I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

by **TomatoPie** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 23:33:24

As you may recall, I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal.

The GOP has more than disappointed me -- it has embarassed me. Spending like Democrats while pushing idiotic 1875-vintage social values.

That said, I still (generally,not always) vote GOP because social issues take their own course and POTUS doesn't much matter in that regard. And although I can KNOW that Democrats never seem to grasp the human aspect of economics as they give more people incentives to move from working class to welfare class, I hold out hope that a GOP candidate might actually understand the long-term economic damage from pandering to voters. Certainly, neither thus far gives two turds about the societal costs of pandering to corporations, like sugar or ethanol companies.

Mitt is a darn fine fellow who still doesn't know what he believes in, but he's pretty good at whatever you need. I have no enthusiaasm for him as a candidate. But I've seen four years of Barack. Certainly a fine gent, but I grade him thusly:

Bi-partisanship. D. No progress at all.

Foreign policy. A. I'm pretty much on board with his balance of balls and diplomacy. How much credit goes to Hillary or others?

Domestic economy. F. Worse than epic fail. As Clueless as Carter.

Social issues. B. Ya can't win here. Hypocrit on guns, though.

Judicial appointments. E. As expected.

Leadership. D+. Likeable guy, not a leader in any way. Just a wrong-headed wonk.[/quote]

I ask of reasoned Dems here, why would you want four more years of that?

So I'd give Mittens a lukewarm nod over Barry.

But I LOVE Paul Ryan. All of the common sense and pragmatic approach to solving our spending crisis as Ron Paul, without the nutjob factor.

We're Greece in 10 years without a change of course. Giving money away is lovely, but sooner or later you run out of teats. Why wait for that day?

Ryan is not cruel, nor enemy of the poor, nor friend of the megacorporations -- he's simply the ONLY person able to articulate the nature of our problem, the unsustainable path, and a way out.

We're in too deep for an easy way out. But who can think we can continue to spend more than we have, indefinitely?

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 23:35:46

actually, his budget is the definition of destroying the poor and working classes. but whatever. his budget is unserious. he just claims that money will be created from tax cuts. he claims that it will be 'revenue-neutral' (so what's the point?). block grants for medicaid? crazy and stupid. it just is. backed off just straight up cutting medicare because he found out it's super dumb.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 23:44:56

TomatoPie wrote:As you may recall, I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal.

The GOP has more than disappointed me -- it has embarassed me. Spending like Democrats while pushing idiotic 1875-vintage social values.

That said, I still (generally,not always) vote GOP because social issues take their own course and POTUS doesn't much matter in that regard. And although I can KNOW that Democrats never seem to grasp the human aspect of economics as they give more people incentives to move from working class to welfare class, I hold out hope that a GOP candidate might actually understand the long-term economic damage from pandering to voters. Certainly, neither thus far gives two turds about the societal costs of pandering to corporations, like sugar or ethanol companies.

Mitt is a darn fine fellow who still doesn't know what he believes in, but he's pretty good at whatever you need. I have no enthusiaasm for him as a candidate. But I've seen four years of Barack. Certainly a fine gent, but I grade him thusly:

Bi-partisanship. D. No progress at all.

Foreign policy. A. I'm pretty much on board with his balance of balls and diplomacy. How much credit goes to Hillary or others?

Domestic economy. F. Worse than epic fail. As Clueless as Carter.

Social issues. B. Ya can't win here. Hypocrit on guns, though.

Judicial appointments. E. As expected.

Leadership. D+. Likeable guy, not a leader in any way. Just a wrong-headed wonk.

I ask of reasoned Dems here, why would you want four more years of that?

So I'd give Mittens a lukewarm nod over Barry.

But I LOVE Paul Ryan. All of the common sense and pragmatic approach to solving our spending crisis as Ron Paul, without the nutjob factor.

We're Greece in 10 years without a change of course. Giving money away is lovely, but sooner or later you run out of teats. Why wait for that day?

Ryan is not cruel, nor enemy of the poor, nor friend of the megacorporations -- he's simply the ONLY person able to articulate the nature of our problem, the unsustainable path, and a way out.

We're in too deep for an easy way out. But who can think we can continue to spend more than we have, indefinitely?

tcdes*/dr

*cotdameffinstupid

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 00:17:42

My beloved fat governor is officially giving the keynote at the convention

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 01:51:19

bleh wrote:I know it's an Onion article. But I thought it was written by a conservative dude who really believed those things. I guess I miss the point of the article or just don't get it.

It was a fake op-ed written under Ryan's name full of false braggadocio by The Onion. Much like when Colbert is at his best there was enough truth in it for it to be believable if you weren't in on the joke, but it was written to be funny not serious.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 02:25:30

pacino wrote:this notion that people are 'scared' of him is nonsense.

TenuredVulture wrote:He was a cheerleader.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 02:29:41

Googled the Paul Ryan cheerleader thing in hopes of making a shitty photochop

And don't see anything about him being a male cheerleader...link, Paul?

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 04:47:11

I think he meant he was a cheerleader for Rep ideas, like cutting all the entitlements and going back to starving in old age.

by **JUburton** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 07:42:02

How do you give an A on foreign policy to someone with absolutely no foreign policy experience?

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 07:44:43

Those are his grades on Obama.

by **JUburton** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 07:56:13

Oops, my mistake. I saw Mitt and basically skipped the rest of the sentence.

by **td11** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 08:41:03

TomatoPie wrote:As you may recall, I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal.

as a fiscal conservative who is against the "welfare state" and entitlement programs, how can you call yourself a social liberal?

by **drsmooth** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 09:14:11

Preibus is out now telling everyone the black president stole money from Medicare to pay for ACA

Priebus looks like a wet pile of ashes

get some sleep, Rantz - you've got months until the election

by **thephan** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 09:53:28

TomatoPie wrote:As you may recall, I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal.

I use this descriper for myself, but to me that means tax and spend reasonably and fairly while maintaining needed social programs. Do social programs need serious attention and revision? Yes. Is that as easily defined as politicians at large make it? Not at all. Then again, these are the third rail of politics, even if there is truth in the facts. At this moment in time with unemployment at whatever number you want to peg it, social programs are rather important.

TomatoPie wrote:Bi-partisanship. D. No progress at all.

I do not think this has much to do with POTUS, in fact I think the agenda of the GOP (and the Dems when Bush was in office) is to undermine the POTUS. From the day after the election the GOP was rather public about its agenda to castrate and impugn the president. The President and his party did no favors in moving his agenda, half baked, through legislation as soon as they could.

So for about 7 years the representatives of the people have been busy with the business of politics, which seems to have little to do with the well being of the citizenry or the functionality of the government.

So your grade should be more like auditing the course. That is shameful.

TomatoPie wrote:Foreign policy. A. I'm pretty much on board with his balance of balls and diplomacy. How much credit goes to Hillary or others?

A might be a little high. Hilliary has been a very good diplomat. Shockingly so. Counter this with our drone war and the questions around assignation, which has been technically illegal as a state sponsored activity since Nixon. It is complicated, but we have made little political ground in the middle east. All those fine locals are mostly what they were. Some are powerful, some are poor, many are completely screwed up, some are friends by necessity, many sponsor terrorists and all of them remain politically mysterious to most of the US. Just because we want democracy, unless there is a reason for us to let the country do what it wants, does not mean that fits with a traditional, regional role where church and state are one.

TomatoPie wrote:Domestic economy. F. Worse than epic fail. As Clueless as Carter.

Playing the hand dealt, I am not sure what the expectation should be. The idea that a change in presidency makes rainbows shoot out over wall street and frees up employers to spend is misguided. Companies have built war chests to survive an economic downturn, which by hording cash they have enabled. Innovation is largely frozen in the US due to lack of investment. The upside is that the US has a automobile industry with a down size that the positive rate of return seems unlikely in the investment in GM. I think the loans have all been repaid, but this is a microcosm of success.

The opposite is that the implementation of Obamacare scare the heck out of employers. Although there are plenty of success models in very successful countries, the birthing of this has been handled poorly. The bill itself is garbage (incomplete sentences, etc.). The insurance companies have implemented what benefits them the most and that is here to stay. This bill has certainly caused a question in hiring, and that it is incomplete is tragic. Long term there are plenty of countries that have and are doing very well with universal care many with a stronger currency and industrial base then the U.S.

There is only so much that the president can do to sway the economy, and studies say that even that little bit is an over reach. If there is active resistance to economic policy, then it is vapor locked.

TomatoPie wrote:Social issues. B. Ya can't win here. Hypocrit on guns, though.

But he is going to take our guns. I hear that. I think the gun lobby said that while sending out 'Open 24 hours' signs to its constituents.

TomatoPie wrote:Judicial appointments. E. As expected.

If it is as expected, then his grade should be a C. I am not sure that his, or any appointment, makes a difference if the judges arbitrate based on law and not bias. Ask CJ Roberts.

TomatoPie wrote:Leadership. D+. Likeable guy, not a leader in any way. Just a wrong-headed wonk.

Again, I am not sure how a fair grade can be give with an opposition designed to turn the office into a sad, powerless joke.

TomatoPie wrote:We're Greece in 10 years without a change of course. Giving money away is lovely, but sooner or later you run out of teats. Why wait for that day?

I've been to Greece and I understand how they got to where they are. The U.S. is not on that course. The Greek people had many 'no show' jobs. It was not a few instances, it was a whole number percentage. They bragged about it openly. Some while working in their restaurants and others while renting beach umbrellas. They also seemed to have multiple homes. It was pretty crazy being in Greece where everyone, but the Turks who are the Greece version of Latino illegal workers, seemed to be on holiday. That is not the U.S. fate.

TomatoPie wrote:Ryan is not cruel, nor enemy of the poor, nor friend of the megacorporations -- he's simply the ONLY person able to articulate the nature of our problem, the unsustainable path, and a way out.

Ryan will be interesting to watch. I agree that his stances are just exposing facts about some of the social programs that need to be addressed. I am not sure that his positions are the answer, but it is a start. As you say, he is not cruel, but I do not find him brave either.I think no matter what happens, this opens an honest discussion about these programs and their unsustainability. If this can explain this at the third grade level, then it is a start. Unfortunately, like Social Security, a program that was noted as needing reform in the 80 when I was a kid, these are sacred subjects that people view as 'their money'. Ask most of the older Tea Party members about touching Social Security.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 09:59:23

not sure if mentioned but Ryan co-sponsored these bill in the House:

H.R.212 : Sanctity of Human Life Act - each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood)

H.R.3805 : Ultrasound Informed Consent Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require abortion providers, before a woman gives informed consent to any part of an abortion, to perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, display the ultrasound images so the woman may view them, and provide a complete medical description of the images, including the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, cardiac activity if present and visible, and the presence of external members and internal organs if present and viewable.

glad those tea party guys really don't legislate (or try to) regarding social issues. And they call the Dems pro-big government?

by **pacino** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:04:43

Ryan is a fraud. He takes money from them (he lives in a HISTORIC home), is a fan of Medicare Part D and Advantage (the worst aspects of the program), is for limiting women's rights, our rights (patriot act), for TARP, for the auto bailouts, the budget-exploding Iraq War, etc etc etc

small government, except he's for the personhood amendment. voted NO on the lily ledbetter act. voted FOR defunding planned parenthood, which is not legal. HAS NOT HAD A REAL JOB!!! OMG!!!!

his plan would further explode the defecit he already created. without hte programs he was for, the deficit would barely exist.

he's one of the most unserious politicians in our time. to view him as 'serious' is just crazy. he is against everything he's voted for and done in his personal life.

by **pacino** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:05:33

td11 wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:As you may recall, I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal.

as a fiscal conservative who is against the "welfare state" and entitlement programs, how can you call yourself a social liberal?

social liberal just means he is for legalization of pot and doesnt hate gays. that's all it means anymore.

by **Werthless** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:59:08

Do the liberals on this board believe that economic policy affects the growth of the US economy? If so, what kind of policies would help growth? The conservative position, as I understand it, is that a simplified tax code with low rates and few carveouts increases economic growth in the long-term. Free trade is also supported by pro-growth conservatives. Most liberal arguments I hear are in terms of fairness, with some arguments for Keynesian stimulus in times of recession. But there doesn't seem to be a liberal consensus for what should be done to improve the growth of the economy, as there is more concern over the relative shares of the pie than over the size of the pie.

Is there a Democrat pro-growth strategy?

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:24:26

Werthless wrote:Do the liberals on this board believe that economic policy affects the growth of the US economy? If so, what kind of policies would help growth? The conservative position, as I understand it, is that a simplified tax code with low rates and few carveouts increases economic growth in the long-term. Free trade is also supported by pro-growth conservatives. Most liberal arguments I hear are in terms of fairness, with some arguments for Keynesian stimulus in times of recession. But there doesn't seem to be a liberal consensus for what should be done to improve the growth of the economy, as there is more concern over the relative shares of the pie than over the size of the pie.

Is there a Democrat pro-growth strategy?

Demand-side economics. We might want to give it a try since the (more or less) last 30 years of the other strategy hasn't worked.

by **dajafi** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:39:04

Werthless wrote:Do the liberals on this board believe that economic policy affects the growth of the US economy? If so, what kind of policies would help growth? The conservative position, as I understand it, is that a simplified tax code with low rates and few carveouts increases economic growth in the long-term. Free trade is also supported by pro-growth conservatives. Most liberal arguments I hear are in terms of fairness, with some arguments for Keynesian stimulus in times of recession. But there doesn't seem to be a liberal consensus for what should be done to improve the growth of the economy, as there is more concern over the relative shares of the pie than over the size of the pie.

Is there a Democrat pro-growth strategy?

The progressive growth strategy is public investment in and creation of incentives for personal/private investment in human capital and infrastructure. I say progressive, not Democrat/ic, because through probably Nixon this was a consensus view. I'm referring to everything from universal pre-K to high speed Internet in rural communities and investment in demand-led job training.

I also suspect that Democrats, all in all, are more on board with your "simplified tax code" of lower rates and fewer deductions than are Republicans. What the Norquist faction seems to care about above all isn't growth per se, but ensuring that no well to do person ever pays more under any circumstances, opportunity costs and larger fiscal consequences be damned.

Archived

I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread