Is this election an opportunity for Americans?

[92bDad]

Look, no doubt we as posters have our moments of being a horses rear...many of us...although not all...tend to get snippy defending our side.

Perhaps today, there is an opportunity to take a different tact.

This election appears to be yet another election based on frustration with who is in power.

No doubt, in 06 and 08 the voters expressed their displeasure with Bush and the Republicans. The votes were not necessarily a vote in favor of Democrats...it was not a mandate for something but rather against something.

The same holds true in 10. This is not a vote for Republicans, but rather a vote against the policies and politics of the Democrats.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for politicians from both parties to actually LISTEN to the voice of the people.

I hear consistently from these politicians that they will put the Country first and I would argue that for the most part they always do. However, there is indeed a difference in philosophy and ideology on the process to improve the country.

It will be interesting to see how elected officials who walk to a different drum beat will find ways to negotiate so that our government actually performs its function.

It's clear that either party having an overwhelming majority is bad for the country...now with a mix of power, perhaps the Government can get back to actually representing the people.

Looks like the Democrats will now be forced to actually listen to the Republicans...funny the Republicans are accused of being the Party of No, but it's been the Democrats who have consistently stated NO WE WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOUR PROPOSALS...seems to me that the Party of NO has now been called to the carpet.

The onus is on both sides to hold true to their values, while also working to move this nation Forward so that America can get back to work and continue to LEAD in the ways of the World.

Congrats to America for a truly historic and positive election night!!!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Congrats to America for a truly historic and positive election night!!!

wrong....

-----------------------
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
-------------------------------

92bdad gets fooled....again.

[Murphy3]

Last night wasn't historic?

[dalmations202]

I am having a hard time trying to decide if Alex is just being pessimistic or realistic..........

Can anyone help me here?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Last night wasn't historic?

It was less historic than 1994. By 1996, 1994 was immaterial. By 1998, those handful of Congressman first elected in 1994 who were still in congress were among the biggest spenders.

One thing worthly firmly understanding-->the new congressional class is basically promising to cut the deficit by $100 billion...they'll trim the deficit from about ~$1.2 trillion to ~$1.1 trillion...if they get EVERYTHING they want.

To plagiarize some blogger I read a while back, it's like we're driving 100 mph and headed straight for a cliff. The *historic* tea party congress is effectively promising to reduce our speed to 94 mph.

[GermanDunk]

I´d say, the voters have sent Pres. Obama into the bullpen :-)

[Kirobaito]

It was perhaps historic in that the House changed control while the Senate did not... that hadn't happened since the 17th amendment was passed. If the Tea Partiers had their way, there would be no 17th amendment.

I care very little about the house. Those wackos will be voted out in two years. The fact that it wasn't nearly as bad in the Senate says something. I'm mainly mad that we have to deal with unqualified nutjobs like Ron Johnson and Rand Paul for six years.

As far as bipartisanship, if you weren't such a complete tool, you'd know that Republicans were adamantly opposed to anything the previous leadership tried to do regardless of its merits. When Obama first came into office and met with House Republicans to try to figure out what areas he could find compromise in, our highly exalted new leader Boehner told them to stay quiet, that there was nothing they could work on together. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, and Republicans are the ones who were incapable of compromise. Much of the legislation contained plenty of Republican initiatives. Hell, cap-and-trade was a Republican program once upon a time, as a market-based solution to emissions. You people love your markets, don't you? But once Democrats actually wanted to do it, Republicans went into tortoise socialist mode and screamed no at the top of their lungs, lying their asses off at every turn about the truth behind most of this legislation. Voinovich breaking with his party out of exasperation on a deficit-neutral small business lending bill is a pretty damn good example. There was no reason Republicans shouldn't have supported it, except they decided that they weren't going to support anything, regardless of its merits. Voinovich was retiring and wouldn't be subject to McConnell's iron hand, so he did what he knew was right.

Nancy Pelosi is Indira Gandhi compared to John Boehner.

As far as "rejecting agendas," most Americans are completely oblivious to the realities of policy. "Death panels" stuck with a lot of people, despite its horrific inaccuracy, merely because the process of explaining the alternative took too much time. Furthermore, turnout for last night appears to be lower than it was in 2006, at least from preliminary reports last night. Politicians of all stripes use this term "the American people" like it's every noun conceivable. This election just had a significantly higher percentage of old people and "get off my lawn" conservatives than the American people as a whole. This was not "the American people." "The American people" does not magically change this much.

Nothing will get done, anyway. The House can pass whatever the hell it wants. It won't pass the Senate, which due to the Republicans' TRULY historic use of the filibuster, we now know majorities don't mean squat. You have to have sixty votes to pass anything.

EDIT: Oh, and can we talk about the bullcrap that is the "Tea Party?" You had an election, and you proved that you were Republicans. Nothing else. That whole "throw the incumbents out" was all hoopla, as everyone with a brain said so. It amounted to, "Throw the incumbents out...unless they're Republicans." Dan Coats? That's who your Tea Party elects? Rob Portman? Mark Kirk? These are the ultimate in Republican retreads.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

This election appears to be yet another election based on frustration with who is in power.

No doubt, in 06 and 08 the voters expressed their displeasure with Bush and the Republicans. The votes were not necessarily a vote in favor of Democrats...it was not a mandate for something but rather against something.

The same holds true in 10. This is not a vote for Republicans, but rather a vote against the policies and politics of the Democrats.

Have you noticed that we always vote "against" politicians instead of "for" them these days? Seems to me that the idea of Democracy is failing in this country.

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Looks like the Democrats will now be forced to actually listen to the Republicans...funny the Republicans are accused of being the Party of No, but it's been the Democrats who have consistently stated NO WE WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOUR PROPOSALS...seems to me that the Party of NO has now been called to the carpet.

...until the shoe is on the other foot - the "Party of No" is always the one in the minority. Just switch around the words "Democrats" and "Republicans" every 2-6 years.

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Perhaps this is an opportunity for politicians from both parties to actually LISTEN to the voice of the people.

[Usually Lurkin]

When I read the op, I was going to predict that he'd get slammed for 1) trying to be sensible, 2) being a right winger, and 3) being 92bDad. I was too late for all 3 predictions. But I think that gives us a pretty good illustration of where the political discussion is in this country. The picture of unicorn sex fits and is a good illustration of just how low both political discussion in our culture and dallas-mavs.com in general have gotten.

[Maringa]

I agree with Alex in this manner - instead of driving off the cliff at 100 mph, we are driving off the cliff at 94 mph. What do the Democrats or Republicans have to offer to resolve this? Crickets....Unfortunately this every two year radical swing back and forth and temper tantrums between the two parties is not going to cut it. Hence, whether right or wrong, the emergence of the Tea Party. We can all get distracted and throw racist/bigot/intolerant labels at that group, but the fundamental issue as to why they came into play is being drowned out, and no one wants to listen...How is the government going to cut spending, get control of the economy and eliminate obvious corruption by both parties in the financial sector?

The only thing that I will criticize about the Tea Party is that they are unwilling to compromise increase on taxes. I don't think you can make an effective dent on the deficit just on spending cuts alone. The Dems/Reps will have to come up with creative ways of increasing revenue without significantly affecting consumer spending. Unfortunately that is a tough sell to both of their constituencies. I'm not overly optimistic...

California elections results are a case in point. The Governator made a very feeble attempt to cut spending, but he could not overcome the huge boulder in the road - I think he just gave up. So now, they elect a known big time spender/big government, guy with no clue on how to handle their economic predicament - it's just amazing! I am interested in seeing how Brown is going to handle this (although, I'll be honest, I don't think his opponent would have done a much better job). 2-3 years max - a massive federal bailout will be requested with all kinds of earth shattering/panicking press releases that California is too "big" to fail. Unfortunately, the Republican house will fight back little, but eventually succumb to the accusation of being the party of no.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Maringa

The only thing that I will criticize about the Tea Party is that they are unwilling to compromise increase on taxes. I don't think you can make an effective dent on the deficit just on spending cuts alone.

You certainly can't make an effective dent in the deficit without raising taxes and without cutting the military, social security, and medicare spending....this is the fundamental incoherence of mainstream conservative thought: they want more military and they consistently vote for TARP sized bailouts and more entitlements, and then they say they want lower taxes and less government. At the end of the day they're more likely to get two fornicating unicorns than lower taxes and less government.

[Usually Lurkin]

I think you're more likely to get lower taxes and less government than higher taxes and less government.

[92bDad]

Nice to see that in an era of "Change" some posters refuse to "Change"

It's clear that both parties have an "America First" mentality and that both have their share of very wise and intelligent individuals. Yes, I include President Obama on that list.

But it's also clear that the fundamental difference is in regards to respective Ideology.

Both sides have some Gray areas which they are willing to compromise on, while they have some hard line ideals that they are unwilling to budge. The hope is that with a divided Congress, there will be some points that help America move forward which both sides are willing to accept.

Now that President Obama no longer has a complete majority, we will discover how willing he truly is to compromise, and the same applies to the Republican Majority in the House with a nearly even split in the Senate.

Will these politicians get real with the budget and truly cut spending...by the way, to cut spending means that Republicans will have to be willing to not only cut on issues that are near and dear to Democrats, but also on issues that are near and dear to Republicans. Are they willing to "Feel the Pain" in order to do what is right for the Country.

Are the Democrats going to be willing to listen to the Voice of America and its opposition to Government Run Healthcare? At the end of the day, the way the Democrats ram rodded Health care down the throats of Americans is what cost them this election.

Certainly the economy played a part, but that appears to be a scapegoat for the Democrats. If it is the reason, then how do you explain Reid winning in Nevada?

This attitude we have seen by the Democrats is what has caused a bit of a stall with the economy. Companies have been concerned about spending money as they were worried that Government would change how business is done and thus cost them more money, so business has been putting away for a rainy day. They saw how the Democrats forced the Healthcare issue and in turn they got scarred of the direction of "Big Government"

Perhaps now, as President Obama indicated, there is an opportunity for Civility and thus an opportunity to change the perception of how the Government of the USA handles it's business of Representing the PEOPLE.

Perhaps now, the USA has a fighting chance to resume being the Great nation that it is. The course or direction of this administration has been changed per the voice of the people and it will be interesting to see where we go in the next 12-24 months.

[chumdawg]

If California would like some more money, then they should have voted to legalize marijuana and then taxed the shit out of it.

[GermanDunk]

I must spread...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think you're more likely to get lower taxes and less government than higher taxes and less government.

And we're more likely to get fornicating unicorns than either.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

And we're more likely to get fornicating unicorns than either.

well, I think it's still a bad idea to actually *vote* for the fornicating unicorns. In the lesser of 2 evils, 100 billion is a bigger deal.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

When I read the op, I was going to predict that he'd get slammed for 1) trying to be sensible, 2) being a right winger, and 3) being 92bDad. I was too late for all 3 predictions. But I think that gives us a pretty good illustration of where the political discussion is in this country. The picture of unicorn sex fits and is a good illustration of just how low both political discussion in our culture and dallas-mavs.com in general have gotten.

I'm not sure you actually read or understood the posts in this thread. To some, excluding yourself and those who can't wait to go through the ritual of voting in this country, the entire process is merely a symbol of stupidity and insanity. For some (myself included), the entire spectacle is just that... a spectacle.

I don't feel that this understanding of the political climate is cynical, I feel that it is the only logical assessment. The two-party system did not just come to be out of thin air. It is structured on fundamental principles of psychology and control. The control structure is not even really concerned with how you vote for someone to represent you. There are hundreds of examples of voter fraud that lay this out. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Any meaningful movement will eventually be co-opted. Take the Tea Party, for example. It began as a grassroots Libertarian movement concerned with limiting government. It was absorbed by the media blob and converted into a wack-job storehouse of Glenn beck fans. It has become a part of the political spectacle. These groups become a way to herd dissent into an ambiguous, fragmented group in order to monitor dissent. A milk-toast peanut will be tossed to the participants of said group in the following elections, but the balls of the phallus that screws the entire world chugs on.

And you and others fight over which ball you belong to.

[ribosoma]

Some further reading to illustrate my point:

You don't get to vote on this.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

I'm not sure you actually read or understood the posts in this thread.

Go back and re-read the posts (especially kirobaito's) and tell me the op wasn't dinged for those three things.

To some, excluding yourself and those who can't wait to go through the ritual of voting in this country, the entire process is merely a symbol of stupidity and insanity. For some (myself included), the entire spectacle is just that... a spectacle.

Do you really believe that if Kerry was elected, we'd have done in Iraq what we did in Iraq, and if the Republicans were in charge more recently, we'd be installing socialized medicine?

I really don't see how you can *feel* that anything in the rest of your post is remotely logical.

I don't feel that this understanding of the political climate is cynical, I feel that it is the only logical assessment. The two-party system ..., but the balls of the phallus that screws the entire world chugs on.

And you and others fight over which ball you belong to.

It's a nonsensical mashup of under analyzed emotion, conjecture, and accusation, with no self-awareness whatsoever. (If what you say about two-party systems and cooption is correct, then aren't you being coopted right now? Or is what you say not meaningful?)

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Some further reading to illustrate my point:

You don't get to vote on this.

uh, you do not want me voting on this.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

For some (myself included), the entire spectacle is just that... a spectacle.

Biennial buffoonary....

Since I stopped bothering about voting, I find watching the spectacle has vey much....make that exactly.....the same vibe as watching TV Evangelists. I often say that con artists of average talent and intellect become TV preachers, the really smart and shrewd ones become politicians.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Do you really believe that if Kerry was elected, we'd have done in Iraq what we did in Iraq?

Too easy....yes, had Kerry been elected we'd have done the exact same thing.


edit: One thing the average Iraq-war supporting Republican might not know, and the average Democrat might prefer to forget-->>

during the 2004 campaign, antiwar protests were cordoned off into Orwellian "free speech" zones, not at Republican events, but at Democratic party events.

Democrats, bombing the shit out of people since WWI.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

(If what you say about two-party systems and cooption is correct, then aren't you being coopted right now? Or is what you say not meaningful?)

Exactly how is someone who isn't a member of one of those parties, doesn't vote, and doesn't watch mainstream media co-opted? I know from previous discourse that you consider yourself the defender of all things American, be it flags, crying eagles, etc., but what exactly is your point again? I can't really tell what you have a problem with in my post because you truncate the quote to reflect how you see it, as opposed to how it was initially presented, presumably with the intent of somehow insulting me. This, to me, shows that you don't bother to fully read what others here write, which, after all, was my initial point. You have your view set, even if you seem to have an awfully hard time of ever getting around to coherently presenting exactly what it is. So more power to you, man. That is, apparently, just how you roll.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Too easy....yes, had Kerry been elected we'd have done the exact same thing.


edit: One thing the average Iraq-war supporting Republican might not know, and the average Democrat might prefer to forget-->>

during the 2004 campaign, antiwar protests were cordoned off into Orwellian "free speech" zones, not at Republican events, but at Democratic party events.

Democrats, bombing the shit out of people since WWI.

I agree with you on your view of Kerry. And as far as the suppression of free speech goes at Party events, there is a long, and sometimes violent history of such. The real history of this country is pretty dark and bleak. Once you take a few steps outside of the official narrative that we are all forced to memorize as children, things get a bit disturbing. As much as words like freedom and democracy get tossed around, they tend to lose their meaning when the reality on the ground says otherwise. I think that scares the hell out of people, but it is necessary, at some point, to move past the fables and myths and into some semblance of reality.

Many Americans are finding the way things are headed to be antithetical to the principles they believe in, and are beginning to expand their understanding of how their actions, or lack thereof, bring about the situation we currently find ourselves in. Others (a shrinking number every day) still hold on to the fairy tales we were conditioned to believe in our youth.

From my understanding of history, there is no political solution to this mess. Our political system is merely a platform for entertainment. Nothing will change with new elections, save the mascots of the home team. And many people that could bring about substantial change in their communities will instead engage in useless banter about strategy in a world they have yet to directly and meaningfully engage in.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Too easy....yes, had Kerry been elected we'd have done the exact same thing..

really? surge and all?
and socialized medicine? We'd be doing that if republicans had been in charge the last 2 years?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

really? surge and all?

Yeah....I believe the number Kerry floated was around 40k additional troops. Kerry's critique was always about Bush's management of the war, never that invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea.

and socialized medicine? We'd be doing that if republicans had been in charge the last 2 years?

does medicare part d, a gazillion dollar plus expansion of the socialist welfare state and the biggest entitlement increase since LBJ, ring a bell?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

From my understanding of history, there is no political solution to this mess.

This is how I see it as well.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yeah....I believe the number Kerry floated was around 40k additional troops. Kerry's critique was always about Bush's management of the war, never that invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea.

He also said something like, "sending a bunch of troops now would just be adding to our own casualty list."

does medicare part d, a gazillion dollar plus expansion of the socialist welfare state and the biggest entitlement increase since LBJ, ring a bell?

Not really stuff voters were happy about. And it pales in comparison to where we are now.

[dude1394]

Back to the spending a little bit. The political tact of folks who are opposed to reducing spending is to ask for specifics on how it will get done. Which exact programs will you cut, defense, ss, etc. It's a political tactic that is very effective. Because as soon as you do say what you might cut (even if it's 5%) you are accused of making grandma eat dog food, starving this person/starving that person.

The only way to actually do any of this imo is an across the board cut of say 10% on everything. SS, medicare/medicaid, defense, everything...

It's the only way that would seem to be able to pass political muster. If you were ballsy you'd target 20% and phase it in over x years or have a sliding scale that x% will be reduced until 10-15 years from now you were balanced. I understand the political will to stick to that for 10-15 years is almost non-existent as government is even more experienced at getting over their own laws than a good-tax attorney is at getting out of taxes, better actually because they aren't getting sued by someone and their legal pockets are infinite.

But I confess it's very tough to see anyone actually fixing this short of a debacle. But I give the tea party credit for actually giving a crap enough to try.

[alexamenos]

your vote really doesn't matter...

link

...the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month.

That's a fancy way of saying that the Federal Reserve is going to print $600 billion fresh new dollar bils and give 'em to persons other than you to spend as those persons see fit.

This $600 billion....an amount equal to 20% of GDP....necessarily reduces the value of the money in your wallet, the purchasing power of your income. It is a tax on you, a taxation for which you have no representation. It is bigger and more significant than anything the new twits or the old twits in congress will do. Your vote this past November 2nd really didn't matter.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

your vote really doesn't matter...

link



That's a fancy way of saying that the Federal Reserve is going to print $600 billion fresh new dollar bils and give 'em to persons other than you to spend as those persons see fit.

This $600 billion....an amount equal to 20% of GDP....necessarily reduces the value of the money in your wallet, the purchasing power of your income. It is a tax on you, a taxation for which you have no representation. It is bigger and more significant than anything the new twits or the old twits in congress will do. Your vote this past November 2nd really didn't matter.

yeah. You don't want me voting on monetary policy, and you don't want the general population voting on monetary policy. And I don't trust your analysis any more than that of the experts saying that the state of the economy necessitates this action.

[alexamenos]

yeah. You don't want me voting on monetary policy, and you don't want the general population voting on monetary policy.

I don't want anything resembling the situation we have now -- an unaccountable private cartel committing the moral equivalent of counterfeiting with impunity -- this is the situation we have and the situation which you defend.

My earlier point remains -- inasmuch as you have no vote as it pertains to monetary policy (or the people who set monetary policy), your vote doesn't really matter.

I don't trust your analysis any more than that of the experts saying that the state of the economy necessitates this action.

My analysis is a simple statement of economic law, no more controversial than saying that an increase in the supply of a thing reduces it's price, all other things being equal. This is true regardless of whether one believes more Fed printing is necessary or not.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I don't want anything resembling the situation we have now -- an unaccountable private cartel committing the moral equivalent of counterfeiting with impunity -- this is the situation we have and the situation which you defend.

My earlier point remains -- inasmuch as you have no vote as it pertains to monetary policy (or the people who set monetary policy), your vote doesn't really matter.

you are saying it's a bad thing that I don't have a vote in the matter. I'm saying it's a good thing. You also don't want me voting on how many tanks should be kept in Germany, how to build the proper amount of sway into a skyscraper, or how many microns of rat poop are allowed to go unannounced in baby formula. "moral equivalent." please.

My analysis is a simple statement of economic law, no more controversial than saying that an increase in the supply of a thing reduces it's price, all other things being equal. .

All other things aren't equal.

[alexamenos]

Change I can believe in....

Promised GOP Budget Cuts May Be Much Lower Than Promised

WASHINGTON -- The GOP "budget cut" numbers are getting squishier by the minute. At least it seemed that way in the hallways of the Capitol on a ceremonial first day of swearing-ins, family photo ops and back-slapping goodwill.

Republicans campaigned coast to coast on, among other things, a promise to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget.

But now they are talking about cuts as slim as $30 billion, blaming the change on the fine print that no one read -- or if they read, did not understand.

It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed.

....meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[92bDad]

$30,000,000,000 in budget cuts is at least Progress. You have to make progress to get to your goals. No it's not enough as the promise was and remains $100,000,000,000...but it's at least a start.

They have many more opportunities to slash spending over the year...

I'm interested in knowing what the budget is and then at the end of the year, what is the actual spending numbers. If they can come in at $100,000,000,000 under the budget, then it will be a success.

Again, I am interested in knowing the results, not the promises.

It's like airline travel...they are measured with ON Time Departure...I don't care about the take off, I care about the landing...what is the ON Time Arrival grade? Keep in mind that these airlines skew the On Time Departure number...all they need to do is shut the door and taxi away from the gate 1 inch and it's considered an on-time departure.

So back to the budget...I remotely care about the budget as in what has been planned, but ultimately, I want to know how the government will keep its spending UNDER Budget and how it will roll that savings into 2012 to further bring the spending even more under budget.

Is this congress willing to do the hard work to truly and genuinely reverse the over-spending cycle?

[alexamenos]

$30,000,000,000 isn't progress....the deficit will still be something like $1,170,000,000,000. $30b is like couch change compared to what remains....and that's the best we can hope for.

At $100 billion it was like we are heading towards a cliff at 100 miles per hour and the tea party was trying to slow us down to 94....now it's more like 98.

Rand Paul is already climbing on board with raising the debt limit (which isn't much of a limit in the first place). They've already shuttled a rule which would require them to acknowledge the existence of the constitution before passing spending on certain things (not actually obey the constitution, just acknowledge it).

The upside for this congress is that it will be ever so slightly less socialist than the last congress. That's not much of an upside.