meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Echo North]

Have you checked out the libertarian platform?  It's actually seems down your ally.  It's like an old school republican before the rise of the christian right.

Small government, low/no taxes, cut most spending, leave our personal life alone.  Basically personal freedom, small government.

 

[jsteiger]

Today's government including BO are the opposite of "small government". Remember, this is the same arrogant ass that said Bush 2 was "unpatriotic" for the deficit that was added under Bush's watch. Then, low and behold, BO's 1st term makes Bush look like he was shopping and the dollar store.

 

[Echo North]

Today's government including BO are the opposite of "small government". Remember, this is the same arrogant ass that said Bush 2 was "unpatriotic" for the deficit that was added under Bush's watch. Then, low and behold, BO's 1st term makes Bush look like he was shopping and the dollar store.

I'm talking about the libertarian party.  They are definitely the complete opposite of democrats (especially fiscally).  They are exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Meathands]

On the subject, I could also not care if 2 dudes or 2 ladies wanna get hitched. More power to them. I am more concerned that they are functioning, contributing US citizens and not freeloaders. I do not have a problem taking care of those who are disabled and others who cannot care for themselves. I have a MAJOR issue with lazing, non-contributing leaches who choose not to work and live off of government programs that the rest of us pay for.

Here's where I get lost again in the current Republican thinking. Making government smaller and less expensive are admirable aims and good reasons to align yourself with conservatives. But I sense a lack of seriousness when the Republican nominee's position on the most expensive arm of government, defense, is to *increase* spending.

Welfare spending is a problem. Defense spending is a bigger problem. We want to fix the deficit, so we should start with the bigger problems. What am I missing?

Different point, but when I look around at the "makers and takers" culture war I'm not sure it's clear which is which.

 

[jsteiger]

Oops, my bad. Yes but they unfortunately do not have a chance of getting elected prez so I must tip to the right.

 

[JohnRoberts]

While young single women supported Obama, older married women did not buy into the "warfare against women" screed put out by the left. This is not even the worst one of the several rather derogatory mischaracterizations of the right by the left. 

Why is "the war on women" a mischaracterization? I ask this question in all honesty because I am aware of living in something close to a liberal, feminist echo-chamber. Here's why I ask: Didn't the platform approved at the GOP convention include making abortion illegal with no rape exception? Haven't we heard numerous Republican politicians sound off about rape in ways that came off as deeply unsympathetic to victims recently? Wasn't part of Romney's platform to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood? Let's posit a woman, young or old, who believes in reproductive rights and holds conservative values. Where does she find a place in the Republican party?

I am speaking more for my personal definitions. I consider myself a republican while i don't embrace every convention platform or the extremes of primary wrangling. One reason most of us could never practice politics is how you must adjust your message for different audiences to jump through all the different hurdles to even get to the general election

Look at the primary process... Romney had to position himself to the right of Atilla the hun, to win the primary process, then veer back hard to the center for the general election. Obama has the luxury of no primary race, so he could talk like a moderate, even while not walking the walk.

The democrats very effectively compared the primary version of Romney to the general election version of Romney, arguing that the primary version was the real one. Anyone who has paid an ounce of attention to how he governed in MA knows better.

Of course this raises questions about all politicians but we get what we vote for and "we" force them through these gauntlets.

=====

I will not defend the most extreme positions offered by any Republican, and contrary to the talking heads Donald Trump does not represent mainstream republican philosophy, He is a clown hungry for any publicity because he makes money from that, promoting his TV shows and other business ventures.

In my judgement women have the right to do whatever they want to their body as long as they don't harm another person. Where life begins is a difficult call, and I don't accept that a zygote qualifies as sentient life, but at some point that baby is a being. I am not smart enough to draw that fine line where life begins.

I think the real heated argument is not about what a woman can do to her own body or her child, but whether I should be forced to pay with my tax dollars for Sandra Flock's free birth control.  I don't much care about her personal sexual behavior, but why is it my problem to pay for her personal choices.  I am not catholic, or religious, but respect their right to not be forced to pay for things clearly against their beliefs. It is even written in our constitution that church and state are kept separate.

I have no beef with planned parenthood doing what they do, but again why does this need to be funded by taxpayers. 

I lean more libertarian than republican about most matters, while the libertarians are not serious enough about actually getting elected. So being a republican is a lesser worse choice. Voting for somebody with no chance of getting elected is a wasted effort.

Do not judge all republicans by the screaming weenies, and I will try not to judge all democrats by their more extreme elements.

On this subject, I am more than a little disappointed how modern culture and practices is giving us so many children growing up without a two parent family. Less free birth control is not going to help that, but we have some serious shortcomings in moral direction, and I don't see much good leadership there.

I am not sure how to fix this, this is failure by our schools, parenting, and modern culture. This can't be fixed by law makers waving their arms. I cringe at the thought of Sandra Flock being the new role model for young girls. While maybe I'd like to date her if I was college age.

Sorry about the veer,,, This election is over, so time to regroup and adjust. I am soon to be in the minority (old grumpy white guy).

It is the nature of politics to change the subject when the incumbent has a bad record, and this is one of several such feints. This is far from a new argument, and not the most important for the next 4 years...

I rank the important issues as employment, spending, and business climate.  After we restart the furnace, and fix the broken windows, then we can worry about the weeds in the garden. I thought Romney was the best man to restart that furnace. I was out voted, so I expect we will get more of what we were getting before.

JR

 

[Meathands]

I rank the important issues as employment, spending, and business climate.  After we restart the furnace, and fix the broken windows, then we can worry about the weeds in the garden. I thought Romney was the best man to restart that furnace. I was out voted, so I expect we will get more of what we were getting before.

Thanks for your answer, John. In regards to the "furnace," I 'm interested in your analysis of how the conservative approach of lowering taxes on the "job makers" creates more jobs. In theory I can see it: more capital means more grown means more jobs. In practice I think we've seen that capital is not an unqualified good per se. More capital encourages risky investments in search of higher returns.

 

[Gold]

The democrats very effectively compared the primary version of Romney to the general election version of Romney, arguing that the primary version was the real one. Anyone who has paid an ounce of attention to how he governed in MA knows better.

The problem I had with Romney is that it was pretty unclear what he would do or how he would behave. He is easily pushed around. He managed to piss off the English. Amazing!

He had little grasp of foreign policy. Romney surrounded himself with the same idiot neo cons that got us into an unnecessary war and generally like to stir up trouble. There are plenty of rational conservative foreign policy people around and he chose the worst people. I don't think Romney ever went to see the troops in Afghanistan. A Democrat couldn't get away with that.

Romney saw everything as a management problem. Please the constituents and the problem is solved. That is only half the political equation. You need to have an internal direction that people can grasp.

 

[abechap024]

I think Obama is a smooth talker, says all the right things. That is his job, that's what he is good at.
Romney did come off as a little bit of a firecracker. He is a Doer, he gets things done and has experience fixing and managing buisnesses, Don't forget the SLC Olympics. I was really interested on seeing what Romney could do.

But when the day is over, being Prez is a 24/7 job that I'm sure Romney has some relief and Obama has some regret about. I just hope that whoever runs this country can make the right choices...not have us pay for anyones personal choices, and not over inflating the economy to keep it falsely chugging along for a few more years till they are out of office.

I think Obama "should" do just fine.

 

[Echo North]

I think Obama is a smooth talker, says all the right things. That is his job, that's what he is good at.
Romney did come off as a little bit of a firecracker. He is a Doer, he gets things done and has experience fixing and managing buisnesses, Don't forget the SLC Olympics. I was really interested on seeing what Romney could do.

But when the day is over, being Prez is a 24/7 job that I'm sure Romney has some relief and Obama has some regret about. I just hope that whoever runs this country can make the right choices...not have us pay for anyones personal choices, and not over inflating the economy to keep it falsely chugging along for a few more years till they are out of office.

I think Obama "should" do just fine.

I actually have some faith that the republican congress and president will come to a budget compromise in the next year or so that will avoid disaster.  Note that I said "avoid disaster" not fix anything.

They came really close recently but both pulled out expecting the other to be booted out this election.  Now they know they are stuck with one another (probably for 4 years) and neither want to look like they are the reason we can't pass a budget.

Also note that they don't need to sort it out before the Jan 1 "fiscal cliff".  They just need to show investors that they will likey work something out sometime in 2013.

We shall see.

I'm smooth talker BTW.

 

[Gold]

Don't forget the SLC Olympics.

By all accounts he did a good job. The $400 million federal government bailout helped make his job go smoothly.

 

[pucho812]

what gets me is people going "Obama can finish what he started" But when I ask them what that is(what he is finishing or what he started), they never have an answer.  I'll ask people I know who voted for him why, and they can never point to one thing in the past 4 years he did or failed to do.  Not even the highly news grabbing attention things. But they can tell me how he is good for the country. I don't understand how people can vote without at least looking at some of the issues major or minor.  I also can't understand fanatics on either side,how they ignore what is going on in support of their side/party. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rX-GAkaXSSI

 

[Rochey]

saw an awesome tweet from Chris Rock during the debates that might give you some ideas...

"Joe Biden is at home shirtless, drinking a MGD Draft saying to the TV, 'Osama Bin Laden is Dead, General Motors is Alive'"

That's two good things?

 

[living sounds]

If it wasn't for the gerrymandering Democrats should have taken the house, since they got a majority of votes for house seats, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html

The real problem is the flawed system, primaries serve to get the craziest fringe candiates on the ballot, politicians in safe disctricts can do what they want and with the winner-takes-it-all system you only get two choices. If you think more along the Libertarian or Green party you cannot vote for them, since it will be wasted.

I don't see how this is going to change anytime soon, of course...


Now as for the deficit, it should be clear that a lot of the spending was necessary to prevent a depression. Compare that to the irresponsibility of Bush, who put two wars on the bill while lowering taxes. And Romneys math similarly just didn't add up, it was blatantly obvious.


But where does this idea that there is a big proportion of the population who just want "free stuff" come from? And how is it, that the ones actually receiving most of the aid money, Rednecks in poor southern states, vote reliably for the party of "small government"? It's all pretty amazing to me...

 

[JohnRoberts]

The democrats very effectively compared the primary version of Romney to the general election version of Romney, arguing that the primary version was the real one. Anyone who has paid an ounce of attention to how he governed in MA knows better.

The problem I had with Romney is that it was pretty unclear what he would do or how he would behave.

He actually addressed that in one of the debates. He can't give a detailed plan with exact specifics because that isn't what leaders do. He defines the direction and the desired result then instructs congress to work out the details (I think in his explanation he was describing how he passed legislation in MA as governor). Of course he gets involved to break up logjams and keep the dialog going, but deliberation and negotiation is done by the congress.

The broken record of negatives campaign attacks that he either A) didn't present enough details, or B) changed what he said he was going to do is just political posturing trying to lock him done on something they can sling mud at. There is a reason hard deliberation and negotiation is done by congress mostly in committee. If it was easy it would already be done.

For example, fixing the tax code, sounds like it need to revisit shutting down some tax breaks. Providing a shopping list of the deductions that could be reduced or removed would be a sh__ magnet for the entire list of interest groups to campaign against him. That stuff has to be negotiated by adults calmly and quietly, not in dueling press conferences like today when Obama promised to veto any bill to fix the expiring tax cut legislation that doesn't raise taxes on >$250k (new boss same as the old boss). 

Ironically the money raised by this little piece of class warfare will fund the government for days if that.

He is easily pushed around. He managed to piss off the English. Amazing!

Lets not forget the power of a left leaning press that was gunning for him. While he did not get the wet kiss he expected, he made the mistake of repeating some news about security issues (that had been widely reported) and they took it as if he pissed on the union jack. Clearly a miscalculation.

He was welcomed in his following stop in Poland where he received an endorsement from Lech Walesa (google him of you don't recognize the name). Then he went on to Israel and met with the leadership there promising support against their enemies.

Be careful about your new sources. In recent years they have become less reliable, especially in matters of politics. For one year back in the '70s I read three daily newspapers, (NYT, WSJ, and Wash Post), so I could learn the differences between how they presented the news. Every news source has some bias, but TV news nowadays is just crap.

He had little grasp of foreign policy. Romney surrounded himself with the same idiot neo cons that got us into an unnecessary war and generally like to stir up trouble.

Wow... he seems to have a pretty good grasp from where I sit. I and many others are disappointed that he gave Obama a pass on the Benghazi cover up in the third debate. Now that the election is over the administration continues to dance around providing more information. Coincidentally Patreus (now head of the CIA) just resigned, but that was supposedly because he stuck his pen in the wrong inkwell.  I kind of prefer the more laid back european philosophy to dismiss taking a mistress and not making marital fidelity a job requirements for public service. 

There are plenty of rational conservative foreign policy people around and he chose the worst people. I don't think Romney ever went to see the troops in Afghanistan. A Democrat couldn't get away with that.

Many do.. Obama gave a speech in Berlin before his 2008 run.

I watch some news programs from the middle east (Link TV) and I recall getting really pissed off hearing about Bill Clinton speaking at some international business meeting in Lebanon or somewhere like that, criticizing the Bush administration. In fact I think that is probably against some law, but an ex-president is not going to get reprimanded. Carter is mostly ignored as he runs around the world trying to fix it. 

Romney saw everything as a management problem. Please the constituents and the problem is solved. That is only half the political equation. You need to have an internal direction that people can grasp.

Our current economic malaise is exactly a management problem. The american business community does not even know what tax rates will be less that two months from now.  Ho can they plan for a future when they do not know what their costs will be?

One good thing and I mentioned this before the election, one way or the other business will have a little more certainty. Unfortunately we got the other way, but now business can plan that they will get Obamacare, while the cost of that is still a little fuzzy, they can count on it being higher. 

JR

 

[pucho812]

If it wasn't for the gerrymandering Democrats should have taken the house, since they got a majority of votes for house seats, too.

Funny how one sides cries foul when both sides have been known to do it.

I find it most unsettling that the current news media is discussing the events as if it was a poorly executed foot ball play.

 

[living sounds]

Funny how one sides cries foul when both sides have been known to do it.

I find it most unsettling that the current news media is discussing the events as if it was a poorly executed foot ball play.

No foul, just another problem in the system that needs fixing (but probably won't be fixed anytime soon).

 

[Echo North]

If it wasn't for the gerrymandering Democrats should have taken the house, since they got a majority of votes for house seats, too.

Funny how one sides cries foul when both sides have been known to do it.

I find it most unsettling that the current news media is discussing the events as if it was a poorly executed foot ball play.

EVERYTHING about the current corporate news media is unsettling.  No matter what side of the debate you are on.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I rank the important issues as employment, spending, and business climate.  After we restart the furnace, and fix the broken windows, then we can worry about the weeds in the garden. I thought Romney was the best man to restart that furnace. I was out voted, so I expect we will get more of what we were getting before.

Thanks for your answer, John. In regards to the "furnace," I 'm interested in your analysis of how the conservative approach of lowering taxes on the "job makers" creates more jobs. In theory I can see it: more capital means more grown means more jobs.

Yes, it is that simple, but iIMO this class warfare "raise taxes on the top earners" is not the largest problem but mostly partisan raw meat to keep the base stirred up.  Removing capital from small business will lead to fewer small business jobs obviously. Big business is sitting on tons of earnings that they are just unwilling to commit until they understand what the future business environment will look like. Big business is sitting on even more capital being held offshore to avoid US taxes. If the US tax policy was made more like other countries, this capital could be freed up to return to the US and create more business activity (jobs) here.

The business climate coming from government is too adversarial. I don't want more crony capitalism with business in bed with government, we already have too much of that, albeit failing solar cell and battery companies, but it shouldn't be open warfare with business. Business is not the bad guy or the problem. Government needs to stop treating them that way. 

Other things leading to business indecision and the slow economic recovery, is the pile of legislation rushed through between 2008-2010 when the democrats had their super-duper majority. But lots of major legislation was not passed fully defined, where they left the rules to be defined later by the bureaucracy (am I the only one scared by that?). I heard one banking executive today trying to make an optimistic point about housing saying that he expected mortgage lending to increase (helping house sales) when Dodd-Frank rules are finally finished.  That bill was passed a long time ago and the banks still don't have the rules.

In practice I think we've seen that capital is not an unqualified good per se. More capital encourages risky investments in search of higher returns.

Capital is the mother's milk of business. Too much capital is never a bad thing (ask China). What drives risky behavior is distorted returns on capital. Since capital pursues return. The unnaturally low interest rates caused by Bernanke trying to fix the entire economy using his only tool (money supply) means fixed income investors need to chase return in riskier places.

Bernanke is a smart guy, and studied the real depression in college. he is apprehensive about removing the accommodation too soon, like they did that time and also fearful of deflation like happened to the Japanese in the '90s. So far he has managed to keep us out of the deflation spiral (where people stop spending expecting lower future prices, causing even lower assets values and economic collapse), Bernanke isn't getting much help on the fiscal side from lawmakers, and chief executive. I recall at the last congressional review of the fed and Bernanke, Sen Schumer had the unmitigated gall to tell Bernanke to "get to work"... damn...  Bernanke is pedaling as fast as he can but only has one tool in his kit, he can't stop the deficit spending by congress too.

JR

PS: Another dangerous distortion is too easy credit or borrowing. We are still digging out of the hole we created with too easy mortgage loans, that created the housing bubble and collapse when the easy lending stopped. Right now our very cheap government debt cost is a tender trap that will not always be this cheap or easy ($!6T and climbing).

PPS: One encouraging thing and I am not sure how this will play out, but private economy business leaders have come together to try to pressure congress and the administration to resolve these pending tax law expirations and threat of sequestration. I do not know if they will have much influence, but they are trying for the obvious win-win if the economy avoids another leg down.

 

[Adam Smith]

TV wasn't vagina dentata a police album?

No, no ... and no.

It was "Vaginyatta Dentatta".

A completelly different animal.

"It's like the difference between an elephant and an elephant seal"