I'd still consider it progress: middle class people are those too rich to be subsidized by the state, and too poor to have the kind of high powered accountant and lobbyist to get them through taxation loopholes. So they get screwed no matter who's in office. A few crumbs is better than nothing.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Eh. If I were him, I'd still consider it progress: middle class people are those too rich to be subsidized by the state, and too poor to have the kind of high powered accountant and lobbyist to get them through taxation loopholes. So they get screwed no matter who's in office. A few crumbs is better than nothing.

I'm also what one might consider "upper middle class" ... I'd rather my taxes go for the good of the general public than a few fat cats. Those 'crumbs' are a false win if society crumbles.