patrick.net

Most of the problems in the last decade arose from republican policies I believe....I'll post an big response to this soon. I know all politicians are corrupt, I just wonder from whom the democrats are taking lobby bribes from?...when the republicans are obviously taking it from big business.

Snoopy says

Most of the problems in the last decade arose from republican policies I believe….I’ll post an big response to this soon. I know all politicians are corrupt, I just wonder from whom the democrats are taking lobby bribes from?…when the republicans are obviously taking it from big business.

It takes the same amount of money to win whether you are democrat or republican. Someone is funding every campaign and by and large it aint J6P.

Someone is funding every campaign and by and large it aint J6P.

"The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less"

It is time for regime change. Democrats and Republicans GOOD BYE.

LOL. Like there's any replacement in the cards if we shuffle the deck.

Only people out of power like you call for "regime change".

Palin/Beck 2012
Go With the Mayans

Troy, I suppose you are "in power." LOL

Some day you will lose the illusion that you are in power and come to realize that the sensible description of the situation is closer to 1984 and the one party system, and you are a loyal party member. The Democrats and Republicans are just factions of the same party and that is what this article almost implied in showing how over and over again neither party delivers on their promises, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE A COMMANDING "MAJORITY."

Nah. I agree with Obama on 80%+. I agree with the Republicans on maybe 0%. I am a pro-secular left-libertarian after all.

The policy debate in this country is screwed up simply from the threat from the conservative right, who enjoy a 30-40% support level and complete control of the major media, what wingnuts call the MSM.

What is prompting Democrats to be fearful of their shadows now is clearly evident from the results in MA. Nearly every Democrat would gladly throw gays, pot smokers, abortionists, the unemployed, etc etc under the bus to survive a challenge from the right.

The problem is who are we on the liberal left supposed to vote for?

The central fact of this situation is that around 70% of the country is simply f----ed in the head. We can sweep out the 535 idiots in DC but this same electorate isn't going to put anybody better back in their place.

Troy,

Obama may have won the election but if he really ran the country we would have gay marriage, state run medicine and a $2 tax on farting (carbon emission).

It matters only a little who is in the white house. For example one of the biggest reasons people turned on Bush and the Republicans was the growing anti-war sentiment. Now that Obama is there and the war is still raging, where are the anti-war people? Oh, that's right, their guy is "in power" so its all good. Bunch of Winston's.

AdHominem says

Obama may have won the election but if he really ran the country we would have gay marriage, state run medicine and a $2 tax on farting (carbon emission).

ohh, you gave me a stiffy. Do that some more.

AdHominem says

Now that Obama is there and the war is still raging, where are the anti-war people?

The sh-- in Iraq is deescalating. Afghanistan has always been a different war given the history of Osama being there in 2001.

I don't pretend to know what the right answer is for Afghanistan other than to not grease people accidentally. It's progress that this is publically considered a big mistake now by the brass. For much of the past decade the collateral civiilian casualties were swept under the rug.

Iraq, that was the biggest mistake of all time. The Republican Party should disband itself and then bite a cyanide ampule a la Jim Jones 1978 for this colossal screw-up.

I'm all for kicking out all the current people running under the Democrat and Republican labels, but you know what? It wouldn't make a fucking difference. Spineless cowards like Lieberman drop their party affiliation and still get elected. Others change from republican to democrat and get re elected.

The issue is that these people are very good at campaigning at home. They're amazingly skilled at talking up how they're fighting for their shitty little district, all the while "fighting" the "special interests" in washington.

As citizens, I think our number one priority at present needs to be term limits for congress. I also strongly encourage everyone to support Lessig's change-congress.org

So if it's a universal problem and not a "partisan thing", why is the article headlined:

"The Democratic Party's deceitful game"

I find these articles are just generally thin guises for "let's kick out the libruls!" and then see what happens when we hand the reins back over to the Geriatric Oldster Party.

I expect an anti-incumbent fever would in fact simply result in a switch of control, because your most active anti-incumbent people are the Teabaggers and Beck followers, and there's no question how they lean, despite lip-service given to being independents, the rank and file think like this:

9/12 Project interview

"I agree with Obama on 80%+. I agree with the Republicans on maybe 0%. "

That's exactly why this country is getting more dangerous every day.
Troy I wonder, what 20% of Obama do you disagree with? Is it the Continuation of Bush's monetary policy or the continuation of Bush's foreign policy, or both? Both of which are BIG BIG BIG Campaign promises, broken in an out right lie at this point.

I'm curious though, please tell me, what is it you do agree with? It can't be the continuing loop of Lip service he gives from the back of a traveling train, surely you're smarter than that? And what does it take for you to become disillusioned over a false prophet?

I know it shouldn't matter either way, but you were the one to break it down to such a cut dry ratio of what you believe and like.

Just sayin' if I were he I'd be doing the same triangulatin'. You can't turn around a three point five trillion dollars per year economic entity in a year or three.

Complicating matters is that 70% of this nation are certifiably insane or intellectual cripples.

Politics is the art of the possible. If you want purity, go fill a tub with bleach and sit in it.

We always get the government we deserve because our politicians are a reflection of the people that elected them. Therein is the flaw in our system. People vote in politicians that will provide for them via entitlements, etc. and the politicians, hungry to maintain power, will continue to "give" in spite of the fact that the country is being ruined. Time is running out for this country. The last act this insane deficit spending is going to be very ugly.

RayAmerica says

The last act this insane deficit spending is going to be very ugly.

Nothing a few tax rises won't fix. Tax incomes over $250,000 until the general budget is balanced. Raise taxes on FICA payers to keep SS and medicare solvent.

Anybody willing to go Galt in response is more than welcome. This 20% underemployment rate isn't going to fix itself.

Troy says

Nothing a few tax rises won’t fix. Tax incomes over $250,000 until the general budget is balanced. Raise taxes on FICA payers to keep SS and medicare solvent.

Taxing incomes over $250K isn't the answer. Even if they did that, there still wouldn't be anywhere near the amount needed to balance the budget. Furthermore, it would take necessary investment capital out of the private sector which would further thwart recovery. SS & Medicare is insolvent because the surplus has been robbed by every administration since LBJ and replaced by special Treasury IOUs.

RayAmerica says

Furthermore, it would take necessary investment capital out of the private sector

This is more a mantra than an argument.

SS & Medicare is insolvent

SS is coming into actuarial income/outgo balance now (a few years ahead of Greenspan's schedule due to the present recession) and is nowhere near insolvent.

Medicare is another story, of course. 3% taxation isn't going to cover free medical care to seniors without much more cost control.

because the surplus has been robbed by every administration since LBJ and replaced by special Treasury IOUs.

Yes, that is one way to look at it. My view the special t-bonds held by OASDI represent the "private investment capital" that the Greenspan Commission enabled to be formed starting way back in 1983 when income taxes were cut on high-achievers and raised on FICA payers.

Now it's time to start implementing the back end of the deal. Thanks to Greenspan, 20% of this country owns 92% of the wealth so it's not going to be that difficult.

Fixing the debt is not hard. Taxes will go up, inflation will rise, and maybe the wars will finally end.

Yeah, it really is that easy. The overly dramatic bullshit you see on TV is just politics. OH NO WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED (unless you vote for me!)

I was out of the country in 1993 so I missed the Clinton tax rise. . . . Just tonight I read that it mostly consisted of adding two more brackets, 36% and 39.6%, with the medicare cap elimination they became 39% and 42.6%.

Oooh how the pigs squealed. Yet by 1999 the federal deficit was gone and the nation was running on all cylinders.

Funny, that.

Troy: Unfortunately, the Democrats always learn the wrong lessons, and you may have also with the Clinton 1993 tax increases. Yes, the budget situation improved. Those tax increases were quite massive when state and local taxes are also considered, and when Clinton vetoed the Congress-passed ABOLITION of the AMT in 1997, it was basically a continuation of another tax that has crushed many hard-working and not wealthy Americans, such as myself. The AMT unfairly takes about $10k from me each year, money I need to save for retirement and college costs. I'm already paying plenty before the AMT. But anyway, I digress.
Taxes kill jobs in the private sector. That's a fact that liberals don't understand or agree with, but it's a fact. Those of us who understand that, however, readily admit that taxes are necessary for imp services up to a point.
The 1990s was a time of economic transformation in the world, led by the innovation of brilliance in the US. It was a technological revolution that helped the economy, the "computerization" of the world if you will. We were fortunate that our technical minds in the US were the ones leading the way (BGates, et al). It helped GDP growth incredibly, and it helped make people alot of money and alot of great-paying jobs, all of which helped the federal tax revenues. In other words, the economy flourished IN SPITE of Clinton's tax increases. But liberals think that tax increases don't hurt. They always hurt the private sector; it just so happened that the economy was so strong in the '90s that Clinton got "lucky". Oh, by the way, Clinton's regulations to the CRA in 1995 that required federally insured banks and S&Ls to give huge fractions of their loans to poorer people.....didn't turn out too well, did it? You never hear/read about that either.

sbourg says

Oh, by the way, Clinton’s regulations to the CRA in 1995 that required federally insured banks and S&Ls to give huge fractions of their loans to poorer people…..didn’t turn out too well, did it? You never hear/read about that either.

Ending your post with that pretty much guaranteed that I'll ignore it... Complete BS

But liberals think that tax increases don’t hurt. They always hurt the private sector;

You know what hurts the private sector more? Rents. Show me a tax increase and I'll show you lower rents. It may not be dollar for dollar, but most minarchists simply fail to understand that at the end of the day all taxes come out of rents.

h, by the way, Clinton’s regulations to the CRA in 1995 that required federally insured banks and S&Ls to give huge fractions of their loans to poorer people

"The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence."

"In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA"

Care to make any other assertions that will be trivial to shoot down?

The main damage was done by Wall Street pushing investment money to unqualified mortgage borrowers via such retail outfits as Countrywide, Washington Mutual, NovaStar, and hundreds of other lending storefronts that, thanks to lax oversight from the previous administration (and, secondarily, Congress), were not required to adequately underwrite the loans they were giving out.

The CRA did not require banks to make suicide loans. They did that on their own. In 2005 about half of home buyers made no down payment. In 2007 40% of subprime lending was "automated" and not human-reviewed. But even so, there was an inverse correlation between CRA compliance and lending risk.