U.S. Politics, 8

[Shryke]

To be fair Ser Possum the "Assault Weapon Ban" is kinda stupid.

But it's all a distraction. Anyone expecting Obama to "take their guns away" is a fucking paranoid loon. It's not even close to being on anyone's agenda. The Democrats gave up on that front a long time ago.

[alguien]

Heh. I prefer to think of it as "Folks, we have some problems, so we're going to spend money we don't have, tax the shit out of the rich,

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is hilarious that you think returning taxation to the late 90's levels is somehow taxing the shit out of the rich. Ah me.

:lmao:

[awesome possum]

Ah...so we're moving the goalposts then? "Taking away guns" doesn't mean "taking away guns" now, it means "taking away all guns, forever" gotcha. You win!

Yes, it's moving the goalposts to point out that you can go to any decently sized town (and even some not-so-decently sized), find a gun store or Walmart and buy as many guns as you wish. Guns will never be in danger of being taken away in this country.

To be fair Ser Possum the "Assault Weapon Ban" is kinda stupid.

But it's all a distraction. Anyone expecting Obama to "take their guns away" is a fucking paranoid loon. It's not even close to being on anyone's agenda. The Democrats gave up on that front a long time ago.

We're in agreement.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143135/Economy-Jobs-Easily-Top-Problems-Americans-Minds.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66L4Q520100722

People think unemployment is a much larger problem than government deficits. People would rather reduce unemployment than cut the deficit.

People can be concerned about both. Lowering unemployment and deficit reduction aren't necessarily opposed, and I suspect that a lot of folks think the size of the deficit itself is hurting employment.

By the way, welcome back to the States.

[awesome possum]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is hilarious that you think returning taxation to the late 90's levels is somehow taxing the shit out of the rich. Ah me.

:lmao:

Reminds me of Bill Maher's New Rule:

It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.

And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line.

...

And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.

...

Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.

Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.

[Shryke]

If people were really for austerity, they'd be against Medicare while they were against the new Health Care Reform.

How much did these people hate Medicare again? :)

Some people are always for "Low Taxes" while still wanting their sweet government teat. This isn't new, no matter how much people like FLOW like to pretend.

[Altherion]

What's interesting about this coming election is that the Democrats have been opening up the government cookie jar for nearly two years, and it's been the Republicans who have openly been opposing programs that supposedly will benefit people. Yet, voters seem far more attracted to the idea of austerity than government handouts. And that's what really bugs the left right now. You can't fathom why voters appeared turned off by all the handouts and promises to soak the rich.

I think the handouts and promises to soak the rich would be a lot more popular if the economy was actually improving, but since unemployment is essentially unchanged, it's not clear where all of the money is going to. If you took $700B and used it to finance random jobs paying $50K per year, you could have hired 14 million people or practically all of the unemployed for a year. But of course, the lion's share of both the federal and state funds didn't go towards job creation (it went to banks and other people with deep pockets) and what few jobs were created were offset by the fact that the private sector was still firing people. Nobody likes government handouts when it appears that they're not getting their fair share.

[Ckrisz]

People can be concerned about both. Lowering unemployment and deficit reduction aren't necessarily opposed, and I suspect that a lot of folks think the size of the deficit itself is hurting employment.

People can be concerned about both, but they clearly believe one is a much higher priority than the other. The Reuters poll indicates that solving unemployment comes before cutting the deficit.

Personally I don't know of any convincing evidence that the deficit is somehow holding back employment, but if you have any research that says otherwise I'd like to see it.

By the way, welcome back to the States.

Thank you.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This is what I was getting at with the disdain that Republican politicians have for their voters. The deficit is not the cause of unemployment, but the GOP tries to sneak that thought into their narrative. "Everything was OK before Obama and his Big Spending came along!"

Uh, no. The crisis started before Obama was elected, his Big Spending was largely in response to said crisis, and the most common criticism of his big spending among economists is either that it was misdirected or that it was not large enough. This economy preceded Obama. It is the height of absurdity to suggest otherwise. But the GOP believes that its voters can be convinced that this economy is because of Obama.

The "big spending" started with, and always has been, the war(s). Nothing else even matters when it comes to finance. You are taking money from America, dragging it across the world, then blowing it up. There is no return on the investment. This is the start and finish of "big spending". The only thing that comes close is medicare.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Rand Paul is a lot like his dad on spending, less so on other things. He would make drastic cuts.

[Shryke]

Rand Paul is a lot like his dad on spending, less so on other things. He would make drastic cuts.

Well, he would like to.

In reality he'll pull the GOP voting handle like a good little junior Republican.

[Lord Mord]

TM,

Ah...so we're moving the goalposts then? "Taking away guns" doesn't mean "taking away guns" now, it means "taking away all guns, forever" gotcha. You win!

Really? You've decided to stoop to pedantry? I find it hard to credit the idea you genuinely believed anyone was saying no Democrat ever outlawed any guns at all, yet you had to go there to score points. That's ... Well, anyway, it's really too bad.

[TrackerNeil]

What's interesting about this coming election is that the Democrats have been opening up the government cookie jar for nearly two years, and it's been the Republicans who have openly been opposing programs that supposedly will benefit people. Yet, voters seem far more attracted to the idea of austerity than government handouts. And that's what really bugs the left right now. You can't fathom why voters appeared turned off by all the handouts and promises to soak the rich.

I am not certain that voters are "attracted to the idea of austerity", or if so only in the abstract. I suspect that any voter who faced the prospect of losing his unemployment/Social Security/Medicare would change his mind right quick. I notice that Americans are concerned with national debt only when the economy is bad; during boom times, you never hear a word about it. In any case, economic conditions are almost always the surest indicators of election results, and I think this year is no different.

[ThinkerX]

Seems like the FBI and related alphabet agencies are behaving the same way under Obama as they were under Bush II. Aint change great?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4667-feds-slammed-for-spying-on-anti-war-groups-lying

Among those targeted were the anti-war Thomas Merton Center, the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), the Catholic Worker, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and an individual Quaker peace activist. According to the Inspector General, there was "little or no basis" for the investigations.

The phony probes resulted in innocent people being placed on the infamous “terror watch list” and in FBI boss Robert Muller providing "inaccurate and misleading information" to Congress, the report stated. The amount of tax money wasted, while not specifically addressed in the report, must have been enormous. Numerous policies were also violated by the FBI, and Inspector General Glenn Fine called the FBI's tactics “troubling.”

Terrorist Quakers? Quakers?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/politics/25search.html?_r=2

The searches in Minneapolis took place early in the morning at the homes of people who have helped organize demonstrations against the war in Iraq and protests held two years ago during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

“It is rather patently political,” said Ted Dooley, a lawyer who represents Mick Kelly, a food service worker at the University of Minnesota and one of those whose homes was searched. “My client denies any wrongdoing.”

Hmmm...speaking out (and encouraging others to do the same) about a hugely wasteful and utterly pointless war overseas is now enough to spark a terrorism investigation...under a democratic administration?

This tells me:

1) We are marching ever closer to an out and out police state in the US (though many members of this very site will deny this until the forces of the state crash through their door in the early AM); and

2) There are few, if any, significant differences between democrats and republicans. Many or most of the percieved differences are nothing more at all than PR stuff to get votes. No matter which group of nitwits is in charge, the ruling institutions become ever more centralized and heavy handed, and place them selves more and more above the law.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

So, because the small government tea party people are less likely to achive all their goals they shouldn't try for them? Would you say the same for those advocatimg for single payor health care?

[TrackerNeil]

Things are looking up for Barbara Boxer. Not that I'm a huge fan of hers, but if she can keep us above that magic 50...

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Obama has descended into evil that even Bush wouldn't stoop to.

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

Fuck this guy. Fuck his supporters. Fuck the candy-ass congress who hasn't held a president to account in 50 years. This is why I don't vote. I'm glad my conscience isn't stained by giving him my approval.

[Shryke]

Yes, instead your conscience is stained by doing nothing about it and just letting it happen.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

Into which category you fall: do you a) disbelieve the report this is actually what's happening, b) support what Obama's doing, c) work to undermine the Obama administration, at least in this one area, or d) stain your own conscience with inactivity?

[Altherion]

Obama has descended into evil that even Bush wouldn't stoop to.

This was inevitable. Our legal system was not designed to deal with individuals who threaten us from outside of the jurisdiction of the US. Bush and now Obama have worked around this by expanding the power of the executive branch. It is worrying, but only slightly -- I'd only be really worried if he orders such an assassination on US soil.

Yes, instead your conscience is stained by doing nothing about it and just letting it happen.

To be fair, Tormund has consistently spoken against this and similar executive power grabs. Since the Democrats and Republicans agree on this, there is not much else that he can do.