U.S. Politics, 12

[The Progressive]

Clearly SYM is grudgingly admitting that the stimulus has worked.

[Swordfish]

Ah . . . the ol' insinuation that I don't actually have my own business. It's a common thing on the internet when one person claims any sort of success for others to accuse them of lying, either out of jealousy or because they honestly don't believe them (this last is reasonable, given the nature of online discussions).

It's also a very common internet thing for them to be right.

I don't know if you know this or not, but people do a lot of lying on the ole interwebs.

Not saying that's you, I have no idea what this whole kerfluffle is even about, and I don't really care if you have your own business or not.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

They've been spending money "they don't actually have" or whatever ridiculous turn of phrase you wanna use for decades now. The government doesn't work the way you keep implying.

The money never came directly from you and thus will never return directly to you. It came out of the government's budget and then came right back to the government's budget and that's it. Since it got paid back, there is no net effect on you (beyond, of course, what TARP accomplished).

Your tax rate didn't go up, no one came to your house to collect your money, nothing. Thus nothing will happen to you again when it's paid back.

The spending power of all the money in my bank went down to pay for it. When it was payed back the spending power of my dollar didn't go back up. Even Bernanke agrees that inflation is a tax.

This is a digression from the actual argument though, which is that the president is uninterested in income-equality (as though such a thing can be achieved legislatively).

ETA: I'm firing 37 people because the Republicans won control of the house. It's ok though, because I'm hiring 12088 because Ron Paul got the subcommittee chair.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think keeping the Senate for a while is totally possible for the Dems (though it could go either way) whereas getting the House back is going to be really hard. I won't be surprised if the GOP holds the House for a long time.

Holding the Senate will be very tough for the Democrats in both 2012 and 2014. The House is a different story: unless the Democrats find themselves utterly screwed by gerrymandering, there are a whole bunch of seats in the North-East and Mid-West that went Republican in 2010 that will fall back to the Democratic column in any normal year. Any Democratic regaining of the House will not be of the 250+ majority sort, since there are a number of seats (especially the South) that won't swing back, but a smallish majority is certainly attainable in 2012.

[ThinkerX]

Like I said in another thread here:

Welcome to the New USA, where two grand a month take home is considered to be doing dang good for 80% of the populace - and for many folks $1200 - $1500 a month is closer to the mark.

What does that two grand a month get you?

A house - maybe, if its modest one, in a non bubble area (otherwise, just mail in the keys and find a rock to sleep under somewhere).

How about a new car? Maybe, if you get a good deal - but more likely you'll be cruising around in that $1600 special with the not so hot brakes and weird electrical problem.

Could you do both? Probably not - not unless you got dang good deals with both the house and the car, and maybe gave up eating anything but pancakes and/or top ramen.

Health Insurance? Now your really screwed - even renting an el cheapo apartment somewhere and driving a clunker on its last legs won't give you the money to buy into this at all - so instead you get to fork over money you *really* cannot afford to spend to the IRS AND pay for your medical costs out of pocket. And that ain't gunna change.

Meanwhile, you get to sit back, watch one business after another shut down, while wall street tycoons hand themselves one insane bonus after another and exactly *NOBODY* is looking out for *YOU* in DC. And meanwhile, the debt situation and economic situation is getting to be so insane we are literally just a procedural vote away from things getting much, much worse.

Welcome to the new USA - and yes, if this isn't you already, it will be soon.

[Cuellar]

Obama is a smart political animal. I think he realized too late that he was fucked in 2010. I forsee 2 years of him working to win the White House, and you'll see a level of political asshattery in Washington that will force the populate back to the left.

Simply put, the party of No can't keep saying no after they win... and they're hobbled with control of 1 chamber and no presidency. The markets went up because they realize that jack shit is going to happen in Washington for the next 2 years... and business people LIKE jack shit happening in Washington.

On a side note, California swung back to hardcore Democrat. Not suprising, Brown seems a fiscal moderate social liberal, just like the Terminator. Hopefully since he's a democrat, and the budget rules have changed, he can actually balance the budget and stop the state government from bleeding.

[alguien]

Ah . . . the ol' insinuation that I don't actually have my own business. It's a common thing on the internet when one person claims any sort of success for others to accuse them of lying, either out of jealousy or because they honestly don't believe them (this last is reasonable, given the nature of online discussions). I've actually downplayed things for this very reason. I am a highly in demand web and graphic designer who has built an impressive portfolio through long years of hard work. I have the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs I take, and I command a very high retaining fee that clients are willing to pay.

Odd. When I can't do layout myself, I get to choose what designers we hire where I work, and they're some pretty respectable ones.

No designer I know would have the attitude you're professing above. Especially in this economy. They long ago would have hired a team to take ANY job, just to bring in work.

[Old Nan]

Meanwhile, you get to sit back, watch one business after another shut down, while wall street tycoons hand themselves one insane bonus after another and exactly *NOBODY* is looking out for *YOU* in DC.

That's the way the world works, has always worked, and shall always work. If it takes a Republican victory to make people realize that they're the only ones who can be relied on to take care of themselves, why, you should consider a Republican victory a good thing.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

OK, I did not follow this one ballot measure as closely as I should have, but did we not also eliminate that need for a 2/3 majority to get anything changed in the state legislature? Shouldn't that make Brown's job a little bit more feasible than it otherwise would have been?

I don't think so. Prop 25 removed the 2/3rds majority for the budget and certain other spending-related measures. Prop 26 added a 2/3rds majority requirement for certain state and local taxes and fees to be enacted.

Those, I think, are the only related propositions to actually make it to the ballot. It could be that some others were considered but not included, though.

[Shryke]

The spending power of all the money in my bank went down to pay for it. When it was payed back the spending power of my dollar didn't go back up. Even Bernanke agrees that inflation is a tax.

Inflation isn't a tax. Inflation simply shifts value from savings to spending. The money in your bank is always losing purchasing power anyway since we all try to maintain a low rate of inflation.

And inflation went down anyway. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Inflation-CPI.aspx?Symbol=USD

So really .... what are you talking about here?

This is a digression from the actual argument though, which is that the president is uninterested in income-equality (as though such a thing can be achieved legislatively).

How was this ever the point and what does this have to do with anything we've talked about?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Inflation isn't a tax. Inflation simply shifts value from savings to spending. The money in your bank is always losing purchasing power anyway since we all try to maintain a low rate of inflation.

And inflation went down anyway. http://www.tradingec...aspx?Symbol=USD

So really .... what are you talking about here?

How was this ever the point and what does this have to do with anything we've talked about?

Re-read my original post right here.

[lokisnow]

I agree, Reid is little better than a republican due to his cowardice and lack of spine.

Isn't Harry Reid still in charge of the Senate? He has no intestinal fortitude at all. He cant wait to roll over for Boehner. It will be left to Obama to veto the crap that the GOP comes up with and he will painted as the obstructionist to "real progress in America".

But this quote makes me want to go to a political rally with a sign that says, "There's nothing Reid likes better than a Boehner inside" Or maybe just a picture of Reid with the caption, "Boehner inside"

[Shryke]

Uh huh, Ron Paul ranting about shit he doesn't understand. Inflation is not a tax and, more to the point, INFLATION WENT DOWN ANYWAY.

Saying "inflation is a tax" has nothing to do with the fact that TARP didn't make Inflation go up anyway

Re-read my original post right here.

I did. It still has nothing to do "income equality" (whatever the hell that means).

TARP has nothing to do with income inequality and your attempt to link it to rising inflation is just nonsensical.

[Crazydog7]

As Mr. Carlin used to say, Good Luck America.

This is not about anyone on this thread but about conversations I've been having on Facebook. Firstly no one is a stalwart of constitutional government I know what they say in their rhetoric and true it is fine talk but that is all it is. Secondly don't prance around like you single handly defeated Obama's reelection bid, unless by some miracle the man grows a spine its a moot point anyway.

You cannot say that you are going to bring sanity back to government "or take the country back" or a "Teaparty tide is rising" and then come out and say "Ok our goal for the next two years is to spit in Obama's eye and make sure he isn't reelected."

WTF? (Say I) You guys wanted a chance at leadership? For the love of God take it, if you can hold onto it.

Say they-Well yes but our job now is stop Obumer from passing his Socalistic Agenda. Once we have the White House back we will in a posiiton to push forward real change.

Mother God this is driving me crazy. Thats it, I've had it. Corrupt systems perpetuate themselves. End of fucking story. I'm done debating "Socialized Medicine" as well. I am in favor of Socialized Medicine because with a preexisting condition even with the new so called "reforms" I can't buy my own health health insurance.

And I've seen this many times I'll sit someone down and rationally explain my position and they'll nod their head politely and say something to the effect of "Any system has flaws but I'm sure once market forces take over blah blah blah blah"

So hey I know where the GOP is coming from on this I wish them the best of luck but like the release date of Dance With Dragons the fine promises of a freshmen class never seem to materialize.

[Artas]

That's the way the world works, has always worked, and shall always work. If it takes a Republican victory to make people realize that they're the only ones who can be relied on to take care of themselves, why, you should consider a Republican victory a good thing.

What is a government for, if not to look out for the interests of its citizens?

[Crazydog7]

What is a government for, if not to look out for the interests of its citizens?

Looking out for its own interests.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Artas,

What is a government for, if not to look out for the interests of its citizens?

No one is arguing Government shouldn't look out for the interests of its citizens. The argument is the scope of interests that it is appropriate (and by appropriate I mean Constitutional and legal under out system) for the Federal Government in the U.S. to have an interest in the first place.

For example many would argue that the U.S. Federal Government lacks the power to tell people they may not grow and sell marijuana on their own land (so long as the marijuana does not leave the State where it is grown). However, the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Wickard v. Filburn case has held that the U.S. Government has the power to regulate any activity that "affects interstate commerce" whether the individual who actions are to be regulated sold something that then traveled across State lines or not; or even grew something that was then not sold or placed in the "stream of commerce". Which is why even if Prop 19 had passed in California marijuana usage, production, and sale would have remained a federal crime.

I my and many other's opinion, attempting to say that is within the scope of the Federal power to regulate "interstate commerce" is absurd. Equally absurd, in our opinion, is claiming that the Federal Government has the power to sanction individuals for sitting on our couches and not purchasing something, like oh say health insurance.

You might say the mandates are simply taxes, as the Justice Department has attempted to argue. Well, Pres. Obama rejected that argument pretty explicitly in an interview with George Stephanopolis last year and the two Federal Courts (one in Florida and one in Michigan) that have heard Constitutional challenges to the new Health Care Reform act have also rejected the argument that the mandates are taxes because of the way the debate was framed during the fight to get the AHA passed. The only thing left after the tax argument is rejected to couch the power for the mandate is the "interstate commerce clause".

In other words I do understand the argument that Health Insurance mandates and laws against Marijuana usage are, in the opinion of some, serving the interests of the American Public. However, I reject the idea that the U.S. Federal government has the power to take the actions it currently takes under the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution and that is the crux of the argument we are having over Federal Government power.

[Old Zog]

In other words I do understand the argument that Health Insurance mandates and laws against Marijuana usage are, in the opinion of some, serving the interests of the American Public. However, I reject the idea that the U.S. Federal government has the power to take the actions it currently takes under the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution and that is the crux of the argument we are having over Federal Government power.

Scot-

That's the crux of the argument you're having over federal government power, but I don't think that's true for others. Most arguments about the health care act seem to me to be about whether it's good policy. And most of us don't have the background to argue constitutionality anyway.

On the local level, I'm happy with the results in California. It's "put up or shut up time" now for the Democrats, though. For years we could point to "obstructionist" Republicans in the state legislature and the silly need for a two-thirds majority to pass a state budget. Going forward, that rule no longer holds, so Democrats have all the control. (*)

(*) It still takes a two-thirds majority to raise taxes (and now fees) so "control" in this case means "control over what spending to cut".

[Artas]

Looking out for its own interests.

No it's not. You might argue that's what it's doing in practice (and I think you'd be wrong, up to a point), but it's certainly not its purpose.

[Guest Raidne]

...my hiring more is a way of sending a message that things are on the right track. The message will be sent on the national level by contributing to lower unemployment numbers, and on a more personal level when I make it well known that I'm hiring precisely because the left's agenda is being stuffed. "The Republicans won and now I have a job!" will be repeated time and again in the coming months, I hope.

*spits out coffee, laughs ass off* So...how does stuff like this work out with the traditional free market assumption that we are all rational actors. Ha!

You, sir, are a market inefficiency. Any conservative with integrity would have to find that kind of manipulation to be...what...I believe Ayn Rand would call it "immoral."

By the way, I believe that you own your own business. There would have been a time would people might have held that up as something to brag about - and that was great - but not anymore, unless they are planning on selling it or taking it public.

So, can I ask what you pay for health care, currently?