patrick.net

I'm Independent, but the Current incarnation of Liberals running around wearing the Democrat hat, will have me voting Republican if that's the only choice.

Even Perry as bad of a choice he sounds, he's not Obama.

Kind of like Obama wasn't Bush.

It would be nice if the Democrat party would own up to the huge steaming pile of Shit that is in the oval office right now and actively work to replace him with a suitable candidate.
Though honestly, I can't think of one single Liberal I would support right now. They are all a gaggle of Jackals.

Truthplease says

Never before has the debt ceiling been tied to the budget or debt.

Never before? Are you serious? As just one simple example, perhaps you should look up the debt limit vote in 2006 and read what Sen. Obama had to say when he voted against it. His words were absolutely true then, and apply even more now. So if you want to the "truth please," you'll at the very least accept that your "never before" assumption is simply false. And by definition, the debt ceiling is tied to the debt. That is why there is a vote on it every time.

We have budgets that have been passed that need to be paid and were passed by congress.

Yes, and the partisan voting patterns on both sides is pretty clear to see.

When George Bush doubled the national Debt from 5.7 to 11 trillion, where were the Republican's outcry then?

A valid question then, which is why conservatives were not particularly happy with Bush's quite un-conservative fiscal policies, nor Republican support of them, and part of why Republicans were trounced in 2006 and 2008.

Not a valid question now, because the new breed of Republican, i.e., the anti-spending "Tea Party" type, was not in office back then. If they fail to live up to their promises, as Democrats including Obama are trying to force them to do (e.g., via the alleged "Jobs Act") then your question may be valid in the future.

You're in a tough spot. You want the truth and you don't like the Republicans for many real reasons (and some not-real ones like the "never before" comment), yet you can't claim by any basis at all that the Dems are any better.

Paralithodes says

So if you want to the "truth please," you'll at the very least accept that your "never before" assumption is simply false. And by definition, the debt ceiling is tied to the debt. That is why there is a vote on it every time.

I will have to do some more research on that. The simple man arguement in me just doesn't understand this. If you vote for a budget and that budget has to increase the debt ceiling, why are they grandstanding on the debt ceiling?

Paralithodes says

yet you can't claim by any basis at all that the Dems are any better.

Yes, that is my problem right now. The right is much too radicalized for me to be comfortable with. The Dems are a pill much easier to swallow. I may have to go independent on this vote. Obama promised a lot but doesn't seem to have the fortitude to follow through. GITMO, Troop Levels, I would have expected some Bankers indicted, people need to be fired, etc...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/debt-ceiling-limits-through-the-ages/

Okay, I concede that statement about the budget and debt ceiling. I am still working on my full grasp on that subject. How do you write a budget that you know will break the debt ceiling and then argue about raising the debt ceiling at a later date? It doesn't make sense to me right now even after reading some articles on it. There are too many partisan opinions in these articles.

I grew up in a split household ( 50-50 Republican/Democrat) in a very rural, very conservative part of the country. I've lived for 12 years in the Bay Area- the total opposite. I always felt that my family was fairly respectful with political discussions and often we had intelligent, meaningful debates. I'd say when I was younger I could've voted either way. For the past 10 years the choice has become easier and now its to the point where I pretty much vote Democratic because I- just Truthplease thinks the Republican Party has gone wayyyy too far to the right. 90% of what they publicly discuss has nothing to do with politics and has increasingly turned towards socially conservative issues. This has no real value in regards to running a country.

The sad part about all this is that a huge number of people who vote do so because they're totally wrapped up in the " Us against them" game and are keeping the blinders firmly on. They won't vote for such and such cause' they're either a liberal or conservative- nevermind having any intelligent discussion. I also feel that a lot of people simply don't really understand much of anything economically or globally. Thus its easy to simply play the " Us versus them" game.

shrekgrinch says

Truthplease --

Your entire piece just shows that you aren't a real Republican...and as far as I can tell..never were one.

His post sounds like the same reasoning my Dad used, who forever voted Republican and has since switched. Why? Because he also doesn't like the right-wing crap going on in the party. The reason he didn't vote for Mcain was because of Palin. There are MANY people like my Dad- people who are moderate, fiscally responsible yet socially progressive who have switched.

If I were a die-hard Republican I would be paying close attention to this. Its clear that the Republican party has decided to focus on an increasingly concentrated, specific demographic and if the continue to insist on going down the road they're on they will lose more and more constituents.

edvard2 says

The reason he didn't vote for Mcain was because of Palin.

Yep, that was unbelievable for me as well.

shrekgrinch says

As for me, the Republican Party has finally started to become something I want it to be.

Well Shrekgrinch, I don't like your republican party at this moment. It has been hijacked by extremists. The quicker the POTUS learns to shape the republicans into that light, then it is down hill for them.

Ughhh, this election season is going to be brutal. Buy stock in Mud!

edvard2 says

If I were a die-hard Republican I would be paying close attention to this. Its clear that the Republican party has decided to focus on an increasingly concentrated, specific demographic and if the continue to insist on going down the road they're on they will lose more and more constituents.

Right, that's the part that some people are missing. Each of the two main political parties in this country has always been a coalition of different constituents. When you cater to teabaggers, you can alienate moderates and independents and people who aren't social conservatives, just like when you cater to the socialist left, you can also alienate moderates and independents and people who are socially liberal. Short of forming third parties that cleave off portions of the major parties (and are not just fringe parties, as now), this will always be the case.

In addition, lots of people forget that social and economics are really two additional axes that have their own spectrums, although we often conflate the two.

Before we started calling 52-48 elections "blue" and "red", there was better recognition of this, but trying to make things absolutist often hides the truth.

shrekgrinch says

"Death to RINOs!

Yeah, that's great Shrek. So we hijack a good Republican party and injected some Tea into it. Yeah, call me a RINO when the party has changed dramatically since the inception of the Tea Party. Now the party is so far Right, they are the only ones with the right answers, and by gone they are not wrong because they are RIGHT.

I've considered it, yes. The Republicans don't seem to have any real ideas for making things better. They just hate Obama. Sort of like how in 2004 the Democrats didn't have any real ideas, they just hated Bush.

At some point "us against them" is just a blood sport. It's great for getting ratings for the news media, but doesn't actually fix anything.

THE pivotal event which made me question the conservative "free market" rehtoric was the bank bailouts. Sorry, but "too big to fail" isn't free market capitalism...it's corporate welfare...i.e. socialism. At least welfare for individuals has some moral justification (we don't want to see people starving and living in boxes), but welfare for Big Business...give me a break.

I could also talk about how Republicans spend spend spend just like Democrats do. Yes, Democrats "tax and spend". But "tax and spend" is more fiscally responsible than "borrow and spend." The national debt exploded under Bush. Bush enacted a huge new Medicare drug entitlement to buy the votes of seniors. Seems that Democrats aren't the only ones to "buy votes". Bush also started two unwinnable wars. I supported those wars in the beginning, not realizing that the world's "lone superpower" forgot how to actually win wars. For all the money we spend on "defence", we don't seem to get much for it.

At any rate, this country is in steep decline. I've actually considered moving to Canada. At least they still have oil, even if it's in tar sand. And they don't have a parasitic financial sector that privatizes the profits and socializes the losses.

Then again, Canada is so cold. Maybe Australia. Hmmm...

shrekgrinch says

As for me, the Republican Party has finally started to become something I want it to be.

That pretty much says it all.

wthrfrk80 says

I could also talk about how Republicans spend spend spend just like Democrats do. Yes, Democrats "tax and spend". But "tax and spend" is more fiscally responsible than "borrow and spend."

Yes. Totally agree. I might vote Democratic but truth be known its not because I believe one party spends more or less than the other. They BOTH spend money like drunken sailors.

wthrfrk80 says

Then again, Canada is so cold. Maybe Australia. Hmmm...

As crazy as it sounds I actually put a little thought into moving to Australia if the election had turned out differently. I have some family there. Only problem: AU has a huge housing bubble and so too does all the other countries I'd care to move to at this point. Seeing as how some of the Republican hopefuls are apparently popular that thought has come up again. Good thing I rent.

edvard2 says

They BOTH spend money like drunken sailors.

Yes, the right answer is *politicians* spend money like drunken sailors. They are constantly trying to get re-elected.

That doesn't mean term limits are the answer -- they tend to make politicians unaccountable. It just means people need to be better engaged and better aware of facts, rather than propaganda.

wthrfrk80 says

Sort of like how in 2004 the Democrats didn't have any real ideas, they just hated Bush.

The Dems still don't have any real ideas.

They're not actively fucking things up like Team Red was last decade, but nobody wants to actually fix things around here any more; I think the 1994 elections disabused politicians from that idea, going forward -- if the electorate wants bullshit, bullshit they shall get.

edvard2 says

Only problem: AU has a huge housing bubble and so too does all the other countries I'd care to move to at this point.

you can avoid the bubble by avoiding the crowded and popular places.

Of course, that's where all the jobs are but if you're an immigrant you'd better plan on brining your own job with you.

Bellingham Bob says

They're not actively fucking things up...

That all depends on which side of the Thumb you reside.

Beside no body actively sets out to screw the pooch, that's why "Unintended Consequences" is such a beautiful coined phrase.
Bad consequences are never intended.

vague bullshit noted.

Bellingham Bob says

you can avoid the bubble by avoiding the crowded and popular places.

Of course, that's where all the jobs are but if you're an immigrant you'd better plan on brining your own job with you.

90% of the country is entirely rural and sparsely populated. Its a totally different dynamic than the US where we have plethoras of cheaper cities in various climates with decent job prospects. That's not exactly the case in AU.

bob2356 says

shrekgrinch says

As for me, the Republican Party has finally started to become something I want it to be.

That pretty much says it all.

Yep, the GOP as been letting the insane run the asylum.

For me the tipping point was W Bush being allowed to serve a second term. After that I have never voted for a Republican for any office. Before that I would vote for Republicans probably about 30% of the time.

wthrfrk80 says

At any rate, this country is in steep decline. I've actually considered moving to Canada.

Don't worry Canada will be warmer in a couple of decades. Just make sure that you move before everyone thinks Canada is a good idea.

shrekgrinch says

The Dems are as fiscally responsible as whore is virginal.

lol. Compared to Republicans, they are.

tatupu70 says

Compared to Republicans, they are.

Debt to GDP:

1977-10-01 0.34
1981-10-01 0.32 (Carter reduced 6%)
1993-07-01 0.66 (Reagan/Bush increased 106%)
2001-07-01 0.56 (Clinton reduced 18%)
2009-07-01 0.86 (Bush increased 35%)
2011-04-01 0.96 (Obama increase thus far 11%)

this "jobs" bill Liberals are parading, is nothing more than a hand out with a dog and pony show. They just want to pick their closest supporters as winners. It's sick and disgusting.

Eric Cantor said it best when he said that we can pass some parts of the bill right away that will help the economy, we don't need to pass it as entire package.

The only all or nothing nuts here are Liberal demagoguery in Democratic party.

Truthplease,
Ok, I'll give you some truth.

You are a Liberal troll, pretending to be a "Republican", to smear the Tea Party. It is obvious that you want to create a misguided conception that Republicans are against the Tea party, to gain support for the Democratic Party.

Liberal troll even with the anonymity of the internet you are too dishonest to show your real purpose and stand up for your true beliefs.

Get out of the closet and stop this charade, remove the costume and the disguise, you are a cross dressing liberal pretending to be what you are not. You are a liberal in dragg!

The truth is that through the last 3 years of the Obama administration, the country has seen how awful and uncaring the Libs are to the the needs of Americans and how worse off our economy is.

You can't claim success of Liberalism or the Democratic party principals, so instead you hide and try to trick and mislead the unweary. I guess in a way your feeble game is really the only strategy left for the Democratic party and their voice the main streem media.

Truth Please, take off the mask !

We are not the REAL owners of our country. The Real owners, The Billionaires, OWN our politicians , OWN the big media companies. They want MORE for themselves and less for everyone else. Democrats? Republicans? Who cares ?? Both parties are OWNED by these people. Do you ever wonder why tens of millions of dollars was funneled into the Obama for President campaign buy the same banks that HATE the supporters of progressive policies, UNLESS they get an exemption from prosecution and they get to walk for their financial crimes.

NOT ONE banker - insider - white collar criminal has been indicted. Even James Carville is complaining that most everything that Democrats support is being dismantled by a few big banks. YESTERDAY Carville asked the President WHY no white collar banking criminals have been prosecuted since his election. NOT ONE...yet Mr President he continues to shoot golf with Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, one of the biggest slimeballs and banksters in the WORLD.

Both elections for parties three years ago, cost in excess of 4 BILLION dollars. How many donations of one dollar make up that kind of money?

Look at Bush and Cheney. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi were promising voters that these war criminals ( Unwarranted attack on Iraq---kidnapping of people and their FAMILY members, wives and children using the word "rendition" so they would be tortured in places like LIBYA....a partner in these crimes of torture and water boarding for the Director of one of the largest NON-COMPETITIVE bid subcontractors in the IRAQ war - HALIBURTON. Thousands of Patriotic Americans dead---fighting for Haliburton?

Are they Republicans? The Republican party may have some strange supporters, but one Republican, President Eisenhower complained about the fraud the waste and the evils of the Military Industrial Complex...with experience of being the Commanding General in Europe During WWII Just because you are a Republican does not mean you support waste fraud and abuse in military OR bank spending and operations.

This sums it ALL : George Carlin on "WHO OWNS AMERICA"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

I vote libertarian when I can. In the last election I attended the GOP primary to support Ron Paul. The primary attendees in my precinct made it clear they felt Ron Paul was a traitor and felt that I was somehow subverting their primary by showing up.

I have always been a fiscal conservative (i.e. that the best government is a small one that does very little), and want to see ALL spending cut (including the military). On the other hand, I am disgusted by the Republican moral agenda (i.e. anti-abortion, pledge of allegiance, anti-immigration, etc).

That said, I have NEVER heard of a democractic candidate I could support. The Republican party at least attracts a handful of people I can get behind (like Ron Paul, for example).

In the end, it is clear to me that for most politicians (in either party) their real objective is nothing other than power and that they are completely absent of principles. This is why BOTH parties spend like drunken sailors and refuse to tackle any issue of real substance. This is why BOTH parties will choose bail-outs than face any short-term economic pain as good as it may be for economic health. It is far easier to whine about gays in the military, abortion, or guns than to actually cut military spending programs or social security. Show me a politician will to abolish social security and I'll show you someone I will vote for.

Investor90, the thing that is shocking to me, and I did't expect is that Obama rules like Bush !
Example: Bush started the bailouts to Wall St. banks... Obama extended and quadrupled the bailouts.

Bush got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan...Obama kept us in Iraq, expanded the forces in Afghanistan and now we are in Libya!

Bush tried to get amnesty for illegal aliens and kept the Mexican border open... So did Obama.

Except for Obamacare (which nobody wants), Obama rules just like Bush.

You are right investor90 the Dems are almost identical to the Rino Republicans. It's no wonder we have dissenters to this madness, it's called the Tea Party!

Tea anyone?

How 'bout a couple lumps?

No, in fact its more the oppsite. While I am a registered republican I have voted fairly independantly over the years. While I voted against him last year, I have voted for Jim Moran (D) VA 8 several times and Jim Webb. I can't fathom, as a renter, ever voting for a democrat again.

I spent 5 of the 8 years that W was president loathing his intellectual short comings, but I never once felt like he and his policies were personally sticking it to me, like I have with the current administration and its cronies.

The one thing I have realized, is that at least the republicans are honest about who they are, I can't say the same for the democrats and the media who maintains their facade as the party of the people.

The name “Tea Party Movement” initially inspired me, a lifelong GOP-er. However, what may have started off being a “Spirit of ‘76”-like call to dismantle liberal economic shackles quickly degenerated into uncompromising right-wing extremism. Three words that could best sway a lifelong GOP-er: BUSH TAX CUTS. Those should have been tossed into the proverbial Boston Harbor long ago.

I spent many years voting Republican and was a registered Republican until the spring of 2008. I voted for Bush in 2000, expecting a traditional, fiscally prudent government; we didn't get that and we did get a full court press to turn this country into a theocracy. So I supported and voted for Kerry in 2004 but that didn't work.

As a country we have paid an enormous price for Bush's eight year in office, first in complete fiscal irresponsibility, where the deficit went from $5.768 Trillion to $10.626 Trillion while the economy was humming and we should have had a surplus. The Bush tax cuts eliminated any surplus. Bush never vetoed any bill for six years and then vetoed one on stem cell research. And Cheney practically ran the House chamber. If tax cuts and reduced regulation will create jobs as the Republicans preach, why did we have a fraudulent-mortgage-fueled housing bubble and why did the entire economy collapse between 2006 and 4Q2008? Where are the jobs that eight Bush years of tax cuts and de-regulation should have created?

Bush also gave us extreme evangelical distortions, e.g., stem cell research stopped, family planning for foreign countries stopped, etc. Bush put uneducated evangelicals into government agencies to review and "correct" what brilliant scientists could write, e.g., evolution must always be a Theory of Evolution, intelligent design should be tought in schools.

In 2008, I liked the old McCain, the one who opposed Bush tax cuts, who criticized the evangelical leadership, and who had reasonable positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, maybe even domestic oil drilling. The old McCain that preferred to get things done; I could easily have voted for him.

But McCain changed his positions to get the support of the right wing evangelicals; he put Palin on the ticket under pressure from those same evangelicals, which eliminated any chance he might win. The Republican Party sell-out to evangelicals is the primary motivation for my Democratic vote. Our country was founded by brilliant men who established our freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion; I will fight against a religious takeover of our government.

As John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” In 2008 the Democrats were the only serious choice; I converted to Democrat to vote for President Obama in the Primary and the General Election. I also contributed time and money to get President Obama elected. I knowingly accepted the risk the Democrats might not be good fiscal stewards. As it turned out, President Obama spent his first two years working to keep the economy from full collapse while working to get out of Iraq ( a senseless Bush war that helped Iran, did nothing for the Iraqi people and added to the deficit). We would all like to have seen more progress but most definitely we would NOT have had more progress with a new round of Republican tax cuts and more de-regulation.

If the Republican Party divorced the evangelicals and went back to a fiscally conservative program I could change back. That will be the existential challenge for the Republicans going forward.

RCharles

There's a consensus solution waiting to be found but it won't be by ideology-driven leaders nor speech-giver media stars. The quiet competence and hard-earned maturity of Hillary would make her an effective problem-solver at this time. Here's Bloomberg link on her--

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/clinton-popularity-prompts-some-remorse-poll.html

I had to read this about 5 times:

"Never before has the debt ceiling been tied to the budget or debt."

because if that's true, that kind of explains how we ended up with a 14.6 billion dollar debt..

Congress is trying to put a stop at the borrow and spend (Greece like) policies of the White House and Senate. Viva Republicans and Tea Party. Stop increasing taxes, Stop the borrow and spend stupidity....

For those bemoaning the social right leanings of the current Republican party members in Congress and in the Senate...and for that matter, in the White House......

You do realize that you are casting out something of a red herring, don't you? The fact is that at a national level, there is very very little that the politicians can do in any way shape or form to legislate morality.

For instance, they cannot legislate the legality of abortion. They can yak all they want, but the most they can do is to vote for Supreme Court judges who will over turn Roe vs. Wade(which isn't going to happen). I actually *hate* when abortion views are solicited from candidates in a national office because they are impotent to act on the issue at all. In another instance, there is also absolutely nothing they can do about same sex marriages. It's not like congress could just pass a law allowing same sex marriage. Even if it did get signed into law, it would be overturned by the Supreme Court(eventually). But it wouldn't even get that far. Too many legislators from moderate and conservative areas of the country would be committing political suicide by voting to pass such legislation.

Contrast this with state and local politicians who can in fact implement social legislation. For instance, the Los Angeles City Council has enacted laws in the past ten years authorizing car seizures for street racing and prostitution related activities(subsequently overturned by the California Supreme Court). Note that I say activities, not arrests. Thats because the cars could be seized simply because police had reasonable suspicion that a person was engaged in such activities.

Anyway, point is that considering the social views of a candidate running for national office is way far down on the totem pole of items I consider when contemplating who to vote for. And I'm as socially liberal as they come. Views on economic policy, foreign policy and military spending, domestic spending, etc are much more important.

sam234 says

Bush also gave us extreme evangelical distortions, e.g., stem cell research stopped, family planning for foreign countries stopped, etc. Bush put uneducated evangelicals into government agencies to review and "correct" what brilliant scientists could write, e.g., evolution must always be a Theory of Evolution, intelligent design should be tought in schools.

Stem cell research didn't end. I don't know why you would assert that it did. President Bush vetoed legislation that would have allowed the use of federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research.

As to the second assertion...the part on evolution etc, can you provide specifics as to where the decisions and policies of these "uneducated evengelicals" actually led to any sort of implemented actions? Where federal legislation or rules resulted in schools being forced to actually teach intelligent design?

The reason I ask is because every President eventually does things to appease the part of their base vote that is not entirely within the mainstream. But mostly, thats all it is. Appeasement, without any sort of real capability to make policy.

I have been an independent for the past several elections, and I always vote. I used to vote Republican. I think both parties are thieves, and frequently have the same masters. Somebody quipped recently words to the effect that our political leaders should be forced to prominently wear the names of their PAC/Union/Corporate sponsors, so that they meet the same content standards as our cereal boxes, so we can evaluate how much of their rhetoric we should swallow.
I hear a lot about how Paulson (hedge fund man, may have misspelled it) is really a good guy and how Dodd-Frank is killing our banks. I would not alter one word of Dodd-Frank until I see mass prosecutions of the folks that created the control fraud in our financial institutions that fueled the current economic disaster.
I also find rather disgusting the displays of who is the better Christian as a part of their personal political plank. Frankly, I don't give a rip if you are atheist, christian, muslim, jew, etc. I don't care who you are bedding, as long as I don't pay their salary for you and you do not do it on my time. I don't care if you are gay. I only care that our elected officials are good and competent practitioners of the political process for the good of the country as a whole. Most of the people running for office are not competent to run a lemonade stand, and most, apparently, have not had a high school-level economics course.

Not really, they are not stopping the spending since they've already approved a budget that increases the deficit. We need to see some major action, e.g., cancel and mothball an entire air craft carrier fleet or close a major fort, to come away with a sense the congress is serious.

RCharles

alice says

Stop increasing taxes

??

right. I guess that would make sense if it weren't for the downward trajectory of taxes to their lowest levels in modern times.