Jump to content

US politics


The Progressive

Recommended Posts

I said this elsewhere, but the eligibility ages for Medicare and SSI need to be raised, the criteria for new drugs/procedures/devices for Medicare and Medicaid need to be tightened, and farm subsidies should be phased out. If you could get that, I'd also support significant cuts to military spending. Freeze all procurement not intended to replace equipment currently in use, and, if necessary, drawn down completely from Iraq or Afghanistan.

I can agree with all of this. I'd also suggest suspending aid to Israel until they stop building new settlements in the contested territories. Unfortunately whichever President was responsible for such cuts would be torn to pieces in the next election. Possibly even literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they haven't thought it through. Most of them probably can't even balance their checkbooks, yet they're complaining about the deficit.

I notice that Americans don't seem to care about the deficit when economic times are (or seem) good, so I have become half-convinced that most complaints about the deficit are really complaints about the economy in general. That's not to say there aren't deficit hawks out there, but I don't think the majority of Americans qualify as such.

Also, I notice that the dawn of teabagger "outrage" over government debt neatly coincided with the election of a Democratic president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that Americans don't seem to care about the deficit when economic times are (or seem) good, so I have become half-convinced that most complaints about the deficit are really complaints about the economy in general. That's not to say there aren't deficit hawks out there, but I don't think the majority of Americans qualify as such.

Also, I notice that the dawn of teabagger "outrage" over government debt neatly coincided with the election of a Democratic president.

Which neatly coincided with the financial crisis and bailout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DG,

Perhaps whoever is President should think more about the ood of the country than about re-election prospects.

That's good advice for Congress too. Sadly it's not going to happen. Washington's more about staking a claim on the public teat than about public service.

ETA: To delve a little deeper, it wouldn't even matter if you had a popular second-term President who wanted to do all these sensible (but unpopular) things. These plans would never make it past the Best Little Whorehouse on the Potomac Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DG,

Perhaps whoever is President should think more about the ood of the country than about re-election prospects.

Yeah but we both know that isn't very realistic. In order to get elected President, you have to want to be President more than you want to be a good President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker,

I'm sympatheic to the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party movement. I've been advocating for big cuts in government spending for oing on 4 or 5 years. Not everyone discovered fiscal conservatism with Pres. Obama's election.

I may be wrong because I filiter through very little US news in Canada, but from what I gather from what are described as tea-party challengers to Republicans for Congress, their positions are far more extreme than that, whether they are succesful challengers or no. Putting aside their abhorent social policies, are you in favour of things like the removal of the federal department of education?

I've never understood the state right position in the US becuase of how silly and essentialist it seems, either as the legal argument or the principled argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong because I filiter through very little US news in Canada, but from what I gather from what are described as tea-party challengers to Republicans for Congress, their positions are far more extreme than that, whether they are succesful challengers or no. Putting aside their abhorent social policies, are you in favour of things like the removal of the federal department of education?

I'd personally be in favor of getting rid of that Department. Education is really controlled at the state level here, and I'm not sure why we need an ED that spends nearly $70B/year.

I've never understood the state right position in the US becuase of how silly and essentialist it seems, either as the legal argument or the principled argument.

How about that whole thing you guys have going on with Quebec? And doesn't Alberta, for example, look differently on some issues than Ontario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labelling is not the same thing as understanding. Why is it important to label the Tea Parties or "conservatives" at all? Isn't it possible for us to discuss issues here based on our own arguments and positions rather than arguing about how we should label people who don't even post here? I mean, it's one thing to label/criticize politicians. But wtf is the point in arguing about how consistent various private individuals who claim to support Tea Parties are with each other?

Can't you see these posts are an effort to understand?

The reason they keep coming up is because they matter. They are effecting political change in this country so I'm not sure why you're making an argument that they're off limits to discuss in an American Politics thread. Not to mention we post all the time about groups that don't post on this particular forum. Is commenting on G-20 protestors (as I've seen you do) any different? Do you have to meet one to form an opinion on them as a whole?

As long as you think of it as "The Tea Party", you'll never be clear on that. There is no "Tea Party". There are various local Tea Parties with no centralized authority. It is a decentralized movement like any other, full of internal inconsistencies because the people who participate don't always agree with each other. The only common threads I've been able to discern is a belief that the government is spending way too much money, and an opposition to higher taxes. But with regards to exactly what should be cut, there just isn't unanimity, and I'd bet my ass that you have a lot of folks who go to those things who end up arguing or disagreeing with the guy next to them.

I have no doubt either. Neverthless a movement coalesces around something tangible. People call themselves Tea Partiers or sympathize with the movement because they have a certain set of beliefs. If you could hold any belief and still being a Tea Partier it is effectively meaningless.

To the extent I believe that specific manifestations of the Tea Party Movement (to use your preferred characterization) are actively exacting change that works against the stated interest of the movement (i.e.: working to oust Bob Inglis in SC), I'm going to call attention to this because from an outsider perspective it doesn't make sense that a group ostenibly in favor of small government and nuanced spending would oust a man who is the embodiment of that.

I said this elsewhere, but the eligibility ages for Medicare and SSI need to be raised, the criteria for new drugs/procedures/devices for Medicare and Medicaid need to be tightened, and farm subsidies should be phased out. If you could get that, I'd also support significant cuts to military spending. Freeze all procurement not intended to replace equipment currently in use, and, if necessary, drawn down completely from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hit that big stuff, and then start zapping all education funds from the feds, including GSL's, end No Child Left Behind, Americorps,

etc., etc., etc.

Think I agree with all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't you see these posts are an effort to understand?

The reason they keep coming up is because they matter. They are effecting political change in this country so I'm not sure why you're making an argument that they're off limits to discuss in an American Politics thread. Not to mention we post all the time about groups that don't post on this particular forum. Is commenting on G-20 protestors (as I've seen you do) any different? Do you have to meet one to form an opinion on them as a whole?

Okay, let's go with the G-20 protesters. You've got the black wearing anarchists, and then an incredibly wide assortment of other people interested because of their pet issue. I suspect that other than a vague mistrust of rich people, you wouldn't find a common ideology. And you'd find some demanding that the G-20 get out of the Third World, and others demanding that the G-20 do more for the Third World.

My comments about the protesters were limited to a specific subsection -- the anarchist types. I wouldn't even attempt to try to lump all of the G-20 protesters into a cohesive ideological box because I don't think that's possible. But that doesn't preclude specific individuals who participated in those protests from having a coherent ideology of their own.

I have no doubt either. Neverthless a movement coalesces around something tangible. People call themselves Tea Partiers or sympathize with the movement because they have a certain set of beliefs. If you could hold any belief and still being a Tea Partier it is effectively meaningless.

I believe I stated that they have a general belief that the government is spending too much money, and that the deficits are too large. I'd say that anyone speaking at a Tea Party who generally supports an expansion of federal power over the economy would be out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally be in favor of getting rid of that Department. Education is really controlled at the state level here, and I'm not sure why we need an ED that spends nearly $70B/year.

The Department of Education administered the various federal grants for schools and colleges. I'm pretty sure that the last time its abolition was brought up as a talkingpoint for teabaggers and their associates, it was defeated pretty quickly but it's cute to read the same discredited argument a month or two later for nostalgia sakes.

On or a more critical note, it seems to me that teabaggers' apologists like FLOW tend to take every opportunity to declare that there is no centralized teabaggers platform or policies. Which is fine because that's what apologists are supposed to do. But here's the thing though ........... look at all the states where teabaggers candidates are surging or replacing moderate Republicans (or even conservative ones), and you'll see they all adopting such a nutbag of crazies policies ranging from outlawing the gheys to bring back the gold standard and the destruction of the DoE along with various sundries list of rightwing extremism.

For those who're advocating for honest federal deficit reduction, here's a suggestion ............ makes it so that states should only receive as much federal funding as the amount of federal tax they contributed to. Do that first and it'll make your other suggestions of cutting fundings to other programs more credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said forever that one of the fundementals flaws of democracy is we give power to people intoxicatied by power. It's like putting alcoholics in charge of a distillery.

Go into the private sector when the massive budget cuts come, say the conservatives. Don't let alcoholics run distilleries, say the conservatives. Make up your mind, I've got a business plan to write. :tantrum:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hereward,

What?

My job will likely be going as part of the massive cutback in government spending in the UK. I adore whisky and would love to set up a business in that area. I drink altogether too much. I hate it when a joke fails to come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...