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.