Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

? you do realize that in the grand scheme of things thats not very impressive.

It's more impressive than seeing it broken for 10+ years and crying that the whole system is broken and can't work.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think so. We'll still have anemic growth, so mckmas will be sure to tell us we aren't in a recession.

What ever happened to all those "green shoots," haven't heard about those in ages...

The way things are going we could be headed towards a recession. Stimulus money gone! FED can't lower interest rates! QE3 not going to happen! Presidential race next year meaning that nothing will get done to help the economy.

I can see 2011 being the year we hit the "double dips"!

 

[XMonkey]

Shouldn't it be time we reform congress?

2 things I would like to see.

1. Get rid of Midterm elections.. As in Normalize elections so they are all every 4 years

2. Institute a Term limit.

Good luck with that 2nd one.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well, she's a deranged sociopath who's bearding for a gay man who runs a center to torture the gay out of people. The cover is appropriate.

Seems like just the type of petty picture conservatives will bitch over concerning Teh Liberal Media picking on them...and it wouldn't be too far off imo.

With respect to her husband, I'm curious why people attack him in that fashion. He has a lisp, but labeling him as gay seems kind of petty/stereotyping; dude's a major pos of course, no argument there. I noticed a couple gay writers I follow on twitter do the same thing; or am I behind the times and the guy is definitely truly gay?

 

[besada]

Shouldn't it be time we reform congress?

2 things I would like to see.

1. Get rid of Midterm elections.. As in Normalize elections so they are all every 4 years

2. Institute a Term limit.

How are you going to do those things? Congressional term limits were struck down by the SC in 1995, in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton case.

Getting rid of midterm elections would also require a Constitutional amendment, since it specifies the terms of Senators and Congresspersons as having different periods.

Any suggestions that don't require an amendment? Because passing a Constitutional amendment with this government seems to be impossible.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I think Obama just said he's going to donate 100 million dollars to Somalia for their famine.

 

[TacticalFox88]

How are you going to do those things? Congressional term limits were struck down by the SC in 1995, in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton case.

Getting rid of midterm elections would also require a Constitutional amendment, since it specifies the terms of Senators and Congresspersons as having different periods.

Any suggestions that don't require an amendment? Because passing a Constitutional amendment with this government seems to be impossible.

Seems to be impossible? You'd have a better chance of all of Western Europe and the EU unifying under one Federal State than passing a constitutional amendment in this political climate

 

[Vestal]

How are you going to do those things? Congressional term limits were struck down by the SC in 1995, in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton case.

Getting rid of midterm elections would also require a Constitutional amendment, since it specifies the terms of Senators and Congresspersons as having different periods.

Any suggestions that don't require an amendment? Because passing a Constitutional amendment with this government seems to be impossible.

There is no other way....

Midterm elections are fucking up this country.. We get a max of 1.2 years of governance before we go back to the same bullshit. its not enough time for people to make tough decisions when they have the specter of elections hanging over them..

 

[besada]

Seems to be impossible? You'd have a better chance of all of Western Europe and the EU unifying under one Federal State than passing a constitutional amendment in this political climate

The moment I say something is impossible, they'll pass an amendment about duck fucking just to spite me.

 

[Lambtron]

Seems to be impossible? You'd have a better chance of all of Western Europe and the EU unifying under one Federal State than passing a constitutional amendment in this political climate

I fear a horribly regressive constitutional amendment regarding some sort of social policy will pass before something that will fix shit in this country.

 

[Mercury Fred]

With respect to her husband, I'm curious why people attack him in that fashion. He has a lisp, but labeling him as gay seems kind of petty/stereotyping; dude's a major pos of course, no argument there. I noticed a couple gay writers I follow on twitter do the same thing; or am I behind the times and the guy is definitely truly gay?

He runs an "ex-gay" clinic. I don't think there is a single hetero in the world who runs one of those desperate torture chambers.

Did you see the bit about him picking out her clothes from a story in the Chicago Tribune in 2006 that recently surfaced?

Shopping help comes from another quarter, as well. Before Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit this past summer, Bachmann’s husband, Marcus, hit the stores — “he’s got a good sense of style” — and came home with “a sleek, simple hourglass dress with a yoke collar in winter white.” He even bought a matching coat and shoes. “I just slipped it on.”

If he's straight, so am I.

 

[besada]

There is no other way....

Midterm elections are fucking up this country.. We get a max of 1.2 years of governance before we go back to the same bullshit. its not enough time for people to make tough decisions when they have the specter of elections hanging over them..

Then there's no way, because we're not passing either of those amendments.

Also, for someone who wants time for competent governance, term limits is a wacky way to do it. Term limits increase churn, which increases electioneering, while simultaneously robbing the Congress of any institutional memory it had.

Of course, the idea that there's no other way is ridiculous on its face. We've managed to struggle through for quite some time with this set of limitations. Certainly, we need changes where they can be made -- in the rules of the Congress and Senate -- to fix systemic problems with the institutions, but the idea that the only way to fix things is to have four-year, synched terms for every politician, with hard limits on the number of terms flies in the face of decades of Congressional ability to actually pass laws and function.

I know everyone wants to cut the Gordian knot, but sometimes it makes more sense to pull out individual strands. Particularly when cutting it is impossible.

 

[DasRaven]

There is no other way....

Midterm elections are fucking up this country.. We get a max of 1.2 years of governance before we go back to the same bullshit. its not enough time for people to make tough decisions when they have the specter of elections hanging over them..

There is another way, 100% public election financing.

The average congressperson spends half the day dialing for dollars at the express request of the National Committee and their reelection campaign. So it is no surprise that they serve the interests of those who can pay. They erect fundraising barriers to run as a new candidate to. Can't raise $3M before the filing deadline, you aren't going to be on the ballot.

With full public financing, no one dials for dollars and every election is a referendum on the offical's performance to the goals of their constituency. Don't meet your districts needs/wants, your opponent(s) have an equal amount of money to oust you as you have to maintain your seat.

 

[besada]

There is another way, 100% public election financing.

The average congressperson spends half the day dialing for dollars at the express request of the National Committee and their reelection campaign. So it is no surprise that they serve the interests of those who can pay. They erect fundraising barriers to run as a new candidate to. Can't raise $3M before the filing deadline, you aren't going to be on the ballot.

With full public financing, no one dials for dollars and every election is a referendum on the offical's performance to the goals of their constituency. Don't meet your districts needs/wants, your opponent(s) have an equal amount of money to oust you as you have to maintain your seat.

I'd support this, too. In fact, it was the first thing I thought of when Vestal declared there was no other way. This would be hard to enact, but at least you don't have a Constitutional barrier that I know of. The people would have to force it on their Representatives, and that seems unlikely, but it's definitely more likely than Vestal's suggestions.

It has the added benefit of maybe actually working, unlike term limits.

 

[Vestal]

Then there's no way, because we're not passing either of those amendments.

Also, for someone who wants time for competent governance, term limits is a wacky way to do it. Term limits increase churn, which increases electioneering, while simultaneously robbing the Congress of any institutional memory it had.

Of course, the idea that there's no other way is ridiculous on its face. We've managed to struggle through for quite some time with this set of limitations. Certainly, we need changes where they can be made -- in the rules of the Congress and Senate -- to fix systemic problems with the institutions, but the idea that the only way to fix things is to have four-year, synched terms for every politician, with hard limits on the number of terms flies in the face of decades of Congressional ability to actually pass laws and function.

I know everyone wants to cut the Gordian knot, but sometimes it makes more sense to pull out individual strands. Particularly when cutting it is impossible.

Changes in Congress are needed.. Fillibuster needs to be changed for instance. Lobbying needs to be curbed...

However I am in firm belief that midterm elections are a serious problem, it limits actual governance.

Back in 2009 the Democrats should have been able to pass WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANTED PERIOD. They had the vast majority, but no... fucking fillibuster and then worrying about being re elected a year and half later.

 

[Vestal]

I'd support this, too. In fact, it was the first thing I thought of when Vestal declared there was no other way. This would be hard to enact, but at least you don't have a Constitutional barrier that I know of. The people would have to force it on their Representatives, and that seems unlikely, but it's definitely more likely than Vestal's suggestions.

It has the added benefit of maybe actually working, unlike term limits.

I would also support it.. It will be hard though, cause even if you have 100% public financing, you still have Corporations with the ability to spend on advertising through PACs.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why, there appears to be some concern over Obama's re-election chances. Never fear.

Barack Obama 48
Generic Republican 45

Generic Ballot D 49
Generic Ballot R 45

Not the greatest numbers for Obama, but a sharp reversal from Gallup's numbers last month that had him down 8 against Generic R. And against an actual candidate, especially a joker like Perry or Bachmann, I'd easily peg him as the favorite - in fact, if Perry gets the nomination, Obama will win Texas.

The credit downgrade has exploded in the tea party's face.

 

[besada]

However I am in firm belief that midterm elections are a serious problem, it limits actual governance.

I am a firm believer that assholes in governance are a serious problem, and I'm as likely to change that as we are to change mid-term elections. Their terms are specified in the Constitution, and not in an amendment, but in Article I. It's unlikely to ever change, and certainly not in an environment where they can't pass basic legislation.

The filibuster needs to go (and seriously, you're preaching to the choir on this one). Lobbying rules need to be changed. The way we handle appointments needs to change. Those are things that can be done, although they are difficult. Public financing is an option, though even more difficult. Wasting time discussing things that aren't possible is, well, wasted time.

 

[XMonkey]

With all these people rushing into T-Bills and driving the interest rate down, doesn't that make it a prime opportunity for the government to spend big on some infrastructure investment? I recall reading a similar argument here a week or so ago.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Why, there appears to be some concern over Obama's re-election chances. Never fear.



Not the greatest numbers for Obama, but a sharp reversal from Gallup's numbers last month that had him down 8 against Generic R. And against an actual candidate, especially a joker like Perry or Bachmann, I'd easily peg him as the favorite - in fact, if Perry gets the nomination, Obama will win Texas.

The credit downgrade has exploded in the tea party's face.

No, it hasn't. Obama will get the blame. People will associate him with the credit downgrade because he was in charge when it happened. That's all that the general public sees. It's just like how Obama has been accused of spending a boat load of money even though he was saddled with two wars that George W. Bush started.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Shouldn't it be time we reform congress?

2 things I would like to see.

1. Get rid of Midterm elections.. As in Normalize elections so they are all every 4 years

2. Institute a Term limit.

Neither of those things would do much to get to the heart of the problems with Congress. The single biggest problem with Congress as a whole is the filibuster. There's a long list of process-oriented reforms that could help bring about a more transparent and effective Congress, but that's the place I'd start. Nothing else is more damaging or so well hides accountability.

Pelosi referred to it as the "60-vote stranglehold on the future" and she was correct.

 

[Wall]

With all these people rushing into T-Bills and driving the interest rate down, doesn't that make it a prime opportunity for the government to spend big on some infrastructure investment? I recall reading a similar argument here a week or so ago.

Yes, yes it would. Such spending would also have the benefit of reducing unemployment, helping the private sector recover by giving it money to pay down its debt levels, and stimulating the economy, thus making the future economy larger and better able to repay its debts.

Actually, assuming that the economy is able to recover on its own some day while the U.S. balances its budget, the U.S. is paying a huge opportunitiy cost to wait until that time to make neccessary investments in its infastructure because it would either need to raise taxes or borrow money at higher interest rates than they are now.

 

[jamesinclair]

Lol, dow down 600 points?

Best part about the west coast, getting home to enjoy the evening lols.


Also, apparently the great fire of london is being repeated.


Edit: Retracting some london lols, looks more serious than the annual paris burning of the mercedes.

 

[traveler]

So, how does someone who has never been involved in the political sphere their whole life get involved? I haven't ever really been a political junkie and I even refused to vote in the last election when someone asked to me the last day of voting on account of not knowing enough. I also avoid political debates as I feel like I should know pretty much everything there is to know about a subject before formulating my opinion.

Well, it turns out trying to learn everything about politics is pretty daunting. There's so much one needs to take in, both past and present; so many areas where you need to be knowledgeable- foreign policy, history, economics, the state of education, the state of medical care, etc.; and so many opinions flying around that it feels pretty much impossible to just decide to start giving a damn and suddenly learn everything you need to.

My current readings/listening, for reference, are basically Fareed's GPS, Krugman's column/blog, CalculatedRisk, this American Life, and planet money. (Was an econ major for a very short time, so that's what piqued my interest in getting a better idea of the bigger picture.) Of course, a lot of these writings feature terminology I'm not familiar with and, when I go to look some of the terminology up, it's defined by more terms I'm not familiar with.

I guess what I'm basically asking for is a syllabus. I would love to contribute to the thread, but I just don't feel comfortable talking in a area where I lack fairly strong expertise.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

All of the figures used for this chart are pulled directly from the nonpartisan CBO's calculations.

All of the figures are projected to include the full eight year terms of each President. This compares the total cost of Obama's policy changes from the years 2009-2017 vs. the cost of Bush's policy changes, over his eight year term.

There HAS been a rise in deficits, but this chart demonstrates that the increase has very little to do with Obama's policies and everything to do with the contraction of the govt's tax revenue over the past several years due to the massive recession and tax cuts.

The chart is proof positive that the largest single contributor to that deficit was the Bush-era tax cuts, followed closely by our wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

I honestly can't figure out how this graph hasn't already gone viral yet. I already emailed it to my politically inclined friends.

 

[spiderman123]

Not shitting on your thread but we have a thread for that.

 

[besada]

So, how does someone who has never been involved in the political sphere their whole life get involved? I haven't ever really been a political junkie and I even refused to vote in the last election when someone asked to me the last day of voting on account of not knowing enough. I also avoid political debates as I feel like I should know pretty much everything there is to know about a subject before formulating my opinion.


I guess what I'm basically asking for is a syllabus. I would love to contribute to the thread, but I just don't feel comfortable talking in a area where I lack fairly strong expertise.

I have two answers. The first is: just get involved. Find an issue you think is important, find a group of like minded people and go help them.

The second is a set of actual PoliSci Syllabi:
http://www.apsanet.org/content_3807.cfm

There will be other recommendations, but the important thing, I think, is to get involved. Knowledge will come organically as you try to understand things, but knowledge without action doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have a bunch of active, but relatively unknowledgable people out there than a bunch of erudite guys who never do anything.

Learn who your representatives are, learn their voting records. If you see things you don't like, tell them. Letters are better than emails. So are phone calls. There's an app for iOS that allows you to track your representatives. I can't remember the name at the moment, but it's nifty. It links to all their YouTubed appearances, along with other info.

Also, if you want an expansive sweep of governmental history in the U.S., you could do worse than reading the best reviewed biography of every President in turn. I did this a long time ago, and learned an amazing amount, not just about how government was supposed to work, but some of the repeated pitfalls of the Executive branch in particular.

Like sports, the more you know about this stuff, the more it will mean to you, and the more you'll want to know. And honestly, you're already ahead of the game, because you cared enough to ask how you could better yourself. Good on you.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

A little misleading. So if Obama were in office during 9/11 he would have spent zero on the military?

 

[AlteredBeast]

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts...

 

[LyleLanley]

A little misleading. So if Obama were in office during 9/11 he would have spent zero on the military?

There's a lot more to that chart than just military spending.

 

[Jackson50]

Neither of those things would do much to get to the heart of the problems with Congress. The single biggest problem with Congress as a whole is the filibuster. There's a long list of process-oriented reforms that could help bring about a more transparent and effective Congress, but that's the place I'd start. Nothing else is more damaging or so well hides accountability.

Pelosi referred to it as the "60-vote stranglehold on the future" and she was correct.

Precisely. Although our system of government with its myriad veto points is inherently predisposed to gridlock, the filibuster is especially pernicious. It hinders the legislature from properly functioning. It imposes an unbearable hurdle on the power of a legislative majority. It is inimical to democracy. I understand requiring a supermajority for something as significant as a treaty or constitutional amendment. But for standard policy? No.

Also, for someone who wants time for competent governance, term limits is a wacky way to do it. Term limits increase churn, which increases electioneering, while simultaneously robbing the Congress of any institutional memory it had.

Furthermore, the consequences are an increase in the influence of the executive, lobbyists, and the bureaucracy. That is, there is even less accountability. Reform is imperative. But term limits offer few benefits with some glaring deficiencies. We should rectify more pressing issues.

 

[Technosteve]

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts...

he didn't have much choice, but this is all i will say perhaps wer should bring this discourse back to our official topic?

 

[ianp622]

Tea party-ers don't care about how much the government spends, they only care about how much they spend on taxes.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The stimulus tax cuts cost $425 billion? LOL.

he didn't have much choice, but this is all i will say perhaps wer should bring this discourse back to our official topic?

He should've let them expire on the rich. Wouldn't have done a damn thing.

 

[ronito]

If tea partiers cared about facts there would be no tea partiers.

 

[Baby Milo]

Tea partiers would claim they didn't like or vote for bush

 

[Timedog]

Tea party-ers don't care about how much the government spends, they only care about how much they spend on taxes.

/thread

 

[empty vessel]

So, how does someone who has never been involved in the political sphere their whole life get involved?

I agree with besada about just getting involved. I'm sure there's an issue that you already know that you care about, and, if not, I would recommend electoral and campaign finance reform, as I think that's the root of a lot of current problems.

As far as participating in this thread goes, if nothing else you can ask questions. You can also express your thoughts and receive feedback on them. One of the best ways to learn is to engage in dialogue with other people and test your ideas, even defend them. I've defended many thoughts and ideas in my life that I have since abandoned or modified based on how other people respond, i.e., those responses have led me to research certain points further and that research has caused me to think differently. You don't have to know everything to participate. As long as you don't couch your thoughts as if you do know everything, you're unlikely to get your head bitten off for it.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Extending the bush tax cuts was a mistake. Obama was too cowardly to be accused of raising taxes in the middle of a recession. But that doesn't change the fact that this was a policy enacted by Bush.

And no, Obama wouldn't have spent anywhere near as much had he been President in 2001.

This was Obama's speech on Iraq, back in 2002, when the Iraq war was actively being debated...

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Again, this was delivered in 2002, when Democrats and Republicans alike were jumping over themselves to support invading Iraq. When no one had an inkling about just how badly it would all turn out.

Yes, if Obama was president during 9/11, he wouldn't have jumped in head first into war.

 

[Chichikov]

With all these people rushing into T-Bills and driving the interest rate down, doesn't that make it a prime opportunity for the government to spend big on some infrastructure investment? I recall reading a similar argument here a week or so ago.

It made sense to do that even with before they went down.

 

[Piecake]

I have two answers. The first is: just get involved. Find an issue you think is important, find a group of like minded people and go help them.

The second is a set of actual PoliSci Syllabi:
http://www.apsanet.org/content_3807.cfm

There will be other recommendations, but the important thing, I think, is to get involved. Knowledge will come organically as you try to understand things, but knowledge without action doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have a bunch of active, but relatively unknowledgable people out there than a bunch of erudite guys who never do anything.

Learn who your representatives are, learn their voting records. If you see things you don't like, tell them. Letters are better than emails. So are phone calls. There's an app for iOS that allows you to track your representatives. I can't remember the name at the moment, but it's nifty. It links to all their YouTubed appearances, along with other info.

Also, if you want an expansive sweep of governmental history in the U.S., you could do worse than reading the best reviewed biography of every President in turn. I did this a long time ago, and learned an amazing amount, not just about how government was supposed to work, but some of the repeated pitfalls of the Executive branch in particular.

Like sports, the more you know about this stuff, the more it will mean to you, and the more you'll want to know. And honestly, you're already ahead of the game, because you cared enough to ask how you could better yourself. Good on you.

The only time I ever sent an email to one of my Senators (Klobachar), I got some standard email response that thanked me for my support and participation, which is odd, since in my email I expressed my extreme disappointment that she voted no on the bill that would make it so that credit card interest was tied to the state you are living in, not where the credit card company is located. Such a bullshit rule. Why the hell should South Dakota and Delaware control my state's credit card interest rate laws?

It really kinda put me off from further 'participation' since Ill bet good money that no one read my email

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yes, yes it would. Such spending would also have the benefit of reducing unemployment, helping the private sector recover by giving it money to pay down its debt levels, and stimulating the economy, thus making the future economy larger and better able to repay its debts.

Actually, assuming that the economy is able to recover on its own some day while the U.S. balances its budget, the U.S. is paying a huge opportunitiy cost to wait until that time to make neccessary investments in its infastructure because it would either need to raise taxes or borrow money at higher interest rates than they are now.

It has become taboo, internationally, to propose that the government can fix the economy, unless it does so at the guidance of the IMF.

Basically don't expect the US to do what it doesn't want so many other countries to not do.

The Republicans (obviously) and the Democrats will do everything they can to not spend a dime in actually fixing the economy. It is forbidden to do so.

The worst is Obama was the best candidate to do exactly what needed to be done to fix the economy. He had the support. But he is a liar and a puppet.

Someone bring back FDR to life.

In his "first hundred days" in office, which began March 4, 1933, Roosevelt spearheaded major legislation and issued a profusion of executive orders that instituted the New Deal—a variety of programs designed to produce relief (government jobs for the unemployed), recovery (economic growth), and reform (through regulation of Wall Street, banks and transportation).

 

[AlteredBeast]

I love the idea of publicly funded elections.

Obama raised over half a billion dollars to tell people he was going to change America, only to end up being a Bush III in many, many areas.

Level the monetary playing field and make people account to their constituents and not every lobby that has them in their back pocket.

 

[eznark]

Why, there appears to be some concern over Obama's re-election chances. Never fear.



Not the greatest numbers for Obama, but a sharp reversal from Gallup's numbers last month that had him down 8 against Generic R. And against an actual candidate, especially a joker like Perry or Bachmann, I'd easily peg him as the favorite - in fact, if Perry gets the nomination, Obama will win Texas.

The credit downgrade has exploded in the tea party's face.

Below 50% against generic Republican with over a year of recession in front of him?

Ya, he is a total lock.

 

[acheron_xl]

When no one had an inkling about just how badly it would all turn out.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that no one had an inkling.

Yes, if Obama was president during 9/11, he wouldn't have jumped in head first into war.

He's shown such restraint in Libya.

 

[besada]

The only time I ever sent an email to one of my Senators (Klobachar), I got some standard email response that thanked me for my support and participation, which is odd, since in my email I expressed my extreme disappointment that she voted no on the bill that would make it so that credit card interest was tied to the state you are living in, not where the credit card company is located. Such a bullshit rule. Why the hell should South Dakota and Delaware control my state's credit card interest rate laws?

It really kinda put me off from further 'participation' since Ill bet good money that no one read my email

Basically, they count pro and anti emails and keep a tally, so no, no one read your entire email. Letters and calls get more attention, and there's little gratification, particularly if your Rep has a different ideology, like mine. That said, the reason politicians fear the NRA is because they can flood an office with postcards on an issue. As a single unit, you have little sway. As a large group, you can scare the crap out of a politician, which is, sadly, the most effective way to get them to represent your interests. Make them fear for their re-election, and suddenly you have their attention.

It's thankless, and a pain in the ass, but it's one way to make your voice heard. The more people you affiliate with, the louder that voice gets.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Tea partiers cheering about the downgrade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Z1NagON189g

Clearly most don't cheer, but that won't stop people from continuing to believe extremists caused this shit to happen.

 

[empty vessel]

That said, the reason politicians fear the NRA is because they can flood an office with postcards on an issue. As a single unit, you have little sway. As a large group, you can scare the crap out of a politician, which is, sadly, the most effective way to get them to represent your interests. Make them fear for their re-election, and suddenly you have their attention.

It's thankless, and a pain in the ass, but it's one way to make your voice heard. The more people you affiliate with, the louder that voice gets.

Yep, that's why organizing is so critical. It creates movements, which creates fear.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

Had to share. Just a random aside. Not intending to derail the current discussion, but I figure PoliGAF might appreciate this.

So a friend posted some partisan schlock (I think it was partisan schlock) basically asking how is Obama's spending okay but Bush's isn't, if spending is good.

I explained good spending vs bad spending, how foreign nation-building is a terrible idea if we aren't focused on domestic nation-building. How Obama's spending is overall good because it's primarily focused on infrastructure, clean energy, fuel efficiency, etc. And how Bush's spending was horrible because it started with ludicrous tax cuts, launched into two costly 8-year wars (one war of which could have been completely avoided), funded ridiculous ideas like NCLB, etc.

She took that as partisan Bush-bashing. lol

...and she's a voter.

Oof.

Just had to share.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

He's shown such restraint in Libya.

How many US troops are fighting in Libya right now exactly?

You really can't compare a war that we sent tens of thousands of troops into and spent a trillion dollars on without international support, to a war done with full UN backing without troops on the ground, and with minimal expenditure.