Social Question

thekoukoureport's avatar

Is America in a twilight zone?

Asked by thekoukoureport (4008 points ) September 8th, 2010

The polls have the Republicans about to take control of the House and Senate is that crazy? How can a party who created this present situation snow job the people so bad as to believe that they can fix this by going back? With all the topics that are so beautifully dicussed on this site I time and again look at the right as not really having answers…but winning all the arguments(not here but in the pols). Is it because we are all products of a public education or am I just living in the twilight zone?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

71 Answers

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,do do do do, do do do do,

Seek's avatar

The voting public is largely a vastly uneducated lot that acts on emotion and impulse more than thought and reason.

The Republicans play into that, and do so well.

For some reason, a politician saying “We’ll turn the economy back to 2008” (when most people still had jobs) sounds awesome. What they don’t realise is that 2008 and the economic situation is what caused the problems we’re going through now. Unfortunately, when you’re dealing with a bunch of people that think the “Government should just fix it already” as if they had a magic wand full of jobs and money, logic doesn’t mean much.

TexasDude's avatar

Anyone who knows anything about American political history will note that politics is nothing more than a series of backlash after backlash going all the way back to the dawn of the two party system.

That’s just how it has always worked.

Think about how blocks of liberal years are followed by conservative backlash and mobilization and vice versa. That’s it.

thekoukoureport's avatar

I guess I am just amazed at how quickly the backlash has occurred. It seems nuts

Seek's avatar

@thekoukoureport America can’t remember whether it likes Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie for more than a week at a time. I’m not surprised at all.

KTWBE's avatar

In politics, the status quo swings from one extreme to the other as people (ironically) try to find balance. Dissatisfied with a politician or solution they thought was going to be the magic pill, people turn to the opponent or opposite solution, thinking that perhaps they were wrong all along and should have gone with the other side. Everybody makes promises, claims that they knew all along how it should have gone, and for most of them we’ll never know if they did or didn’t.

Just look at history for confirmation of this effect. In revolutionary France, for a time in the 1790s the government went through a radical and painful series of metamorphoses. The ineffective and deadlocked Estates-General became the separatist tennis court National Assembly which became the partisan entrenched Legislative Assembly, then the National Convention (host to the famously left-wing Jacobins and their Reign of Terror) then the persecution-happy Directory, after which point things were just generally a muddle until Napoleon. This all went down in a ten-year span. If you’re looking for Twilight Zone, France had it covered.

With the election of President Obama, one could conceivably say that the American political pendulum swung very left indeed, and now after an admittedly short period it is swinging back to the right. It will swing left again and then right again, and then repeat. Not to worry: this is just the struggle of a confused country to find equilibrium.

TexasDude's avatar

@KTWBE, great answer.

Dissatisfied with a politician or solution they thought was going to be the magic pill, people turn to the opponent or opposite solution, thinking that perhaps they were wrong all along and should have gone with the other side.

Such is the trouble with a falsely dichotomous, two-party system.

wundayatta's avatar

Makes you wonder if Roosevelt could have stayed in power for so long with the current electorate. People are incredibly inpatient. They have no memory whatsoever. If you can’t fix it in two years, then we’ll try the other guys.

“They have new ideas.”

This is said with a straight face. People believe it. Onward ho!

Jaxk's avatar

Maybe a little reality would help. The democrats won congress in 2006. They won the presidency in 2008. Since the Democrats have had control, they have not fixed anything. In fact the economy has tanked and foriegn affairs have deteriorated. The legislation we have seen has been extremely unpopular and nothing has improved. The only argument the Democrats seem to have is that the general public is stupid. They’re not.

We keep hearing that the reason things are still bad is because the economy is worse than they thought. The problem is too severe and we can’t expect to fix it overnight. Apparently 4 years is still considered overnight. I guess they need a decade like we gave FDR.

The Democrats love to look back at the 90s and talk about how wonderful it was. They seem to forget, it was a Republican congress. This is a congressional election and the likes of Pelosi and Reid are bound to hurt the overall Democratic cause. You simply can’t continue to ignore your constituency by passing very unpopular legislation and then call them stupid if they don’t like it. You can’t pass legislation that obviously didn’t work and then say we need more of it. If you continually call your constituency racists, bigots, and every phobe you can think of, you can’t then expect to get their vote.

The Democrats have been tone deaf and blamed everyone except themselves for their problems. It’s time to take responsibility for their actions. The public has had enough.

tedd's avatar

Can anyone say, we need more parties please???? lol

and @Jaxk You have no idea what you’re talking about. The economy tanked because Bush policies were in control, even with the Democratic congress. They couldn’t do anything because they didn’t have the votes to overturn the president.

Our economy has IMPROVED since Obama took office, admittedly not as fast as we all want and he said it would, but we’ve gained jobs for like 7 months straight now. Our foreign affairs have IMPROVED if anything. Most of the world likes us again rather than hates us. All the moderate muslim countries, europe on a whole, heck china is calling for better relations now… and we just negotiated a drop in nuclear weapons with Russia…. The only strongly unpopular legislation was the healthcare bill, and thats cuz Republicans successfully labeled it as some socialist take over of healthcare meant to kill your grandparents and pull the plug on sick children.

You do make a good point though, it took FDR almost two full terms to bring the US out of the great depression. How can we say two years was enough time to bring us out of an “almost” depression.

The 90’s were a wonderful time because back then the Republicans had these things called “moderates” who would work with the moderate democrats and actually accomplish things. Right now the Dems could propose a bill to call eating babies evil, and the Republicans would say no. And what legislation didn’t work? Less than half of the stimulus has been spent and we’ve seen our jobs per month go from -750,000 to +60,000 per month.

Stop listening to FAUX news, they’re lying to you.

tedd's avatar

The irony to me is that in one poll they showed how among ALL voters in this country, its pretty much tied on who they’d vote for (generic Dem or generic Repub). But then in that same poll among likely voters, the Repubs are washing the floor with the Dems.

GET OUT AND VOTE DAMNIT, lol.

Seek's avatar

Nobody has voted to stop more jobs from being created than the GOP. Blocking R&D grants with bullshit anti-porn clauses, voting against financial support to states to help them keep teachers on the payroll, etc.

I’m willing to wager that the Republicans are purposely continuing to fuck up our economy in order to make the liberals look bad, and take over Congress again. Because the “party” is more important than the people.

CMaz's avatar

Who farted?

CaptainHarley's avatar

I don’t care WHO is elected, as long as the current crop of idiots is removed! I personally am a Libertarian. I believe that government is the PROBLEM not the solution. The less government we have the better off we are, and the greater freedom we have. That definitely rules out the majority of BOTH major parties, IMHO!

I can’t IMAGINE why ANYONE would want more of the same BS we’ve had to endure these last 8 years!

Jaxk's avatar

@tedd
Wow, you’ve certainly bought into the Democratic spin. The economy tanked because housing tanked. Freddie and Fannie played the biggest role in that. Democrats blocked any attempt to regulate Freddie and Fannie. There are a number of other contributing factors to the crash but if you understand what happened rather than just spewing talking points the world takes on a whole new image.

The ‘dead cat bounce’ we saw in the economy isn’t working and we are slipping right back. This is not a recovery.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/2nd-quarter-g-d-p-may-be-revised-even-lower/

It is quite comical that Obama keeps touting job growth while the minuscule growth isn’t even enough to keep up with population growth. Hell, not even enough to keep up with legal immigration (we allow almost 100,000 permanent residents per month). He bailed out the big banks and complains that they are still not loaning money. So now he wants to bail out small banks in hopes that they will loan money. If it doesn’t work his philosophy seems to be do it again and hope for different results. The real problem is his policies discourage lending.

Obama has in 18 months, grown government by 20%. The deficit has skyrocketed beyond anything we’ve seen in our lifetime. His solution is spend more and grow more government. An exercise in insanity. He proposes a temporary cut to capital gains to help small business. That doesn’t help small business. Capital Gains are only realized when you sell. Investors will reap gains by selling stock. Is that what we want another stock market sell off? He thinks an investment credit will spur business but if there’s no confidence in the long range, nobody’s going to invest. As long as the Democrats continue to perpetuate this class warfare, as long as they continue to demonize business, as long as they continue threaten higher taxes and more regulation, the business environment will not improve. The only thing he is doing right is taking a lot of vacations. As long as he’s out of the Oval Office, he not proposing more bad legislation.

If you want to fix the economy, start by stopping the spending. We don’t need anymore bailouts for banks, unions, or states. And we certainly don’t need more federal agencies to oversee the federal agencies that aren’t doing their job to begin with.

Tuesdays_Child's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, you said “The voting public is largely a vastly uneducated lot that acts on emotion and impulse more than thought and reason” Do you apply that train of thought to the 2008 presidential campaign and election also? No disrespect intended, just curious.

Seek's avatar

@Tuesdays_Child

To be completely honest, yes.

To deny Barack Obama’s rise to the Democratic nomination was considerably helped along by an influx of young, black, and Latino/a voters would be naive. I could link to several videos of people doing “political surveys” asking whether they agreed with Barack Obama’s views on (insert the complete opposite of Obama’s stance), and huge numbers of people agreeing completely unaware that they were being duped.

I said to many people around the time of the 2008 primaries that Obama was going to win, because America was more ready to see a black man in office than a woman of any colour. Lo and behold.

I lost faith in America’s representative republic system a long time ago.

Jaxk's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
I think you underestimate the public and don’t give enough credit to Obama’s campaign strategy. If you listen to most of his speeches during the campaign, they were inspiring but a bit short on detail. He was able to convince people that what ever they wanted was what he was going to do. Even people with entirely different ideologies. ‘Hope and Change’ was inspirational. If you look at what he said June 3, 2008 about his election to president.

” we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

Now who could disagree with those goals. Hell, even Moses needed help in parting the Red Sea. When he told us that he would change the way Washington operated, we didn’t know he meant change to Chicago politics. When he said he’d give jobs to the jobless, we didn’t know he meant he’d just put them on the government payroll. When he said he’d make the seas recede and the earth heal, we didn’t know he meant that he’d make energy so expensive nobody could use it.

We wanted to believe so bad that we didn’t look for details. I’m not sure that stupid, rather a little naive. Now we are seeing the details and we don’t like it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It won’t be so easy next time. Obama has woken the sleeping giant. That’s a good thing.

Rufus_T_Firefly's avatar

I can almost feel the nation’s IQ slipping closer and closer to zero as I read some of these posts.

Seek's avatar

@Jaxk

You don’t actually believe in Moses and that whole “parting the sea” thing, do you?

Jaxk's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr
To the same degree that I believe in the whole ‘seas begin to recede and earth to heal’ rhetoric.

tedd's avatar

@Jaxk -Democrats backed by Republicans by in large refused to regulate fannie and freddie mack. Besides the housing market crash alone didn’t do it, the banking crash helped as well… In essence a huge lack of regulation that has been precipitating since REAGAN took office (and yes thats even during Clintons years, but far worse during the Bushes and Reagan) led to the financial free fall we saw.

-The economy isn’t slipping back into anything, the industrial sector saw more job growth again this last month. Heck my own company which is run by an admitted conservative republican who was very skeptical of Obama, has seen the largest uptick in its 40 year history in the past year. We do profit sharing and we received our largest checks in a decade a month ago.

-You’re right the growth is minuscule, at least when compared to the 750k jobs per month Bush was costing us. But to put this in prospective, why don’t you go find a time during the entirety of the Bush presidency that the economy gained more than say…. 100k jobs in a month…. Let me save you time, you can count them on one hand.

—100k illegals a month is a gross overstatement, considering that in a year that would be 1.2 million people, and in the past 10 years you’d be looking at about ⅓ of our population. Not to mention Obama put more illegals in jail and back in Mexico in the last year than Bush did in ANY year of his presidency.

-He didn’t bail out big banks, that was under Bush’s watch thankyou. Granted he did agree to do it, but so did virtually the entirety of both parties. And he’s understandably upset at big banks, wouldn’t you be? They basically told us (them and economists) you either bail the banks out for the huge mistakes they made, or EVERYONE suffers a great depression. Then we bail them out and they’re all fine and dandy, but we as a whole are still suffering. I’d be pretty pissed too.

-I’ve not heard of him bailing out small banks, but frankly I’dbe all for that. I’ve used a credit union for the past 5 years and would NEVER go back to a major bank….. Ever.

-Show me proof he’s grown the government by 20%. In fact, how do you even quantify that? He’s grown its employees? Its land mass? What? You’re just spewing a number at me to be outrageous.

-The LARGEST deficit in our nations history, was the 1.2 trillion dollar one BUSH handed to Obama. Even after adding a 700 billion dollar stimulus to that deficit, that fiscal year ended with a TOTAL deficit of…. 1.5 trillion dollars. And I’m going to explain this now since I can already guess you don’t understand. Our governments fiscal years end in October, so when Obama took over in January, the fiscal year had already been running for about 4 months under Bush’s watch. In that 4 months Bush racked up a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars. In the remaining 8 months, for all Obama’s “spending” the deficit would only grow to a total of 1.5 trillion.

-“His solution is to spend more and grow more government. An exercise in insanity.” Minority leader Boehner? Is that you? .... Whos spewing talking points now?

-I can’t comment on his latest proposals because I have not studied them yet (he just announced them today) but I can tell you that the government NEEDS to start regulating the ever-loving-shit out of big business. Its not about class warfare, its about big business ripping you off to turn a profit. You’ve clearly been blinded by their propaganda wing though (otherwise known as Fox news).

-Oh and side note, Bush took more vacations in one year than Obama has in his entire presidency thus far. He spent more time on his ranch in texas than IN the white house.

-If you want to fix the economy you do what we did in the 1930’s, you jump start the economy. Spending is one way to do that, and like it or not it worked for the great depression.

CaptainHarley's avatar

No, @tedd , it took a world war to pull the world out of the depression.

Jaxk's avatar

@tedd
Good rant. If I didn’t know better I might even believe some of your points. Let’s address some of your misconceptions.

As I said previously there are several contributing factors to the crash. The banking failures however were a result of the crash not a cause. The push for low income housing (started under Carter) created more and more creative lending practices. Resulting in a saturation of the housing market and eventual crash. The change in accounting rules (ie. Mark to Market) further excerbated the problem by artifically inflating bank assets during the rise and artifically reducing assets during the fall. This created all sorts of problems by rapidly increasing the need for cash and inflating the cost of money for banks. Pulling the teeth out of Glass-Steagal (Clinton 1999) allowed the banks to expand into areas like brokerage houses and insurance which created the ‘Too Big to Fail’ scenario. They were then able to leverage their incredible assets to enter riskier areas like derivitives. Even there it is not the cause but the result of the crash that caused the problem.

I’m glad to hear you and your company are doing well. Unfortunately that is not reflected across the economy. Obama had one good quarter and we are slipping back into recession. One good quarter does not a recovery make. Last quarter was scaled back to 1.5% the trend is distinctly down.

As for the illegals, you misread my post. I said LEGAL immigrants. We grant permenent legal residence to just over 1 million aliens per year. They need jobs.

The TARP was about the only thing that helped to stop the economic decline. I still have mixed emotions about it but it most likely helped to quell the run on banks. If you recall, Bush spent about half the TARP funds and Obama spent the other half. The entire $700 billion was used to say that Bush left a $1.2 Trillion deficit. The problem is that when it was repaid, Obama counted that as revenue to reduce the deficit he has racked up. Even with that counter balance he still spent $1.3 Trillion in additional debt. Bush’s last budget was $2.9 Trillion. Obama’s first budget was $3.8 Trillion. That doesn’t take into account the special funding. When Obama passed Omnibus, he increased the budget for all agencies by 20%. His overall spending increase (not counting one time expenditures) increases government by 25%. I don’t care what you choose to measure, spending, headcount, hell even land mass (he’s been trying to by up more land in the west for government) you end up in the same place. About 20% increase.

As for his vacations, I don’t really care. I do find it interesting that you would equate his vacations in Martha’s Vinyard to Bush’s trips to his ranch. I don’t even want to know your logic on that one.

And finally, the great depression. Some how you think that the jobs programs of FDR fixed the problem. Somehow you think that over ten years of depression is a success story. Truth is FDR never did fix the Depression. It took a world war and even then the problem wasn’t solved until it was over. It wasn’t until the industrialized world had been destroyed and we were the only country left with manufacturing capacity to rebuild it, that we were able to pull out the economy. But there is a very similar event taking place right now. In 1937 it looked like we might pull ourselves back from the brink like Europe was doing. FDR in his infinite wisdom, raised taxes and threw us right back into depression. A model Obama seems to want to replicate. FDR extended the Great Depression with his insane policies and Obama is trying his best to follow in his footsteps. If he succeeds, we’re looking at another decade of depression/recession. Those that don’t study history are doomed to repeat it (Lincoln I believe).

Seek's avatar

((Can someone please fix the word “twilight” in the title? It’s driving me batty.))

thekoukoureport's avatar

sorry @Seek_Kolinahr title fixed. and @Jaxk You fail to realize the impact of the VA Home Loan program as well as the GI bill both of which instantly built a “middle class” and the brain power to launch us into the 21st Century. We throw around that president Obama will raise the taxes, but that is just not true…. Republicans passed this “temporary unfunded” tax cut through reconciliation which carries rules. Like if you can’t PAY for IT! it can only be enacted for a period of ten years. Which shows especially how the econimic policies of the last administration failed so miserably that the very TAX CUTS made to stimulate the economy has in fact started our economy on its demise, Followed by the GAS CRISIS which hurt the working poor the most, followed by the housing crises, which could have never happened without the repeal of glass steigel, AND AND something that is never talked about but the use of our state reserves vs career military to fight 2 unfunded wars has had an effect on our local workforce in ways that we haven’t even tried to measure (thanks Rummy).

When we study history we should remember that was yesterday (me just now i think) But as you study history find out when the people where actually represtented by great men like Roosevelt (bith Teddy and Franklin) the people built better lives, when government stay out of the way the ‘Free Market” screwed us into the great depression. Who by the way during this “scariest of times” have amassed over 2 TRILLION dolllars in cash reserves, thats cash meaning after all other expenses including payroll. Funny but if those corporations used ⅓ of that CASH, our unemployment would be around 5% and this country would not be in a recession.

So again is this the Twilight Zone?

JLeslie's avatar

It does seem, as some have stated, that many Americans will vote just to get whoever is currently in office out. This might be a good argument for term limits.

I blame Clinton’s escapades with Monica on Bush winning the first time. That whole family values thing brought the right wing out in droves. Bush was a backlash to Clinton, although I still cannot explain how Bush won the second time, except to agree with @Seek_Kolinahr that so many Americans are pretty stupid.

I don’t think Obama won because America is more ready for a black man than a female president. I actually think that America does respect women generally as equals, and so she was just another candidate. The media constantly talked about the first black president, they did not obsess over the first female president. I do think a backlash to Bush helped Obama, win. Also, it is true that black people who never vote probably came out to vote for him. I saw a woman just yesterday on my local news talking about needing more black politicians to represent her people. Her words not mine. I never think a politician has to be Jewish to represent my people. But, what is also true is there are people on the right who just vote for a politician because they are Christian and confuse politics with religion, so I figure it evens out. And back to the woman wanting a black person to represent her community, I really wonder how black people feel about Obama now that he is president; I am only referring to the black people who usually don’t vote and who are not very educated or not knowledgable about politics. I wonder if they think Obama is doing anything for the black community? I wonder what they expected?

I think the more extreme our politicians get, the more they worry about making the extreme people in their parties happy, the more we will see this head spinning fickle electorate switching back and forth. And, people have no patience, cannot think long term, so if they don’t see an instant change or result from a politician, they quickly lose interest.

Jaxk's avatar

@thekoukoureport

When I was in school I was taught that FDR was one of our greatest Presidents. I believed that most of my life. It’s simply not true. He extended the depression at least five years, Lied to ther public about hsi war plans and tried to stack the Supreme Court to get unconsitutional legislation. His jobs bill was a failure and his economic plans devastating. But he spoke well and told the public what they wanted to hear. Sound familiar?

I can’t imagine how you equate the VA and the GI bill to an instant middle class. They were simply benefits packages like you might see anywhere else when the pay scale is incredibly low. Good programs but the economic growth was powered by our industry.

I always wondered who believed this talking point that the tax cuts are unfunded. You can’t raise taxes to fund a tax cut. Tax cuts grow the economy and that’s how they’re paid for. Just like any business, when you lower prices, you get more volume. You make less on each item but sell more so that you end up making more. The same thing happens with tax cuts. People end up with more money to spend which increases volume. As the volume rises more jobs are created and subequently more taxes paid. As industry rebounds raises get better and promotions come quicker also increasing governemnt revenues. It is exactly what happened when Kennedy cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes, and when Bush cut taxes. The opposite happens when you raise taxes. Just look to you guy FDR for proof. When he raised taxes in ‘37 we dropped back into depression. Good move?

Finnally, business has amassed a greta deal of money. It is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the next shoe to drop. You want to blame business for this but it is the government that is creating this problem. Would you be willing to spend half your savings in this economy to help bring it back? If everybody did we would likely come out of the recession. Unfortunately it is a risk most won’t take. Who could blame them, if it doesn’t work, if the government does something to raise the cost of living (cap n trade comes to mind, health care costs will be going up considerably) you will be no better off with little of your saving left for a buffer. Business has the same trepidation. The rules are simply changing to fast to make any long range commitment.

Come out of the twilight zone and take a look around. Business is not trying to screw anyone, rather they simply want to survive, Like everyone else.

@JLeslie

Bush’s reelection is really simple. Democrats put up Kerry to run against. Kerry was simply unelectable. Way too much history with that guy and all of it bad.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Please. Somehow people bought into the idea that Kerry was un-American and did not support soldiers because he had spoken out against vietnam, when he had served and earned bronze and silver stars if I remember correctly. When Bush avoided services. To think that John Kerry Would not be supported of our troops is the most disingenuous crock of shit I have ever heard, but the right wing bought into it. And they decided they hated Kerry because his wife had money, the Bush’s are wealthy. And, that Kerry was an educated elite can’t understand the little guy, Bush grew up with a silver spoon, Kerri and Bush both went to ivy league.

thekoukoureport's avatar

You sir say you study history but can’t draw the lines to prosperity that was created by our governmnet specificly FDR during the depression. VA Loans allowed millions of soldiers to buy a house. Which needed wood, which needed nails, which needed paint, which needed wallpaper, which needed etc. The GI Bill not only allowed for tremendous growth in our secondary education system but educated millions of American soldiers after WWII. Both of these factors continue to be responsible for the success of this nation. Without need there is no industry.

If the tax cuts are paid for why did bush leave us in so much debt?

If fear is the driving force behind business not spending excess profits to rehire the workers they laid off to amass that profit, why did they lay all those people off before Obama ever took office and why has private industry been adding jobs over the last seven months.

Actually the successful businesses are already buying back in. The trailers are just like the republicans sheep being led to slaughter. PS.

Hurting small business is BS. If a business owner makes more than $200,000 after all expenses and taxes and payrolls, whats another 4cents on the dollar and how would that really scare anybody. Clinton found a way to make surplus’ under those conditions. Conditions which where created when a Democratic Congress forced George Bush Sr. to raise taxes and pay as you go. Thats of course after the great Ronald Reagan ran up the largest federal deficit anyone had ever seen at the time. One so bad that our childrens children will have to pay for. I guess they where right, because when Jr took office we as a nation where 7 (seven) years from being debt free.

No one seems to be learning from history.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

Sorry I was not only around but in the service when Kerry did his testimony in congress. He did more to jeopardize the soldiers and discredit the country than another person with the possible exception of Jane Fonda. The lies he told in front of congress can never be forgiven. Anybody else would be in jail rather than congress. You may not think it was a big deal, I disagree. I don’t need the right or left to try and make any point on this.

Kerry is a dispickable human being willing to throw the men that fought at his side to the wolves for personal gain. I can never forget nor forgive him for that.

thekoukoureport's avatar

John Kerry was not elected because gay marriage amendments where on the ballots in 13 states. Which drove out ALL the base.

thekoukoureport's avatar

@Jaxk Thanks for your service in another useless war that we did not learn from. I will say that unlike the entire Bush administration he did fight for his country though for the right to make those stupid remarks. Unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush who wanted to finish a war the VP and Sec of Defense started back when Daddy was in office. Cause Like Jr. Says “we are after all a war time economy”.

Jaxk's avatar

@thekoukoureport

That’s some spin machine you’ve got there. What prosperity do you think was created by FDR. We were in depression for the entire time FDR ruled. The only pause was WWII when he put 12 million men in uniform (Despite his campaign promise not to). When the 12 million came home (most of them) the unemployment began to rise. It was the post war boom that fixed it. The world was destroyed. We supplied virtually everything to rebuild it. During the fifties we generated fully half of the world’s Gross Product. The only part FDR played in all that was to get us into WWII and helping with the destruction. I’m not faulting him for entering the war, just not crediting him for the pulling out of depression, since he didn’t.

The debt left by Bush is a problem. I never agreed with the spending. The prescription drug program, we couldn’t afford. The war was a result of world events. Were expected to be temporary. They lasted longer than expected but war is like that. If you fault Bush for excessive spending how can you justify this incredible spending going on right now. If debt was a problem when Bush was in office how can it be OK now that it has tripled. And since I know you hate the war, Obama’s Stimulus cost us more than the war in Iraq and it did nothing to help. Wasted.

I can’t imagine what distorted calculation you used to think we were 7 years from being debt free. During the Clinton years we never stopped going into debt. The public debt reduction was funded by the Social Security debt. From one pocket to another. I credit Clinton for the great strides he made in reducing the deficit but he never got it to zero as many would have you believe.

I am really surprised to hear you ask why business laid off workers, surely you can figure that one out. Bush told us we were in a financial crisis, Obama told us we we were in financial crisis, and McCain did the same. Whether we were or not once they said it, it was reality. TARP was intended to fix that and I believe it did. There are still some that would argue otherwise but I’m convinced it worked. The nice thing about TARP was that it was intended to be a temporary fix. Lend it out and get it back, no long term debt. The rest of the spending was pure debt. Stimulus, Omnibus, perpetual unemployment extensions, Cash for Clunkers, home mortgage adjustments, the list is endless.

Now we have continual tax issues. Cap N Trade, Health Care, a plethora of taxes Obama is either enacting or threatening to enact. Not to mention things like Card check that would impact business. Everyone knows the debt is getting too high and Obama for philosophical reasons wants to punish business and anyone with money. Any or all of these things will cost business money. They are reluctant to spend their cash both because the economy is in the tank and because they may need it to stay afloat when the taxes/regulations hit. They need the buffer. No one will or should make investments in their business without knowing what the environment will be like over the next few years. Who is next on Obama’s hit list? No one knows.

Seek's avatar

This is going nowhere, and has ceased to be entertaining. I’m out.

Jaxk's avatar

@thekoukoureport

Thanks for the backhanded compliment. It never ceases to amaze me that those of your beliefs seem to credit the likes of Clinton, who went to Europe to avoid the draft, yet somehow manage to discredit Bush for his National Guard service. Frankly I like Clinton and the fact that he didn’t serve is not a problem. Nor is Obama’s lack of service. Service in the National Guard is NOT a problem. I respect that service as much as any other. And frankly find it a bit offensive to belittle it. Kerry’s problem is not that he served but what he did. Service does not entitle anyone to lie and discredit thier fellow soldiers. For someone that thinks so little of the military, you seem obsessed with who served and who didn’t.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Ah hell… let’s just let the spend and spend and spend folks have their way and ruin the Country with a depression we can’t dig our way out of. Then I’ll move all my children and grandchildren to Texas, help the “Independence for Texas” people win, and then run for President of the Texan Republic. Heh!

TexasDude's avatar

@CaptainHarley, can I be the head of the department of defense?

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard

Sure, as long as you agree never to BEGIN a war we can’t end for a bargin-basement price! : )

TexasDude's avatar

@CaptainHarley aight, fair enough.

CaptainHarley's avatar

You’re HIRED! : D

thekoukoureport's avatar

This is the twilight zone…... the programs from bush we are still spending on by the by, Which is still adding to the debt.

Budget surplus’ that where created by the Clinton administration was what was paying down our debt service. You know that check you got from Jr.

What got us out of the depression was also the massive investment in infratstructure which created the more than favorable environment for industry to thrive as well as the war. It still took costs that I know hasn’t been properly measured due to the cost of the indiviual who sacrificrificed for the war effort. What did we do? Give a tax break. The first of its kind during wartime. Thats some trick. In fact it was done through reconciliation. “Just pushed through without the will of the people being heard” sound familiar.

The first guy was right…. DO DO DO DO, DO DO DO DO

The fun part of learning history is to actually learn from the people who lived it and not get your “history” lesson from one person. Glenn Beck, you spin quite well yourself but there’s one difference. Everything I have spoke about has been for the people, Everything you have spoke about has been in defense of Business, So of course you see history differently. Fortunatly for me the Document starts “We the People” or I wouldn’t get to even have this conversation. I’d be to busy teaching my son how to mine coal for his nickel a day.

Hey @CaptiainHarley if business won’t get off their 2 Trillion dollars in cash and put that money to work rather than buy thier stock back, the government would not have to spend and spend and spend. Because the government has to promote the general welfare at hand what are they to do? Continue to allow 700k jobs a month go away, continue to allow people to be thrown out of thier homes, continue to allow families to fall into financial ruin due to an injury or illness, if the money was not spent their would have been 20% unemployment. Easy!

We are blaming this administration for not fixing the dying patient right. We should just let them fail. Yeah and what about all those millions of workers? Would they have been just another lazy bum trying to take advantage of the system?

Could you imagine where we would be if The right still had the reigns?

And we are calling one of the most centrists presidents ever a socialist. do do do do

thekoukoureport's avatar

By the way @Jaxk I am a vetran as well, So maybe you could reread that comment with a little differnet slant. Number one. Number Two Clinton didn’t lead us into a unecessary war so I don’t spend much time on his military record. Number three, his party in Georgia because of his daddy while you risked your life, is not service my friend. He was never in danger of going to war I guarantee you that.

CaptainHarley's avatar

GOD, I wish General Powell had run! : (((

@thekoukoureport

All I heard from all of that was, “It’s STILL Bush’s fault!” even though the current idiot has been there over two years now. I wonder how long the Democrats and Republicans will continue to blame one another for the problems facing the Nation, as opposed to shutting the hell up and FIXING the damned things?? SIGH!

thekoukoureport's avatar

@CaptainHarley ummmm hello, it’s not? When Bush left did the wars end, did the temporary tax cuts end, did the prescription drug plan end the. the only thing that ended was the massive monthly layoffs that where happening. (600,000 jobs a month) It’s so nice to turn away from the past so fast. Because I’m sure Mitch McConnell and John Boeghner and John Mccain would have had us sailing into economic prosperity right now. GOD all I hear from you is we left so its your fault now….. FIX IT! OH but leave the rich alone. dont spend any money and give us more tax breaks! oh oh and don’t regulate us because the free market will fix itself.

At what cost sir, the elimination of the middle class and while the people are suffering, you can look down and say “well they just don’t want to work thats all”.

Did you ever say “President Obama”? Have you or anyone in the republican or tea party ever given him the respect of office? because he has been democratically elected “by the people”, he has enacted laws passed by a supermajority in a bi-partisan fashion written “of the people”, laws that are clearly “for the people”. Yup sounds Constitutional to me!

Clearly they are FIXING the damn thing as STATE governments are shedding jobs the private sector has ADDED jobs over the last 7 months, DESPITE the just say no Republicans.

by the way It’s George Bush’s fault.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Whatever. I don’t feel like getting into “who-shot-John” right now. As far as I’m concerned, a plauge on BOTH their houses! I don’t know which is worse, getting into an unnecessary, expensive war ( Iraq ), or placing a huge deficit burden on my grandchildren’s grandchildren!

thekoukoureport's avatar

like reagan did!

JLeslie's avatar

@CaptainHarley I don’t get part of your last statement, your aren’t separating the debt Bush cerated with the war from Money Obama has spent are you? Bush had been spending money and actually cutting the federal government’s income (taxes), while the democrats are spending and saying let’s pay for it and not borrow money from other nations and/or put the burden on our children and grandchildren. I agree with you that wish spending was cut, and our budget was streamlined, but the money that is spent the republicans seem to want to bury their heads in the sand. I will never understand someone who worries about a couple of percentage points more in taxes for people making $500k a year (personally I think the $250k mark is a little low for the cut-off). I can tell you my household makes less than $250k typically, definitely less than that in adjusted gross income, and if I had to pay 2% more in taxes it would not affect my spending, it would affect my saving.

@thekoukoureport, I think democrats are just as guilty of calling PRESIDENT Bush, Bush, and at times W; as Republicans calling President Obama, Obama.

CMaz's avatar

Who did a farted?

thekoukoureport's avatar

@JLeslie After 9/11 everyone said mr. president as he stood on that pile of rubble. Even those who did not believe he won the preside4ncy. We all know that Obama won and from the very beginning he was called a socialist. thats the difference

JLeslie's avatar

@thekoukoureport so for a few moment everyone used Mr. President and you think that makes the democrats more formal and respectful? I agree with so much of what you said above, but on that point I think you are pulling straws. I will say this, I find it very disrespectful when someone calls him Mr. Obama. Obama alone does not bother me when talking about him. When talking directly to him only Mr. President and President Obama are acceptable to me. I see this with former presidents also, really they all maintain their title. Once a doctor always a doctor, once a president always a president.

thekoukoureport's avatar

@JLeslie no and would never say they were. What I am suggesting is that most of the people on the other side of the argument never gave this president a chance. He was attacked from day one, I don’t really remember any other president being treated in that matter.

JLeslie's avatar

@thekoukoureport you dont think it was the same with Clinton? They were constantly trying to take him down. I have a feeling for the Republicans, from their perspective, the Democrats seem to come after Bush pretty badly. Goodness knows we were pretty much horrified by him in my household, although I cut him a little more slack than most I think. I tend to believe all of our presidents have good intentions, they just see things, reality, differently.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Well said. and like the first answer, do do do do, do do do do

CaptainHarley's avatar

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but… ONE MORE TIME: I do not like either major political party. I firmly believe niether of them have the best interests of the people at heart. They have both driven the deficit to heights that would give the founding fathers collective heart-failure.

thekoukoureport's avatar

the founding fathers created the national debt, when Alexander Hamilton convinced George Washington to Nationalize the War debt of the States. and yes Jefferson was having a stroke at the time at the thought.

JLeslie's avatar

@CaptainHarley I understand. I agree. But you still seem to not want to pay for the debt that is there. Or, am I wrong?

CaptainHarley's avatar

@JLeslie

You are incorrect. I want it ALL paid off, and a huge surplus in the coffers. If there is a major disaster anytime soon, we will go under like the Titanic!

Jaxk's avatar

@thekoukoureport

First, it impossible to talk about jobs without talking about business. That is afterall where they are generated. Government does not create jobs. The only thing government can do is to create an environment that will encourage job creation. Now entitlements, government is good at that. If you want the someone to help pay for your house or your car, someone to prop up the unions, the banks, the auto companies, now that where government seems to want to play. Unfortunately that doesn’t create any jobs.

I always love the argument about a tax cut during war. The tax cut was to fix the recession. Remember the dot com bust? Remember 9/11? The DOW dropped to 7200. Hell the NASDAQ dropped from 5,000 to 2,000. The tax cuts brought us back, and rather rapidly. Government revenues declined from 2000 to 2003. The tax cuts created growth from 2004 to 2007. In fact the the government revenues surpassed Clinton’s best year in 2005 and the rich were paying a higher percentage of it. The economy was growing , the unemployment rate stayed at or below 5%, and the deficit was shrinking. Bush’s problem was not the tax cuts but rather the spending. So now we want to eliminate the part that works and double down on the part that didn’t.

You said “Just pushed through without the will of the people being heard”. That sure sounds familiar. Health care, stimulus, bailouts, immigration, virtually everything Obama has done. You may want to rethink that argument. And if you think Obama is centrist, it begs the question ‘where do you think the center is’?

JLeslie's avatar

@CaptainHarley My apologies. So can we tax people to get some of it paid off?

CaptainHarley's avatar

@JLeslie

We are already taxed half to death! Cut government to the bone, continuously work to eliminate waste, and make deep cuts in spending across the board.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Well he could have “pushed through a single payer healthcare” he didn’t He put in a bill that closly resembles the republicans answer to Hilarycare and definitley a boon to business wouldn’t you say.. He could have ended both wars, he appointed Bush’s Secretary to stay on. He has kept Quatanamo open, and his stimulus went ⅔’s to the states and ⅓ to the people. The will of the people is the 60 senators it took for cloture on each and every one of the bills, So not only is that a Centrist but a builder of coalitions just like he said he would be. He has put together despite tremendous opposition by the minority some of the most historic legislations in our lifetime that will once again allow people the pursuit of happiness. Yup sounds constitutional to me.

The rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer and the middle class is going away yayyy tax cuts.

Cops are being laid off, fireman, teachers. while states raise your taxes.
Stimulus spending was a bailout for the states to spend. not the federal government. You have a problem with the stimulus blame your govenor for not spending it properly to stimulate business growth in your community and increase the tax base for all by increasing employment for the working American. thus ending the recession.

JLeslie's avatar

@CaptainHarley well I agree with cutting back government in some areas. I figure we are half agreeing.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@JLeslie

Yayyyy! [ faints ] ; ))

thekoukoureport's avatar

and bipartisanship is born

Jaxk's avatar

@thekoukoureport

Actually, he couldn’t force through ‘single payer’, he would have if he could. The current legislation was a compromise between Democrats and even they wouldn’t do it. The public was overwhelmingly against it. The shining star in his agenda and not one Democrat is using it as a campaign issue. Sorry that’s not entirely true, some are using their vote against it as a campaign issue. Health Care is one of the major reasons the economy is not growing. Nobody knows what it will cost and every time they reevaluate the costs they go up. As for the constitutionality, that is being litigated. With any luck it will be struck down in November. The judge has already said that this goes well beyond any legislation we seen in the past. I am however, in agreement that this is historic legislation. We just disagree on whether it is an historic high or low point.

Bailouts? Are you really bragging about more bailouts?

JLeslie's avatar

I really wanted single payer health care.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

Single payer sounds great as long as I’m not the single payer.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk That is the point with single payer, everyone is paying into the system, not just you.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie
I’m reluctant to get into another health care debate. But rest assured, If Obama gets a second term, it is on his agenda. Remember he said “we can’t get there right away”.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Yeah, we’ll save it for a different Q.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther