quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think refusing to compromise when you are in the minority with proposals that are substantially equivalent to those you supported when you were in control is hard to interpret any other way.
So if, hypothetically, Democrats find themselves in the minority after 2012 and if, hypothetically, they opposed a policy they supported when in the majority (like, for instance, extending the Bush tax cuts) that would be evidence that they were putting partisan advantage over the common good?
I'm not sure the Democrats supported extending the Bush Tax Cuts. They recognized that extending them was the only way to get Republicans on board for certain things they wanted.
But if say there was a renewed push for healthcare reform, and Republicans dug up President Obama's plan for healthcare including a public option, and indicated they felt it was a reasonable compromise, if the Democrats dug in their heels and did the same sort of grandstanding, you'd be absolutely right.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm not sure the things Rabbit is faulting Republicans for being intransigent on aren't things that weren't suggested as potential compromises (much like the Democrats' support for Bush tax cuts). This would include things like cap and trade, health exchanges, the public mandate, and several other policies which the Republican party once supported but now opposes.
It's also useful to note that the 2006 and 2008 Democratic victories largely purged moderate Republicans from federal positions. It shouldn't be surprising that the mean position of the caucus shifted as a result. Furthermore, many Republicans blamed policies espoused while in the majority for the terrible losses they suffered in 2006 and 2008. This suggests another reason the party leaders should rationally change positions.
I don't think that Rabbit has demonstrated sufficient justification for her view that Republican leaders are trying to harm the national economy in order to improve their electoral chances. I think there are several, more rational, explanations of the behavior she's identified as her evidence. I also think she's demonstrating personal partisanship in her interpretation, which is why I was trying to suggest and equivalent formulation for Democrats.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this is turning into an interesting Republican vs. Democrat debate.
Did anyone else here this morning that Rick Perry announced privately that he intends to publicly on August 2nd that he will be running for president. (I heard this on the radio, so I'm not sure what the EXACT facts were.)
I'm pretty unsure how I feel about this.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I laugh at the idea that he has any chance.
And then I'm terrified of the idea that he has any chance.
My mother, who lives in Texas, has started a game that boils down to "Stupid *#&% that Perry did or said this week." Any does anyone else this its odd that Mr. Secession wants to be president?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is he actually a Secessionist???? I don't pay any attention to them. Secession is an interesting idea with which to play "what if?" games, but it can hardly be taken seriously! It would probably make wonderful speculative fiction...
I actually haven't paid too much attention to him lately. I've tried to vote the "whoever has the best chance of ousting Perry" route in the last two elections and had no luck. Still, even though I thought he was a slime ball, there was a period when I felt like he was making some pretty decent decisions.
And then...
We got to this legislative session and he kept classifying things as an "emergency" that were, quite clearly, NOT emergencies! It ticked me off! I even actually agreed with his position on a couple of the bills, but the fact that he tried to push them through as emergencies really upset me.
So we get to the question of, "Is it worth putting Perry in as president if it will get him out of Texas question."
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not a serious secessionist but I've heard him pandering to that group and playing the "we could leave the union if we wanted to" card. The average proud Texan will joke about those sorts of things but the tone he uses always seems a one step past playful.
And I think people were asking the same question when GW Bush ran and look how well that turned out.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
So I hear Michelle Bachmann is also running, and that she knows exactly what to do to fix our economy! It's such a relief that someone has a complete plan!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bachmann has a backlog of gaffes that go back several years. When the GOP candidates finally take off the gloves and attack each other directly, instead of these wishy-washy weekend attacks that they try to explain away the next day, she's going to get hammered. Romney will get hit a lot too, but then, a lot of it will be recycled from last year. Romney seems well on his way to winning the nom, if only because the field is laughably weak this time around. I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I feel sorry for Americans right now, you guys don't have alot to look forward to it seems.
In Canada, I get to look forward to a NDP majority government in 5~ years or so unless the Conservatives make a push for the center by destroying the liberals (but would split themselves in the process and thus a NDP minority).
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... I get to look forward to a NDP majority government in 5~ years or so ...
I find this rather dubious without support in Ontario. A party can manage a majority without Quebec. It might be able to scratch by without the West. But with the quantity of seats in Ontario, especially after the new bill to increase the seats in Ontario and the West due to population changes, I just don't see it happening.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ontario can be explained by people voting aginst their interests due to the NDP being a relative unknown to many liberals who either stayed home or voted Conservative; 5 years will be plenty of time for the NDP to build up a larger base of support in Ontario, many of the ridings were vote split among greens, ndp and liberals allowing for minor margin victories in several districts, with the nDP viewed as viable candidate even more people could be considered able to vote for them.
IP: Logged |
posted
Right, because Ontario has never had an NDP government. Layton hasn't been running the NDP from Toronto for almost a decade now.
I think you'll find that many people in Ontario know their self-interests quite well and will gladly vote against a NDP majority.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Probably not once it fully sets in how damaging to middle class interests and to Canadian democracy the Conservatives ultimately are. Or they'll split themselves trying to destroy the liberal party.
Running a campaign from Toronto doesn't intrinsically carry on the image of a safe candidate to voters, the NDP have had to deal with the fact that a long while now that if you didn't want CPC in power vote liberal as voting NDP would split the vote, which it did in this election as many voters who normally vote strategically instead voted NDP.
So now we have the NDP as the official opposition, the NDP's job now is to tread carefully, create the appearance of a government-in-waiting and gain the confidence of the Canadian voter. Having more seats in Ontario doesn't magically imply less chances for the NDP to win, close analysis shows that for probably over a dozen seats the NDP were between 100 and 2000 votes from winnning the riding, this isn't an unsurmountable gap to close now that they can build the image of being ready for gov't.
posted
As damaging as the Conservatives are to democracy, the NDP would be damaging to the economy. Given a choice between those two unpalatable choices, Ontario voters ended up voting for the Conservatives to stop the NDP rather than for the NDP to stop the Conservatives. Money speaks louder than democracy.
Additionally, Horwath (and Layton to a lesser extent) is making it worse by championing NDP policies that are horrible for the environment, ensuring that they won't even pick up the Green vote.
Ultimately, Ontario has 106 seats currently, in your best base scenario, the NDP pick up 12 additional seats (to their 22). That is not enough to close the gap with the Conservatives who currently have 73. When you factor in the 18 additional seats from population changes, which will likely be concentrated in 905, the NDP are boned.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That was last election when the NDP were still an electoral unknown and heck, I wouldn't want them to win then anyways because they're unprepared for the task of government, I'm not even sure if they have a shadow government.
But they have the next 5 years to get their act together and show that they're the best choice to not only lead on ideological grounds, but will always have the organization and experienced enough MPs for the job.
Next election they will be in a better position to be like hey "We're best for the country" and it's the Conservative's election to lose, either gauranteed because they killed off the liberals through withdrawing voter subsidies or because they have acted like a bunch of tards and the people are fed up.
Since its supposed that Harper's iron discipline will loosen and cracks are already starting to show up the prospect only grows.
Finally I hope your only speaking to voter perception and not honestly suggesting that the NDP are bad for the economy, that's just blatantly false.
If anything long term Canada's economic prospects under the CPC are bleak, they're withdrawing funding from educational institutions in lieu of acquiring revenue and growth from resource extraction. Which as we can already see in Russia will lead to lower competitiveness of the economy and primivitization.
It's the CPC who are boned as they will be unable to maintain their momentum the NDP only have to pick up seats.
IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that the Conservative party is bad for the economy, doesn't really answer the question as to whether the NDP would be even worse.
The problem is that the NDP has a history of pretty silly proposals, which would be understandable if they at least succeeded in being socialist, but they often fail at that too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naw. Just a nickname for the Vancouver hockey team. I am still bitter, please excuse my outburst.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The fact that the Conservative party is bad for the economy, doesn't really answer the question as to whether the NDP would be even worse.
The problem is that the NDP has a history of pretty silly proposals, which would be understandable if they at least succeeded in being socialist, but they often fail at that too.
You have not answered the question as to how the NDP would be worse, so far their proposals have been Pro-middle class and fairly reasonable to grow the economy by focusing on _people_ by outputting more skilled people into the workforce. Increasing taxes on the rich/corporations doesn't hurt the economy so long as other incentives are introduced to keep Canada a favorable place to invest.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
I agree. It all comes down to the economy. If Romney gets the nomination (his chances are looking good) and he runs on the economy, he can highlight his experience in turning businesses around and making them profitable.
President Obama can't do that. I don't know what his strategy would be against Romney to be honest. He could go with the "flip flop" thing or try to blame the last Republican President for the economy, but I think he will have a little harder time than he did in 2008.
Obama has a record he has to defend now, which is unfortunate for him.
Even though all of the Republican candidates are weak, I still think this will be one of the most interesting election cycles ever. Not because there are two great candidates, but because there will be two weak ones. Its almost like Jimmy Carter vs. Dan Quail.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I fully expect some sort of dummy to make a statement along the lines that Obama if he looks to be limited to one term, that it's being done because of racism.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Has this really turned into a 'Nuck political discussion?
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Increasing taxes on the rich/corporations doesn't hurt the economy so long as other incentives are introduced to keep Canada a favorable place to invest.
This in a nutshell, is part of the problem. It used to be that the Conservatives were defined by championing tax cuts while the NDP were about raising taxes on the rich in order to pay for spending. This made at some sense until the NDP decided that their tax policies would make them unelectable.
So the NDP no longer talk about increasing taxes, mostly they talk about about cutting them and promoting tax revolts. Bizarre for a socialist party I know, but look through their platform and you'll only find one oblique reference to raising corporate taxes (which is a dubious way of raising revenues to boot ). You won't find a single reference to raising personal taxes.
What you will find are cuts on taxes on heating your home. The NDP in Ontario go one step further and promise cuts on gasoline and electricity.
Thats right, an anti-carbon tax. Funds are taken from general revenues to encourage people to use more electrcity and burn more fossil fuels. And even weirder, since the poor tend to have smaller houses and drive less, they won't even get the bulk of the money.
And all this at a time when we're in deficit and Canadian economists generally recognise that Stephen Harper's cut to the GST was a bone-headed idea.
There are other silly ideas too, the credit card proposal and the CPP/OAS proposal, but the main issue is perfectly encapsulated here
quote:The NDP's SEP was the mirror image of the Conservatives': tax increases that no-one had to pay. Corporate taxes, tax expenditures on fossil fuels, and $2b/year from a 'Tax Haven Crackdown'. (That last one is a particular favourite of mine, since I was able to quote verbatim the entire discussion of the issue as laid out in the NDP platform in the space of three words.) If you're willing to ignore such abstract notions as tax incidence and corporate personhood - and my experience from the campaign is that almost everyone is - then corporate taxes are easily hidden in an SEP.
The NDP aren't a good choice for Ontarians. They aren't even a good choice for die-hard progressives, which is actually kinda sad.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
I agree. It all comes down to the economy. If Romney gets the nomination (his chances are looking good) and he runs on the economy, he can highlight his experience in turning businesses around and making them profitable.
President Obama can't do that. I don't know what his strategy would be against Romney to be honest. He could go with the "flip flop" thing or try to blame the last Republican President for the economy, but I think he will have a little harder time than he did in 2008.
Obama has a record he has to defend now, which is unfortunate for him.
Even though all of the Republican candidates are weak, I still think this will be one of the most interesting election cycles ever. Not because there are two great candidates, but because there will be two weak ones. Its almost like Jimmy Carter vs. Dan Quail.
I think a big difference maker will be whether or not Obama runs ON or FROM his economic policies. If he runs on the stimulus and bailouts being a success, then I think he has a good chance of turning the economy into a positive and blaming Republicans for stifling progress. If he runs from it, then he's in trouble, because it makes it sound like he's either wrong or ineffective.
Despite the overall FEEL of the economy, there are a ton of bright spots to run on. Manufacturing has seen small but steady upticks over the last year, the economy has averaged tens of thousands of jobs a month added (some 100K+ months) over the last couple years. Obama will say he single handedly saved the auto industry for a very cheap cost when Romney said to let them fail. He'll then trot out auto execs on his side saying they needed the loans to get by, when Romney will say they didn't. It'll be a rare time when he'll have big business AND labor on his side. There's a lot of little stuff like that he'll be able to use. Romney will try to attack him on healthcare and he'll force Romney to trot out his "It works in MA but not nationally..." mantra, which will piss off liberals AND conservatives, because he's going both too far and not far enough.
Plus there's the fact that Romney's just sort of...weird, when he's off-script. There've been articles written about how just plain awkward the guy is when he's not delivering a speech or engaging in some sort of scripted interview/dialogue.
I think of those who are in the race, he's probably the best chance the GOP has, but he's just kinda meh, in general. I think he's the most presidential, but lacks the charisma factor.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Yes. Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
And now they could be rewarded for that. It boggles.
While I agree with you in principle, it's very hard to say by how much it would be better. The major pushes (TARP money/bank bailouts/etc) that he wanted he managed to get passed. It was mostly healthcare that I felt the Republicans dug in on.
Overall my major gripes with Obama have been.
1: Timidity. On several key issues Obama has not demonstrated confident leadership. On the issue of Guantanamo he brazenly declared he was closing the facility. I can understand problems have arisen in that effort, and that that is not his fault. But he has not been forthcoming with the difficulties, and still has not announced a permanent solution years later. edit: He has also battled for continuing the policy of keeping enemy combatants in prison without formal charges. He promised a stop to that, why is that promise unfulfilled?
With the Arab Spring Uprising, he rightly committed troops to assist the Libyan opposition. Right now things are looking good for Omar's departure, but he very nearly smashed the opposition before Obama committed the airforce. He was too slow, and too timid in the opening days of the conflict. In Egypt he practically waited until the Egyptian military had made its decision to take over the government before taking a stand. He has done very little to assist Syria, Bahrain, and every other Arab nation making motions for serious democratic reforms. Syria bothers me the most.
I give him props for taking a risk with the operation that brought down Osama Bin Ladin, I know he is capable of confidently asserting his positions. I felt he was very much involved in the health care debate to the extent that was proper, same goes for the economic policies designed to get us back on track.
Republicans are demanding cuts to government projects and institutions, rather than giving an inch on taxes. Now that they are dealing with Obama directly I expect him to stand up and find a way to tell them no. Taxes are not off the table, serious government waste isn't either. (edit for correction)
2: Transparency. One of the hallmarks of Obama's campaign was changing how government communicated with the citizenry. He promised that bills would be posted on whitehouse.gov for several days before he would sign them every single time, that the government would act less secretly, and more openly.
He touted the citizens briefbook where citizens could nominate and vote for policy matters they thought were well conceived and worthwhile, he also promised the most popular one each week would be considered along with all the other briefs his departments submitted to him. He discontinued that program just a few months in, and hasn't given it a second thought. Protections passed in Congress to protect whistle-blowers and other federal employees who wish to air legitimate grievances to the press or Congress have been opposed by his administration.
He has also elected to allow many of the power grabs the Bush administration made to carry over into his watch. Details relating to extraordinary rendition and CIA interrogations have been kept locked up, and FOIA requests while slightly better under this administration than the Bush administration are still ignored, and judicial loopholes are used to avoid legitimate petitions.
3: Following Up. People castigated Bush for not having a follow up plan for Iraq after the initial invasion. Obama has not followed up on his economic policies nor his healthcare initiatives. I'm willing to forgive the latter more than the former. With healthcare it's going to take time for the system to readjust, but I wouldn't mind seeing a report of how he sees that transition and whether he feels additional reform is needed.
With the economy however, Obama has fallen short of his objectives. He project unemployment numbers that never happened, and while economists have declared that the recession is over, 2% growth is still pretty low. I'd be much happier with 3-4%. So what's going on? What is the followup plan since the initial plans didn't do the trick?
4: Infrastructural Development. has not been seriously undertaken. I know the money that could have been spent on that has in large part been spent in other places, it's spilled milk, but instead of talking about high speed rail, and alternate energy, where's the beef? China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Beijing, and far ahead of schedule. Our nation built railroad across the entire country, freeways everywhere, why aren't we doing it again with high speed rail? Get people out of their cars and airplanes, we should/can do it.
I'd very much like to see in the coming months what Obama's plan is for the next four years, in many respect he *has* delivered on campaign promises. He did attack the recession in the manner he said he would, he did push very hard for healthcare reform, he has increased pel grant amounts and pressed for more flexibility in getting folks into college. I don't feel nearly the sort of buyer's remorse I felt for Bush. But if it comes down to him and Romney, he's going to have to earn my vote this election.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Yes. Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
I think having Diamond on the Fed could have made a difference.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
3: Infrastructural Development. has not been seriously undertaken. I know the money that could have been spent on that has in large part been spent in other places, it's spilled milk, but instead of talking about high speed rail, and alternate energy, where's the beef? China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Guangzhou, and far ahead of schedule. Our nation built railroad across the entire country, freeways everywhere, why aren't we doing it again with high speed rail? Get people out of their cars and airplanes, we should/can do it.
It's worth pointing out that high-speed rail is not a quick thing to implement. Funds were allocated for rail. Since taking office, off the top of my head, governors (R) from New Jersey, Ohio and Florida have all returned the funds for the rail projects. In the last case, the funds were for a high-speed rail route that could have been up and running well before the route in CA.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One big problem with high speed rail that we have - and that China does not - is that we don't control the land on which the rail would be built. This was not so much of a problem in the thinly settled 19th century but it is now.
I also have a problem with timidity and transparency. But better a timid centrist president than a bold right-wing one.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Guangzhou, and far ahead of schedule.
Beijing to Shanghai I think. I don't think there's Shanghai to Guangzhou that will be done soon.
Shanghai to Shenzhen will probably be ready in 2012 though if I'm reading the schedule correctly.
Good save, I cobbled that post together while at work between calls, and it wasn't as fact checked as it could have been. Although Beijing to Shanghai is a fairly comparable distance as Shanghai to Guangzhou. And 2012 is still a staggering rate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's been a bit of noise over Michelle Bachmann saying that removing the minimum wage would improve job creation.
To be fair, while she apparently said that in 2005, the impression I got with her remarks today is that she doesn't want to get caught contradicting herself, and that she is willing to look at everything.
I think removing the miminum wage is crazy, and recklessly irresponsible, but I don't think she is seriously considering it. I hope I'm not wrong though. :{
As for the interviewer's surprise she considers John Quincy Adams to be one of the founding fathers, I think she tried to make a good case. I'm somewhat partial to the idea that much of the countries founding took place in the first 15 years of the republic. It wasn't just 1776-1787, John Quincy Adam's official career in government started about seven years after the constitution was ratified, but he started out overseas as an ambassador. He didn't really return seriously to American politics until 1817. He certainly fought slavery for a very long time, and was a serious opponent, but I don't think you can really say he was a founding father in any meaningful way.
One of the shapers of America? Absolutely, founder? No.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
The difference between Obama's proposed stimulus and the stimulus that passed was not significant. If his original healthcare proposal (actually, IIRC he didn't really have an "original healthcare proposal"; he let Pelosi and the House set scope, get pushback from Republicans (and moderate Dems), and then presented something pretty close to what passed as a triangulation) had passed it wouldn't have had any appreciable (and certainly no positive) effect on today's economy.
That Republicans have been obstructionist is undeniable. But Obama hasn't tried to break the back of their opposition with a proposed set of FDR-style federal programs, either.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I think having Diamond on the Fed could have made a difference.
I think having Diamond on the Fed would have been a net positive, but I think it still would have been Bernanke's show. I could certainly be wrong, but even had Diamond been confimed immediately after being nominated in April 2010, I doubt that any of the Fed's major decisions since then (e.g. QE2, flat prime interest rates) would have been materially impacted. Now if Obama had nominated Diamond as Chairman of the Fed instead of Bernanke, that could have made a difference (possibly for the better, although I'd need to be convinced of that).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's been noise over Bachmann saying pretty much anything at all, because she's one of the least self-aware human beings in politics. she probably totally believes what she's saying at any given time but watch what happens when you try to correct her or get her to answer questions straight or admit she was talking out of her butt at any given point. It gives you flashbacks to conversations here about what we did or didn't see what Obama's grandmother did or didn't say on tape.
Consequently, her political history is chock-full of extremely insane events that point to the depth of her personal delusions, augmented religious self-importance, etc. My personal favorite so far is when lesbians trying to talk to her caused her to freak out and scream and run away crying that they were trying to imprison her or something. Lesbians literally gave her a mental event. Dirty scary lesbians!~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite Bachmann moment is when, to a crowd in her old hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, she said, "John Wayne was born here; I've got a bit of his spirit, myself." Which would perhaps be a nice sentiment if it were true. Unfortunately, John Wayne was born well over a hundred miles away; John Wayne Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa. *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that I can't think of a single person I'd honestly want to vote for for president right now because virtually everything has become so polarized. Even every day folks I know in my personal life are scrambling around trying to figure out "who is to blame", it's all so crazy. I'm pretty sure I'm not immune to it myself.
That being said, I pretty much want to cry anytime I hear new republican candidate nominations. Most of them tie my stomach in knots because they feel like disasters walking. I don't even like the current president.
I feel, like BlackBlade, that he hasn't met his obligations. I feel like he keeps compromising at exactly the wrong points, so that we get just enough of his programs in place to screw up the current system, but not enough of it to make the new system work.
So, I'm totally open to change... but the options seem to be getting worse and worse.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My favorite Bachmann moment is when, to a crowd in her old hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, she said, "John Wayne was born here; I've got a bit of his spirit, myself." Which would perhaps be a nice sentiment if it were true. Unfortunately, John Wayne was born well over a hundred miles away; John Wayne Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa. *laugh*
John Wayne Gacy was born in Chicago, Illinois. He lived for a time in Waterloo during his late 20s, but was most infamous for his life upon return to Chicago in his 30s and 40s. John Wayne (the actor)'s parents met in Waterloo (at least according to Dave Weigel) and Winterset, Iowa (where he was born) isn't so far away (100 miles is probably right, but that's not so far, culturally speaking). Bachmann admitted, though, that she had been mistaken when she made her statement.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, Bachmann and Gacy's time in Waterloo probably overlapped. She was born there in 1956 and moved to Minnesota either when she was 10 or 12 (I can't remember exactly; I think she mentioned it in her announcement speech) putting her in Waterloo from 1956-1966/68. Gacy moved to Waterloo sometime between 1965 and 1967, and lived there for 2-3 years before he was put in prison (for sexually assaulting two teenage boys) in 1968.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wife’s “strategist,” runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to “ungay” themselves.
Just last summer, Dr. Bachmann explained his position on homosexuality while offering theoretical advice to parents concerned that one of their children was gay.
BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…
And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.
posted
So, is he saying there is a small percentage of people who are truly homosexual, and not just deviant sinners, but that society is making more homosexuals by not discouraging it?
If so, can he "ungay" the true homosexuals???
If not, what does "truly is the percentage of homosexuals in the country" mean?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he means that teh gays are a very, very tiny minority (never moved from their barbarism), but that with the efforts of wicked humanists, atheists, agnostics, bad science and of course Obama...THEY'RE ON THE RISE! Gunnin' for your KIDS OMG!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp's quote appears to be from thinkprogress blogger Sarah Bufkin. A somewhat edited radio clip that includes Marcus Bachmann's statements (linked from the thinkprogress blog post) appears here.
The quote about barbarians is taken slightly out of context. His point seems to be that humans have all sorts of impulses and feelings, and that the sinful path is submission to those impulses while the godly path is submission to "the Godly principles of truth in God's word that should direct our paths." He applies that generalized view specifically to homosexuality, saying that those who question, are curious about, or even experiment with their sexuality shouldn't be condemned. But they also shouldn't be encouraged by friends and counselors to explore and act further on those feelings.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, while I kind of doubt that the more charitable explanation applies, Marcus Bachmann's statement isn't really wrong if you look at it in a certain way.
The number of strict homosexuals in our country is small. However, we've seen children raised in environments that are permissive of homosexuality (like with homosexual parents) do experiment much more with homosexual relationships, even though ultimately, they fix into a straight/gay/bi/whatever orientation very close to the average population. So, having a permissive environment is likely going to lead to having many more people experimenting with gay behavior, even if it's unlikely to change the numbers that much. I think that's probably going to be better for our society in the long run, but if you're coming from a perspective where gay behavior is a bad sin, I can see where this would be something you'd want to strongly oppose.
---
That's one of the weird things about a lot of the anti-gay movement: that they have this conviction that without strong pressure against homosexuality, tons of people would totally go gay. There's no realistic basis for this, but considering how many of them are majorly gay on the qt, it's understandable that they think everyone else is like them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
