Best part of Romney's speech was when he stated that the poor. old and infirm would be cared for in his America and the whole hall went silent.
Not a single person applauded (you could hear a pin drop, very awkward) at this even though they had all applauded the five or six points he made prior and the one afterwards.
I don't know... I love Clint Eastwood, and as someone who voted for Obama previously and has been leaning towards doing so again, I DISliked Romney much less than previously in this speech. I think, overall, that he did pretty well.
Not that you guys were necessarily commenting about that, but I couldn't find another place to put the comment
I only tuned in just before Romney's speech, but the person we were really disappointed in was Rubio. My in-laws are Cuban and were excited for him to be speaking... but I thought he was extremely negative and really fell flat...
Lolwut, I was being sarcastic. People swoon over "progressives" like Clooney and even Penn, who supports softcore dictators. Yet Eastwood dares to align with the Republican nominee and people throw a hissy.
That's not sarcasm, then. You are saying you think there's a double standard- that liberal celebrities who express a political opinion are only praised, but conservative ones are only booed.
That's silly, and untrue. Both are cheered by their supporters, and booed by their detractors. Which is fair and right.
If you're claiming that liberals refused to criticize liberal celebrities, then the Ellen Barkin thread is right there (it's down to page 2), within the last few days, proving you wrong.
Harriticus wrote: Lolwut, I was being sarcastic. People swoon over "progressives" like Clooney and even Penn, who supports softcore dictators. Yet Eastwood dares to align with the Republican nominee and people throw a hissy.
I think you missed the part where he was talking to an empty chair... and responding to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.
Why do you care how media treats them? Most people I know roll their eyes and say what ever.
Most liberals I know think Sean Penn is a self-important douche so I'm not sure where 'they all praise him' comes from, and I know a lot of liberals (including the entertainment industry) who like Kelsey Grammar.
To think that celebrities that skew more Democratic get no criticism and conservatives only get criticism makes me think someone may only be watching one 'news' channel.
This is a bad person. Good to his family, I'm dead sure. Bad for everyone else's, no question.
why? i want to know exactly why you think he is a bad person.
is it because he loves america? no
is it because he wants to cut government spending so my generation and the next arent hopeless? no
is it because he wants to give businesses a tax break so they can afford to hire more people? no
is it because he wants to make America independent of foreign oil and create jobs here producing our own (also keeping money here instead of sending it to other countries)? i dont think so.
is it because his VP candidate supports our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms?
you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)
now please, back up your argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: I don't know... I love Clint Eastwood, and as someone who voted for Obama previously and has been leaning towards doing so again, I DISliked Romney much less than previously in this speech. I think, overall, that he did pretty well.
Not that you guys were necessarily commenting about that, but I couldn't find another place to put the comment
I only tuned in just before Romney's speech, but the person we were really disappointed in was Rubio. My in-laws are Cuban and were excited for him to be speaking... but I thought he was extremely negative and really fell flat...
i disagree, while some of what Rubio said was negative, he was saying those things to inspire people to vote for Romney, which i feel he did exceptionally well. nothing he said was false.
you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)
You haven't proven anything. You've accepted some platitudes, a mildly appealing but misleading version of a personal history, a pack of distortions and a few outright lies at face value. That's just being uncritical and letting yourself be taken advantage of.
The parts of Romney's speech where he talked about his personal history and his family were pretty decent. Though some of it (like the implication that he worried and sweated about his family's livelihood resting on Bain succeeding) were not really honest.
His policy stuff and most of his attacks on the President were the same standard talking points, full of falsehood and deception, that he's been putting out since the primaries. He did an okay job as Governor of MA; but it's clear that he's willingly abandoned a lot of his centrist principles for political advantage to curry the Tea Party vote.
Harriticus wrote: Celebrity activists who are liberal = progressive activists
Celebrity activists who are conservatives = senile and off their meds
It's not so much the fact that he is supporting the conservatives, and more the fact that he had a conversation with a chair.
That part is probably where the senility/meds comments came from.
Just look at some of the things in there. Most of it sounds okay, but read deeper and find the nuggets of insanity or social backwardness that make this platform unsustainable for many people to support.
If and when a liberal celebrity spends 25 minutes on the stage during a live broadcast at the Democratic convention carrying on a conversation with a chair for twenty five minutes and pretending that an invisible president is swearing and talking back to them I will be the first to say they are bat gak crazy as well.
I have no issue with conservative celebs being conservative per se if they so choose provided they are talking intelligently and rationally about the issues at hand.
Eastwood however looked like a nutjob doing a routine at The Improv.
He didnt do Romney any favors. Romney's own speech is being overshadowed by the display of off-message craziness that Eastwood stumbled through...
Every liberal who contributed to the Ellen Barkin thread said that Ellen Barkin was a dumb nutjob who no one should pay any attention to.
You are writing false things. Stop speaking falsehoods, please.
Agreed.
I have no problem citing crazy when I see it. Barkin is crazy ( and I said so in that thread). Penn isnt far behind her.
Amaya (amoungst others)has taken on the role of being obtuse on principle as of late, jumping to blindly oppose anything certain people post, so no surprises here really...
Mannahnin wrote:The parts of Romney's speech where he talked about his personal history and his family were pretty decent. Though some of it (like the implication that he worried and sweated about his family's livelihood resting on Bain succeeding) were not really honest.
His policy stuff and most of his attacks on the President were the same standard talking points, full of falsehood and deception, that he's been putting out since the primaries. He did an okay job as Governor of MA; but it's clear that he's willingly abandoned a lot of his centrist principles for political advantage to curry the Tea Party vote.
This is kind of where I'm at, Mann. I actually like his performance as governor of MA. But his rhetoric has moved to the right by a lot, as unfortunately both party's have to to win their primaries. He seems to be banking on the base and not on independents.
Which is a bummer, because if he would say/do things that were more central, he could earn my vote...
However, as to negativity and twisting the facts, unfortunately even Not being in a swing state, I've seen an equal number of ads from the Obama campaign that are doing so. Which is a bummer...
Finally, I watched a little bit of MSNBC coverage of the convention after it was over last night, and I have to say, I dislike them as much as Fox News but on the other end of the spectrum. Rachel Maddow was just tearing into Clint Eastwood... and people totally just glossed over the other speakers.
I would've much rather heard some decent coverage of what the heck Rubio's speech was supposed to accomplish, or any of the more "substantive" speakers... rather than what I'm guessing was supposed to be kind of a funny thing and maybe went awry.
Clint Eastwood can do no wrong in my book, though . I respect the man for his work as an actor, and much like many liberal-leaning actors whose politics I don't agree with (myself being a more center-politics person, and leaning towards the increasing popularity of social-liberalism and fiscal-conservatism) I ignore his politics for the sake of the fact that he is Clint. Fething. Eastwood
So, yeah... hopefully NPR on the way to work this morning will remain somewhat neutral in their coverage, as I have been pleasantly surprised by their being so thus far!
I'm not even IN your country, but let me respond to your extemely poor response...
jordanis wrote:why? i want to know exactly why you think he is a bad person.
is it because he loves america? no
He loves one vision of America. There are plenty of visions of America, both within and outside your nation.
is it because he wants to cut government spending so my generation and the next arent hopeless? no
Really? He is not doing it for any other reason? You really believe that the money saved is going to land up in your pocket at any time in the future?
is it because he wants to give businesses a tax break so they can afford to hire more people? no
When business save money, they don't hire more staff. They pay more money in dividends. IF they hire more staff, it is only so that the dividends can be even higher.
is it because he wants to make America independent of foreign oil and create jobs here producing our own (also keeping money here instead of sending it to other countries)? i dont think so.
Most American oil interests are overseas. If you think that is going to change, you are very naive.
is it because his VP candidate supports our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms?
That is what you choose to comment on regarding Paul Ryan? Really? That is probably the least offensive thing about the guy.
you cant just say something without proving your point. i have proven mine (that Romney is a good, no Great candidate)
now please, back up your argument.
You have not proven a single thing. You have provided some opinions, yes, but I would argue that the miniscule amount of logical argument you have given to back them up is extremely weak. You have subsequently provided no evidence to back up your arguments, let alone prove them.
Your posting is extremely naive. Now, I'm not going to go all anti-Romney, so I am not going to provide any opinions or evidence of my own to try and counter yours, but please, if you want to go around saying you have proven something, at least try and come up with 1) Opinions backed up with logical argument, preferably followed by 2) Evidence to back up your arguments.
People may still disagree with you, but at least they'll respect your ability to make a valid choice, instead of making you look brainwashed.
Clint Eastwood is hardly a "conservative" in the same sense as many attending the RNC. He is fiscally conservative but very liberal socially. He is pro gay marriage, pro abortion I believe and definitely believes in global climate change which many on the far rigjt deny. He is an old school Republican, not a Tea Party pub, and it shows. As crazy as his speech might have been (apparently he had a GOP approved speech he threw out right before going on stage, so this was mostly adlib) if you read the transcript he never once actually says hr endorses Romney or any of the GOP platform (both of which were explicit requirements for speeches or so Ive read).
Clint Eastwood doesn't really fit with the far right conservative base that makes up so much of the Republican party lately. Maybe he and folks like McCain should ressurect Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party. I'd join in an instant.
It was fething embarrassing. The auld bloke could hardly get his words out.. you know how when you visit your grandparents and they go "Ah would you like a cup of tea Ian, Richard.. Jonathan... Paul.... (insert every single male member of my immediate family) Matthew?... Yes.."
He shouldn't have been given a speaking part, the guys in his eighties and he just looked a tit.
I feel kinda sorry for the bloke... Age makes fools of us all. My granny always says "never get old" I think ill take her advice.
I'm an Eastwood fan, and I respect the fact that an 80 year got up and did a speech viewed by millions.
In response to an earlier post, Eastwood is old school Republican of the Charlton Heston mould i.e what the Democrats used to be.
To another earlier poster, why do the Republicans always get away with the myth that they cut government spending? Reagan and both members of the Bush dynasty spent money like there was no tomorrow.
And finally, I'm no fan of Obama, but if anything represents the American dream, it's a man of humble origins becoming POTUS, not a multi-millionaire.
I thought it was pretty uncomfortable to watch and not the way I want to remember Clint Eastwood. Not the ideology of his speech---just the manner in which it was given.
Harriticus wrote: If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.
Right, one of these arguments. Let me guess, you're one of those people that reads relative neutrality as fawning because its a failure to condemn without any regard for what is being regarded neutrally, and which sources are doing the regarding. Instead its just "the media".
I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
I have been a firm believer since 2010 that Obama would be a one-term president, that everything going on in the US favors a Republican taking the office in 2013 and that the only thing the GOP had to do was to keep calm and collected and not feth this up, maybe run a moderate candidate just to be safe although this election was in their bag.
And every day I am amazed at just how bad they are screwing themselves out of a sure shot at the white house. 18 months ago I would have bet money that Obama did not have a chance at a second term, but they keep on profing me wrong.
d-usa wrote: I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
I have been a firm believer since 2010 that Obama would be a one-term president, that everything going on in the US favors a Republican taking the office in 2013 and that the only thing the GOP had to do was to keep calm and collected and not feth this up, maybe run a moderate candidate just to be safe although this election was in their bag.
And every day I am amazed at just how bad they are screwing themselves out of a sure shot at the white house. 18 months ago I would have bet money that Obama did not have a chance at a second term, but they keep on profing me wrong.
Obama is extremely vulnerable on paper. But I agree that the GOP's quest for ideological purity has hurt them immensely in Presidential races. Something's wrong when the party won't give a man like Colin Powell a shot, or a man like John McCain their unconditional support.
And although I think Romney is a flawed candidate, he kinda creeps into that category too. I think the real Romney would play well in some battleground states. But of course, people aren't sure who the real Romney is anymore.
I should say that the race to be the rightiest probably works well in state and especially local races in some regions. It just doesn't (and can't) play well in all parts of the country in a national race. And because the party has stocked itself with so many ideologues, it's unclear at what point they'll come to understand their problems and adjust. Although they will adjust eventually. Winning ultimately trumps everything, even the loftiest of ideals.
I think the popular vote will be fairly close, but I just don't see the electoral math working for the GOP. Too many battleground states seem to be leaning Obama's way. Heck, Obama's even up in Wisconsin.
At the beginning I was saying that Romney was the best candidate they had running. And I think if moderate Romney would have ran and Moderate Romney had a fair shot he probably could have won.
But during the primary the base wanted anybody but Romney. Just look at the field they ran and think about the fact that pretty much every single one of them was at one point a more preferred candidate than Romney. Romney had to distort himself so much to the right that he just pissed off the moderates that he would have easily had in his pocket.
There would have been a lot less flip-flops to trip over if he wouldn't have been forced to play the base like he did.
I think an Obama v. Romney battle would look a lot different today if it wouldn't have been for the primaries.
That does continue to be a bit of an issue with the republican party. To win tje primaries you have to win the far right. To win the presidency, you have to win the middle. Problem is by the time they're done pandering to the right for the nom, the middle wants nothing to do with them.
d-usa wrote: At the beginning I was saying that Romney was the best candidate they had running. And I think if moderate Romney would have ran and Moderate Romney had a fair shot he probably could have won.
But during the primary the base wanted anybody but Romney. Just look at the field they ran and think about the fact that pretty much every single one of them was at one point a more preferred candidate than Romney. Romney had to distort himself so much to the right that he just pissed off the moderates that he would have easily had in his pocket.
There would have been a lot less flip-flops to trip over if he wouldn't have been forced to play the base like he did.
I think an Obama v. Romney battle would look a lot different today if it wouldn't have been for the primaries.
Well, that's easier said than done. The energy from the populists in the GOP is a real force and the strongest I've seen in my lifetime, even if there are some astroturf politics at work there. It's tempting to tap that energy, especially on a state and local level like I said. Remember that there are all levels of candidates trying to get elected. The GOP leadership seemed to have a better grip on the leash in the past. But now it seems like that dog is running wild.
IMO, a lot of this started late in the last election, when things started getting ugly in the crowds at some of the McCain/Palin campaign stops. The populist base just got angrier after losing the election, and the Tea Party kinda channeled things...somewhat. But it does seem that organization -- such as it is -- increased the force, kinda like water through a narrowing pipe. Witness the Tea Partiers in Congress playing the games they did with the debt ceiling. I think it's safe to say that the old GOP never would have allowed those shenanigans, given the high stakes.
The GOP leadership somehow needs to get them back in their cages. The country's demographics are clearly moving away from them, not toward them, and the GOP could be looking at a long absence from the White House. Does anyone want to bet against Hillary in 2016 with Bill in tow? I wouldn't.
Stay too far to the right and they risk becoming a regional party of sorts. But I don't think things will get to that point. Eventually they'll do what they have to in order to win.
I heard an intersting poll number on NPR the other day. I don't recall the original source. They stated:
Romney is up by 9% with Male voters.
Obama is up by 10% with Female voters.
Then, combine this with some of the other data around demographics voting, and you see the the Republicans ar ethe party of Old, white guys. However, they can still stay relavant for now, because there are a heckuva lot of old white guys right now.
I think we might see the same thing that we are seeing with the Tea Party.
As more of the extreme guys get elected, and deliver exactly what they promised, more people will see what kind of people they are rooting for.
Keep in mind that the congress that includes the people that the Tea Party was the most enthusiastic about also has a 14% approval rating. The candidates kept their word and did exactly what they said they would do, but people are realizing just exactly what that means.
I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
Yeah, but you supported Germany during Euro 2012, so you've burnt your bridges with me
Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?
I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
Yeah, but you supported Germany during Euro 2012, so you've burnt your bridges with me
Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?
We're just waiting for the Emperor to reveal himself so that we can get on with conquering the galaxy...
I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
Yeah, but you supported Germany during Euro 2012, so you've burnt your bridges with me
Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?
Obama and Romney aren't the best we can proiduce.
They're just the best the inherently broken system that we have will allow.
I think I come across as a fairly liberal poster in many regards, and I did vote for Obama.
Yeah, but you supported Germany during Euro 2012, so you've burnt your bridges with me
Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?
Obama and Romney aren't the best we can proiduce.
They're just the best the inherently broken system that we have will allow.
They are also only 2 of the candidates that are currently running, but between the media only focusing on the big two and most people thinking "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote that is thrown away" we never hear about the other ones.
Amaya wrote: I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, but the second point does stand that conservative celebrities are constantly berated.
No, Chuck Norris is a super conservative that believes gays should have less right and he seems to be loved by a lot of people, especially those who are still trapped in 2006 where Chuck Norris jokes seemed to reign along with yo mama jokes
I think the popular vote will be fairly close, but I just don't see the electoral math working for the GOP. Too many battleground states seem to be leaning Obama's way. Heck, Obama's even up in Wisconsin.
My hope is that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins on electoral votes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.
What?
[whembly loves Metallica] rock on dude! \m/
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: So after watching clint eastwood and his empty chair routine, it was a riot. I love how he bashed obama and romney at the same time pure genius.
RiTides wrote:Clint Eastwood can do no wrong in my book, though . I respect the man for his work as an actor, and much like many liberal-leaning actors whose politics I don't agree with (myself being a more center-politics person, and leaning towards the increasing popularity of social-liberalism and fiscal-conservatism) I ignore his politics for the sake of the fact that he is Clint. Fething. Eastwood.
I love Clint Eastwood. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of my favorite films of all time, since I was a kid. I love a lot of his directorial work as well. Letters from Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, and Gran Torino are all really great, even before touching the singular genius of Unforgiven.
This was really sad of him. Deeply symbolic though. Rather than being able to debate the real person and his real record, he has to resort to arguing with an empty chair representing a person who does not exist except in the imagination.
The Jon Stewart take on it was great. Made me a bit less depressed, thankfully.
Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?
That's the thing that's so frustrating to me. I feel like America deserves better than Obama or Romney, but everyone who would actually be good at the job has something better to do.
Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve and that's what has led us to this point, but I would certainly hope we could do a lot better.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.
Since I took an arrow to the knee, I haven't been keeping up to all the memes...
And oh... Lulu sucks... bah.
To be fair Metallica was in there prime during the 80's, I mean how many artists end there music career with there dignity completely in tact. In fact let's look at a few well-known artists later studio releases.
I think the popular vote will be fairly close, but I just don't see the electoral math working for the GOP. Too many battleground states seem to be leaning Obama's way. Heck, Obama's even up in Wisconsin.
My hope is that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins on electoral votes.
You know, I was thinking about this at lunch today. It's sort of interesting that they decided to pick "we built it" as their campaign motto. It's fascinating to me because it's sort of predicated on a lie; that anyone can stand alone in modern society and build something themselves; and how it was excerpted from a larger speech and stripped of all context. It's a good microcosm of sorts for how the GOP is today: long on soundbites, short on facts and context and; gak, at this point, honesty. It's a little reminiscent of 4 years ago, when the GOP rallied around a man named Joe (who wasn't named Joe) who was a plumber (but not actually a plumber) who wanted to buy his bosses business (he wasn't really) and didn't want his taxes raised (they weren't). Ah well, we get the government we deserve.
It just strikes me as really weird that people could get so caught up in the 'yay my political team' nonsense that they could pretend Eastwood's speach was anything other than really, really embarassing. I mean, fething hell people, at some point you just have to acknowledge reality.
Amaya wrote: I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, but the second point does stand that conservative celebrities are constantly berated.
But that's bs. Clint Eastwood is massively respected.
But the guy gave a truly horrible speach, that was just unbearable to sit through. He stumbled over lines, and the talking to an empty chair thing was bizarre. He got it together at the end, but the simple fact that it was a terrible speach is true no matter how much people like to pretend their political party gets picked on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.
The ones with Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis on them.
Mannahnin wrote: I love Clint Eastwood. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of my favorite films of all time, since I was a kid. I love a lot of his directorial work as well. Letters from Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, and Gran Torino are all really great, even before touching the singular genius of Unforgiven.
This was really sad of him. Deeply symbolic though. Rather than being able to debate the real person and his real record, he has to resort to arguing with an empty chair representing a person who does not exist except in the imagination.
I admit when I watching the speach I did think 'well this explains why J Edgar was so disappointing'
I've come to the conclusion you can't believe anything either party says: dems convolute stuff the GOP says, and vice versa, if you want the truth you have to do your own homework. after doing my homework, i still agree with the Republicans, as the Democrats have leaned more toward Socialism and that goes against everything i beleive about being free...and honestly, they have at least given some answers, right or wrong, they are still answers. Obama is giving fewer solutions and just blaming, you cant blame your predecessor for everything forever, even after going on both the Romney website and the Obama website: Romney is a man with a plan, after searching for 3 hours neither me nor my mom could find anything resembling a plan on Obama's site. im a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist at heart, not a Liberal or Socialist. I don't know if my beliefs are correct, but i do know that the current path America is headed is not the path we should be headed. We should be prosperous, wealthy, and progressing. In all honesty, Obama has stagnated, not really doing anything but spend money that we don't have on stuff that may or may not have needed it,
my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.
jordanis wrote: I've come to the conclusion you can't believe anything either party says: dems convolute stuff the GOP says, and vice versa, if you want the truth you have to do your own homework.
Better get ready to shut down the Military or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Good luck finding doctors or mid-level practitioners to work for you if they are capped at 80,000 or less. Why would any doctor treat soldiers in a war zone for less than half what he should be making...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although I think that proposal can be summed up in a simple term: Feth everybody but the military.
Anybody who even remotely thinks we can reign in spending without touching the military is not worth listening to.
Although at this point I am fairly sure I am posting in a troll thread.
d-usa wrote: Better get ready to shut down the Military or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Good luck finding doctors or mid-level practitioners to work for you if they are capped at 80,000 or less. Why would any doctor treat soldiers in a war zone for less than half what he should be making...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although I think that proposal can be summed up in a simple term: Feth everybody but the military.
Anybody who even remotely thinks we can reign in spending without touching the military is not worth listening to.
Although at this point I am fairly sure I am posting in a troll thread.
i said government employees, doctors are private sector, or would be. the role of government is to ensure the welfare of the people, that can be acheived 1 of a few ways, the 2 prevalent ideologies are :active generally the more liberal, and passive, by passing laws that uphold morality but otherwise stay out of the public affairs of others, i prefer the latter, because A) it creates a smaller government, B) it costs less to run (mostly because it is smaller) and is easier to maintain in check to keep it from becoming this gigantic corrupt machine that at the end of the day does less to help the welfare of the nation than it does to hurt it.
Dogma, i would appreciate if you just stop before we burn this thread to the ground as well, we have polar views on subjects and I am not in the mood to fight. Do you agree to disagree?
I agree. I am not gushing over Obama like certain press did in 2008 or certain press still does. Nor do I buy the FNC BS in favor of anything that smells Republican.
I voted for McCain too. Not because I thought he was great but he promised something tangible not dreamy
"Hope and Change" with no substance.
I don't think Obama has a clue on what to do with the economy. Frankly, the most surprising thing he has delivered on is the war on terror.
Sorry, when I look at the Democratic delivery on its 2008 promises, I am nothing but disappointed. Now it is not all their fault, a recalcitrant Republican congress holds some of the blame. But there again, the Dems forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing I find disturbing too ( and probably why the Dems got the boot in 2010).
Personally, I had a well paying job, health care and a decent 403b in 2008. In 2012 I have lost my job, lost my healthcare and am hitting my retirement to make ends meet. So I am one of those who just hope Obama will leave a little change in my pocket and not totally break me.
So there may be a bit of sour grapes when I lean toward something new instead of the rudderless Democratic plan. (Unless they hope to make me a dependent of the state...)
I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.
The issue is the Republicans are offering a "cutback" plan whereas the Democrats are offering "free" healthcare for all and no change. So just like a juvenile dependent, I expect the American people to ignore the potential blowback from the "Ostrich" plan and vote for their allowance to remain unchanged.
jordanis wrote: my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.
So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?
Have you ever had a look into the countries that attempted a flat tax? In short they went bankrupt, because when it comes to deciding how much the tax rate has to be you cannot find a balance between taking too much from the poor, and generating enough revenue to meet the basic government spending requirements of a modern economy. Which is basically why we have progressive taxation.
Healthcare in the US is privatised. And yet it costs more than it does per capita than anywhere else in the world, without delivering better outcomes.
Why do you 'need' the world's biggest army?
Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jordanis wrote: i said government employees, doctors are private sector, or would be. the role of government is to ensure the welfare of the people, that can be acheived 1 of a few ways, the 2 prevalent ideologies are :active generally the more liberal, and passive, by passing laws that uphold morality but otherwise stay out of the public affairs of others, i prefer the latter, because A) it creates a smaller government, B) it costs less to run (mostly because it is smaller) and is easier to maintain in check to keep it from becoming this gigantic corrupt machine that at the end of the day does less to help the welfare of the nation than it does to hurt it.
The notion of government is so much more complex than just 'bigger' or 'smaller'. One of the really annoying things about the modern Republican party is how that 'small government' idea has corroded away their understanding of what government actually is.
I mean, here's one for you - American manufacturers in the West Coast are finding it hard to compete with locally produced goods in Europe, even though the US produces them at a much cheaper cost the cost of transport is huge due to disfunctional ports, which is the result of a breakdown in the relationship between unions and port management. So the government comes in, provides low cost loans to port management to modernise the port, and strikes an agreement to pay redundancies to union workers. The result is quicker movement of goods through ports and reduced labour overhead making US export goods more competitive.
Is that big or little government?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAaddict wrote: I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.
I'm sorry to hear you've lost your job, but I am really puzzled as to when this idea appeared that economies were supposed to cycle from bust to economic growth within two years.
jordanis wrote: my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.
So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?
Have you ever had a look into the countries that attempted a flat tax? In short they went bankrupt, because when it comes to deciding how much the tax rate has to be you cannot find a balance between taking too much from the poor, and generating enough revenue to meet the basic government spending requirements of a modern economy. Which is basically why we have progressive taxation.
Healthcare in the US is privatised. And yet it costs more than it does per capita than anywhere else in the world, without delivering better outcomes.
Why do you 'need' the world's biggest army?
Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.
so maybe my number wasnt the best to use, but my argument is still valid, government employees that determine their own pay grade (or very easily work together across the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption) is unacceptable, maybe the better option would be to have all pay raises for each representative or Senator to be voted on in their state, not by committee or however they do it now (and abuse it) because i beleive most if not all politicians are overpaid for doing usually not a whole lot to deserve it....being in a position of power should be an almost volunteer situation. and to be fair, a vast amount of government programs could be cancelled and made into private sector entities (not so much the military as many others) with equal if not better success than the current government run programs
I'm sorry to hear you've lost your job, but I am really puzzled as to when this idea appeared that economies were supposed to cycle from bust to economic growth within two years
Ahh 2008 to 2012 is 4years. Now I am not taking the simplistic view that it is ALL Obama's fault. As a matter of fact the new jobs numbers are currently taking a little up tick. I am just saying if I were grading him, I would currently be giving him a D+ or a C-. Not an absolute failure but very underwhelming.
So I apologize for my view through rose colored glasses but the no-change stay-as-you-go Democratic plan doesn't inspire me.
I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.
Really? You think that this is his economic strategy's fault?
That's a bad statement. It really is.
The issue is the Republicans are offering a "cutback" plan whereas the Democrats are offering "free" healthcare for all and no change. So just like a juvenile dependent, I expect the American people to ignore the potential blowback from the "Ostrich" plan and vote for their allowance to remain unchanged.
I find it hilarious that you talk about "forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing" and not pointing out that the "cutback plan" is a godawful abomination of an idea.
sebster wrote: Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he posted, or that there should be a government salary cap at $80,000, but you need to do your homework sebster, if you think $80,000 a year is "low level management wages."
I'm not saying $80,000 a year for one person is extremely rich, but it's not "low" anything, especially when they get government benefits on top of it.
I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.
Really? You think that this is his economic strategy's fault?
That's a bad statement. It really is.
The issue is the Republicans are offering a "cutback" plan whereas the Democrats are offering "free" healthcare for all and no change. So just like a juvenile dependent, I expect the American people to ignore the potential blowback from the "Ostrich" plan and vote for their allowance to remain unchanged.
I find it hilarious that you talk about "forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing" and not pointing out that the "cutback plan" is a godawful abomination of an idea.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion. When I hear 800 bill in cutbacks in Medicare, additional costs in the trillions that weren't accounted for, and it really isn't government healthcare - it is mandatory privatized healthcare... I dont see that as a good plan.
I am sorry, GW may have had a root cause in the economic downturn. That Obama used that as his excuse through 2010 I could buy. We have been under Obama budgets for 3 years and have seen little headway. Right now Obama's one positive - to me - is he got Bin Laden. Otherwise his military plan looks and smells like the same thing GW Bush had. We still have Gitmo we still have the Patriot Act so I don't see a change there. Sorry, he also acknowledged the obvious that we can now have openly gay people in the military. Now I am sure I am shorting him some accomplishments but I am just saying his economic recovery plan is lame. Not to the point of tar and feather him and get him out of office, but I am also not doing the CNBC fawn all over him either.
I acknowledge that he is odds-on favorite to win re-election. I am just not going to kow-tow and say the emporer has new clothes when he is sorely lacking.
The sad thing - again for me - is I am not enthused about Romney either so I doubt he has enough charisma to overcome incumbency, color(yes it is an advantage when you see polls giving Romney 0 = ZERO of the black vote) and demeanor (buy that I mean liberal bias).
The economic recovery plan has been climbing us gradually out of a gutter we'd been driving into for at least eight-ten years.
Two unfunded wars (one of them totally unnecessary), the totally irresponsible housing bubble and bust, compounded by the repeal of Glass-Stiegel making banks too big to fail, led to an absolutely catastrophic financial situation. Do you remember the Dow freefalling in 2008? We drove our economy into a depression.
Four years is not a long time to get out of the disaster we had. How long did it take the Great Depression to turn around? We didn't avoid another one of those by much. Not to mention that as soon as we hired a new driver to start getting our National Bus out of the ditch, the party in the co-pilot's seat started putting their hands over his eyes and snatching at the wheel, openly admitting that their highest priority was making sure he failed; not working across the aisle to get America back on track.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jordanis wrote: after doing my homework, i still agree with the Republicans, as the Democrats have leaned more toward Socialism and that goes against everything i beleive about being free...
You should really try visiting Canada, the UK, or other modern Western nations. Try watching their news, and talking to their people. They're free too, you know. They enjoy the same general level of freedom that we do (a little more in some areas, a little less in others).
The average right wing politician in any other western nation is more socialist than Obama. Obama and most of the Dems are Center-Right from the perspective of most of the world. Every functional government is a mix of socialist and capitalist ideas. You believe in a socialized military, socialized highways and fire departments and police. You just aren't recognizing your own assumptions and the things you take for granted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know, I was thinking about this at lunch today. It's sort of interesting that they decided to pick "we built it" as their campaign motto. It's fascinating to me because it's sort of predicated on a lie; that anyone can stand alone in modern society and build something themselves; and how it was excerpted from a larger speech and stripped of all context. It's a good microcosm of sorts for how the GOP is today: long on soundbites, short on facts and context and; gak, at this point, honesty. It's a little reminiscent of 4 years ago, when the GOP rallied around a man named Joe (who wasn't named Joe) who was a plumber (but not actually a plumber) who wanted to buy his bosses business (he wasn't really) and didn't want his taxes raised (they weren't).
Yup. It's also a source of continual amusement and exasperation how just about every small or medium business owner they push up front, who says "we did this ourselves", has taken government subsidized loans and other programs to help them build their businesses. They're happy to take the help and the money, but then they pretend they never did, and criticize the idea of other people getting the same help if which they took advantage.
As I stated, I realize the Republicans are partially to blame.
But as I said the Dems - when they had a supermajority- kind of forced a piss-poor Obamacare plan down our throats. That is - I feel - a primary reason why the Dems got their butts handed to them in 2010.
Interesting points about the irresponsible housing bubble. I wonder who started that one? Glass-Stiegel...hmmm , that was repealed in 1999. I wonder who was president then? Now I am not going to say that GWB was without fault - he let the repeal stand - but don't play the holier than thou that the Democrats are all good and all our problems are due to GW Bush.
The only one I will concead is the Iraq War and with all the BS about WMDs, it seemed to make sense at the time. Proven lies and an outright case of nation-building.
And the unfunded evil wars with the Bush tax cuts... Hmmm... we haven't repealed those either under the benificent all-knowing altruistic control of the Democrats...
Don't try to convince me. It ain't going to work. I just am saying I am prepared to swallow the pill of another four years of "Hope (for a plan) and Change ( please do)."
Now it is not all their fault, a recalcitrant Republican congress holds some of the blame. But there again, the Dems forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing I find disturbing too ( and probably why the Dems got the boot in 2010).
Do you know what your insurance premiums were twenty years ago? Ten years ago? Do you know what they are today? The Dems ran in part on finally doing something to fix healthcare. Obama repeatedly beat McCain in debates while promising to do something about healthcare, and saying he wanted all American citizens to have access to a Public Option; a plan like everyone in Congress has. Government insurance is good enough for McCain and Obama. It's good enough for you and me.
Despite Obama wanting a public option, and the American people voting him into office while he was offering that, the Dems took it off the table almost immediately. Many of the Dems themselves aren't Liberal enough to back it. And they knew that, despite the votes of the electorate, no Republicans would vote for it. So they crafted a package specifically to appeal to the Republicans. They adopted a plan designed by a Conservative think tank, and which had previously been enacted on the State level by a Republican Governor, with bipartisan support. A plan which had been popular and worked reasonably well there. A plan which that Republican governor championed as a proud achievement; one which made people take responsibility for their health care and its costs, rather than dumping all the cost onto everyone else via emergency rooms and hospitals taking tax write-offs for uninsured care.
This was the basis of the Affordable Care Act. A plan originally designed by Republicans and implemented on the State level by Mitt Romney. The Dems went with this because they specifically wanted bipartisan support. It wasn't as Soclalized as what most of us were hoping for when we voted Obama and a Dem majority into the House and Senate in 2008, but it was something they thought they could work with the Republicans on to achieve some important reforms for the American people.
And then the Republicans absolutely refused to work with it. The plan which had been pre-compromised was not good enough for them. A YEAR was spent on trying to sell it to them and solicit their ideas for improvements, with no positive results. Instead they lied to their constituents, making up inflammatory crap about "death panels" and the like. Ignorant citizens were panicked into yelling at their congresspeople at town hall meetings that Summer. The Republicans openly stated, on the record, that their priority was making sure Obama did not succeed. Not working with the Dems (who had been duly elected by the American people to the Presidency and to majorities in the House and Senate) to enact legislation to the benefit of Americans who need it. Their priority was winning the political fight. No progress or changes or reform would be made with their cooperation.
"Forced down our throat" is one of their appalling lies. It saddens me every time I see someone ignorantly repeat it.
jordanis wrote: so maybe my number wasnt the best to use, but my argument is still valid, government employees that determine their own pay grade (or very easily work together across the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption) is unacceptable, maybe the better option would be to have all pay raises for each representative or Senator to be voted on in their state, not by committee or however they do it now (and abuse it) because i beleive most if not all politicians are overpaid for doing usually not a whole lot to deserve it....being in a position of power should be an almost volunteer situation. and to be fair, a vast amount of government programs could be cancelled and made into private sector entities (not so much the military as many others) with equal if not better success than the current government run programs
No, it isn't the number you picked out that's the problem, but the idea of picking a number at all. If you want quality management you pay what the market is paying for quality management. That's the free market.
And government employees don't just get to pick their own rate of pay. I don't even know where you got that idea.
And lots of countries have very low rates of pay for public sectors employees, on the notion that people should just be happy serving the country. They are, fairly predictably, full of corruption as government officials seek to supplement their meagre incomes with bribes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAaddict wrote: Ahh 2008 to 2012 is 4years. Now I am not taking the simplistic view that it is ALL Obama's fault. As a matter of fact the new jobs numbers are currently taking a little up tick. I am just saying if I were grading him, I would currently be giving him a D+ or a C-. Not an absolute failure but very underwhelming.
So I apologize for my view through rose colored glasses but the no-change stay-as-you-go Democratic plan doesn't inspire me.
Okay, so where did you get the idea that economic downturns are supposed to turn around in 4 years, and that presidents have some kind of magical 'make economy work now buttons'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: I'm not saying I agree with everything he posted, or that there should be a government salary cap at $80,000, but you need to do your homework sebster, if you think $80,000 a year is "low level management wages."
I'm not saying $80,000 a year for one person is extremely rich, but it's not "low" anything, especially when they get government benefits on top of it.
Umm, I literally have done my homework. The professional magazine all us CPA types get sent publishes salary rates in jobs around the world. $80,000 is the kind of thing you get paid at the bottom end of management.
Yeah, a manager in or lab head for the engineering or science feilds can be looking at 120,000+. I can only guess that most management positions would easily surpass 80000
DAaddict wrote: Obviously we have a difference of opinion. When I hear 800 bill in cutbacks in Medicare, additional costs in the trillions that weren't accounted for, and it really isn't government healthcare - it is mandatory privatized healthcare... I dont see that as a good plan.
Actually, that's less a difference in opinion and you basing your opinion on things that aren't true. The $800 billion in 'cutbacks' to medicare aren't cutbacks, but plans to deliver the same services with less spending, by targetting fraud and waste that is presently in the system. It's things like negotiating with drug companies over the price paid for medicare drugs, or reducing overpayments to medicare plans that deliver no more than standard benefits at a greater cost.
These things are such a good idea that Paul Ryan even put them in his own budget.
You may have noticed that Paul Ryan doesn't acknowledge that his own budget included the exact same cost savings within Medicare... well that's because Paul Ryan is a lying gak.
I am sorry, GW may have had a root cause in the economic downturn. That Obama used that as his excuse through 2010 I could buy.
Bush didn't really cause it either. It's called the attribution fallacy - whenever something goes wrong we pick out someone and say they're in charge and it was there fault. China used to consider it only sensible to overthrow emperors when there was a drought.
The GFC had its roots in a series of financial innovations that started in the early 1990s, arguably in the 1980s, as various financial instruments were developed that kept debt and risk exposure out of the annual report, and quickened the turnaround from sale to transaction conclusion. The innovations in derivatives quickly outpaced the regulations that were in place, and with not just the US but the whole world strongly convinced of the importance of open markets there was little effort made to clean this up.
Pushing to expand profits every quarter, banks looked to leverage more and more (and achieve this leveraging through complex financial instruments that kept their exposures out of the annual report) and reduce their internal business cycles (so instead of selling a mortgage and then profiting with interest over the next 30 years they sold the mortgage, cut the payments up into various risk exposures to get the profit now). Every year there was more reforms, newer instruments to do each of these things a little better. By the end financial institutions weren't aware how much they were exposed.
The whole thing fell down hard, as we all now know. And when you have an economic shock like we saw in the GFC (where banks were worried about lending overnight for fear another bank might go from just fine to insolvent in that time), then that takes time to flow through the economy, and it takes time for the economy to begin to rebuild.
Picking out Bush and saying 'it was his fault it all happened' was just wrong. Picking out Obama now and saying 'it is all his fault it hasn't gotten better by now' is just as mistaken.
If privatizing is going to make everything better and more efficient, the why do we never see anybody seriously advocate getting rid of the military. Surely a mercenary force maintained and supplied by the private sector would be better than the monster we call our military.
so maybe my number wasnt the best to use, but my argument is still valid, government employees that determine their own pay grade (or very easily work together across the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption) is unacceptable, maybe the better option would be to have all pay raises for each representative or Senator to be voted on in their state, not by committee or however they do it now (and abuse it) because i beleive most if not all politicians are overpaid for doing usually not a whole lot to deserve it....being in a position of power should be an almost volunteer situation. and to be fair, a vast amount of government programs could be cancelled and made into private sector entities (not so much the military as many others) with equal if not better success than the current government run programs
Are we really pretending that the salaries of Congressmen and Senators are a serious economic problem?
so maybe my number wasnt the best to use, but my argument is still valid, government employees that determine their own pay grade (or very easily work together across the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption) is unacceptable, maybe the better option would be to have all pay raises for each representative or Senator to be voted on in their state, not by committee or however they do it now (and abuse it) because i beleive most if not all politicians are overpaid for doing usually not a whole lot to deserve it....being in a position of power should be an almost volunteer situation. and to be fair, a vast amount of government programs could be cancelled and made into private sector entities (not so much the military as many others) with equal if not better success than the current government run programs
Are we really pretending that the salaries of Congressmen and Senators are a serious economic problem?
For feths sake, I make more than a Senator.
Not all of us have such a luxury as being as well off as dogma to not see jordanis' argument in a clearer picture.
People making less than a Senator (significant less especially) may argue that because the disparity is another highlight of the haves and have nots, streamlining government expenses should also include "bloated" incomes from working for the federal government, spotlighted by clearly visible public servants (Senators). So a Senator becomes a symbol of government excess because they make $175k+ a year, plus healthcare, plus expenses, plus what they make privately in whatever way they can.
I can see what jordanis wants to do and the intent, but I agree with dogma that it is not the senators themselves. Rather, it is the system itself that needs streamlining as a whole. But to replace what we have, we need a system that incorporates those who loses governmental jobs as well due to said streamlining.
WarOne wrote: So a Senator becomes a symbol of government excess because they make $175k+ a year, plus healthcare, plus expenses, plus what they make privately in whatever way they can.
But only their salary and benefits are relevant to the status of "Senator".
This isn't a matter of kicking around the bourgeoisie, its a matter of "I'm angry about government!" If it were a case of kicking around the bourgeoisie there are better targets.
WarOne wrote: So a Senator becomes a symbol of government excess because they make $175k+ a year, plus healthcare, plus expenses, plus what they make privately in whatever way they can.
But only their salary and benefits are relevant to the status of "Senator".
This isn't a matter of kicking around the bourgeoisie, its a matter of "I'm angry about government!" If it were a case of kicking around the bourgeoisie there are better targets.
And populist sentiment finds a scapegoat; in the prior argument, the Senator can be someone people get angry about, just like a "fat-cat" private executive is when discussing the excesses of our economic system and its disparities.
Turning that anger into a positive contribution towards an answer is what should be happening. It's really just stuck in anger mode.
sebster wrote: Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he posted, or that there should be a government salary cap at $80,000, but you need to do your homework sebster, if you think $80,000 a year is "low level management wages."
I'm not saying $80,000 a year for one person is extremely rich, but it's not "low" anything, especially when they get government benefits on top of it.
eh.. that's not a whole lot of $$$ for Washinton DC... that place is very expensive to live in (even 6/mo of the year).
Part of the angst is that (for Rep/Senate) pay raises automatically kicks in each year... if they want it stopped, it requires a vote. Are you going to vote on NOT getting a pay raise?
Here's some simple idea:
1) No pay raises for Congressional representative AND department management unless a the budget is balanced (or within a percentage of a balanced budget). Or some other metric.
2) Put all Congressional Critters on Social Security (and not on their special requirement plans). That way, if they' are issues, it'll behooved them to fix it.
3) Put all Congressional Critters on ObamaCare (ACA). (yes, they have their own "cadillac" insurance exchange).
So... they have their "own" plans for these things and yet, their policy they've passed are for the electorate.
This is a bad person. Because he is a republican and disagrees with me.
Just say what you really mean.
I'm okay with being called out on that. It was a bit over the top. I don't know for sure that Romney is a genuinely bad person. I was angry over the crap that came out of his mouth, particularly at the end of that speech.
Romney, like McCain before him, is/was a moderate and comparatively reasonable Republican, who has a history of working with Dems to get some things done. He has sold out and abandoned that to pander to the worst elements of the Republican base. Laughing about rising ocean levels while a hurricane hits the city, almost on the exact anniversary of Katrina. Lying about an "apology tour" to reinforce the misconceptions and flatter the arrogance of the ignorant. Turning his back on his own legacy of bipartisan achievement for healthcare in Massachusetts.
I'm angry with him for abandoning the good and embracing the bad, for personal political benefit. Lusting after power and embracing deceit to achieve it. Which is undoubtedly too idealistic, as practically all politicians have these weaknesses to at least some extent.
As for your accusation that I think he's a bad person because of his political party or for disagreeing with me, I can't be angry at you for that personal attack. I do think the record in here shows me disagreeing with some folks without being disagreeable. That I think relative conservatives like d-usa, Jihadin, whembly and Monster Rain are still good people.
From my perspective you are wilfully ignorant on a lot of important issues, and support harmful people and policies. Your vision of the world is incompatible with seeing me as a frustrated advocate of truth, justice, and American values. So when I get angry about stuff, you dismiss it and me. I forgive you for it.
Manny one of the few people on here I be willing to throw my debit card on bar and run a tab for both of us. (Drinks on me Manny)...actually I won't on Matty it'll be a credit card. Hospital bill would be on him. Wrath of the wives would be on us both.
Hordini wrote: I'm not saying I agree with everything he posted, or that there should be a government salary cap at $80,000, but you need to do your homework sebster, if you think $80,000 a year is "low level management wages."
I'm not saying $80,000 a year for one person is extremely rich, but it's not "low" anything, especially when they get government benefits on top of it.
Umm, I literally have done my homework. The professional magazine all us CPA types get sent publishes salary rates in jobs around the world. $80,000 is the kind of thing you get paid at the bottom end of management.
In what field? I'm not saying that certain fields don't have management positions that go way above $80,000, and maybe for CPAs $80,000 is low. But there are plenty of other fields where $80,000 is on the upper end.
And when we say government employees, are we talking about politicians, or regular (that is, unelected, civil service type) government employees. I thought we were talking about the latter, primarily.
Jihadin wrote: USAjobs.gov will give you an idea what the US gov't paying individuals. You just have to get use to the GS level and time in grade.
Well yeah, the GS scale was primarily what I was looking at, and you can't break into the $80,000 range until at least GS-13.
Of course, that doesn't affect people not on the GS scale. But are we talking about just government employees or elected officials as well?
Just to note once again, I'm not saying that I think we should cap all government workers at $80,000, I'm just saying I don't consider $80,000 to be low. Obviously that can vary depending on geographic area, in California $80,000 might not be that great, but in Ohio and a lot of other Midwest or southern states, $80,000 is pretty much making bank.
when i suggested it it was for all elected officials, and my primary concern was that in my opinion, elected officials make more than they should, especially when they are running a deficit, one thing most companies do when they are running an unsustainable deficit is either cut back on employees or cut their wages. in many respects, a government is a company, its a company that guarantees the welfare of the nation, it provides a service for the people, and the people pay for that service in the form of taxes, at the same time, the people are responsible for making sure the elected officials that run the government behave like good managers and dont ruin a perfectly good country because they made too many mistakes. From a financial perspective, Romney would make an incredibly better president than Obama because he has experience managing a financial institution, where honestly, this is Obama's first experience with it. maybe Romney doesnt have the best answer, but his answer is a hell of a lot better than his opponents.
heres an idea: base government salaries off of whatever is left over after the government pays its other bills. that means they have to pass a budget in order to get paid and that budget has to have enough of a surplus to allow them to even make money in office. just an idea that i am throwing out there for debate
jordanis wrote: when i suggested it it was for all elected officials, and my primary concern was that in my opinion, elected officials make more than they should, especially when they are running a deficit, one thing most companies do when they are running an unsustainable deficit is either cut back on employees or cut their wages.
With none of it affecting the "higher ups" in most corporations/companies. It affects the low/mid level employees the most.
The "elected officials making more than they should" will not see their pay reduced as long as they are able to regulate their pay scales. You will see cutbacks in everything but their pay, but never theirs.
in many respects, a government is a company, its a company that guarantees the welfare of the nation, it provides a service for the people, and the people pay for that service in the form of taxes, at the same time, the people are responsible for making sure the elected officials that run the government behave like good managers and don't ruin a perfectly good country because they made too many mistakes. From a financial perspective, Romney would make an incredibly better president than Obama because he has experience managing a financial institution, where honestly, this is Obama's first experience with it.
I don't think you actually understand the sheer madness of what you're suggesting here.
maybe Romney doesnt have the best answer, but his answer is a hell of a lot better than his opponents.
Yeah...when your argument boils down to "Well, it can't be any worse right guys?"--I think it is time to reexamine your argument.
I can agree to more flexibility in elected official pay. Provide room & board and travel expenses (coach only) and probably a stipend for other expenses and health care and such. Tie actual pay to the performance of congress and the economy.
Would this ever happen? I don't think it ever would.
Kan, my argument wasnt that at all, it was, "this guy has a better answer than that guy and would be at least a step in the right direction."
What were you referring to as madness? that the government is like a company or that Romney is a better option than Obama? either way, please voice your reasoning behind you calling whatever you did "madness"
jordanis wrote: Kan, my argument wasnt that at all, it was, "this guy has a better answer than that guy and would be at least a step in the right direction."
What were you referring to as madness? that the government is like a company or that Romney is a better option than Obama? either way, please voice your reasoning behind you calling whatever you did "madness"
The ideas that "a government is like a company", "Romney is a better option than Obama", and that "this guy has a better answer than that guy and that would be at least a step in the right direction" all qualify under what I term to be 'madness'.
Steps have, in fact, been made in the right direction. They have been rebuffed at every turn by the Republican party in the spirit of "partisan politics". They have been stalemated by the simple fact that what would help the economy (corporations and those who are sponsored by them) has no interest in helping the economy by and large.
Ouze wrote: You know, I was thinking about this at lunch today. It's sort of interesting that they decided to pick "we built it" as their campaign motto. It's fascinating to me because it's sort of predicated on a lie; that anyone can stand alone in modern society and build something themselves; and how it was excerpted from a larger speech and stripped of all context. It's a good microcosm of sorts for how the GOP is today: long on soundbites, short on facts and context and; gak, at this point, honesty. It's a little reminiscent of 4 years ago, when the GOP rallied around a man named Joe (who wasn't named Joe) who was a plumber (but not actually a plumber) who wanted to buy his bosses business (he wasn't really) and didn't want his taxes raised (they weren't). Ah well, we get the government we deserve.
Well, considering that the Republican party (unlike Obama, oddly enough) haven't actually proposed a working budget despite the fact that they're trying to run off of their budget proposals, it's not really surprising is it?
Also, before the conservatives blather on, no, Paul Ryan's so-called "budget" wasn't a working budget. It was a wishy-washy piece of political trash, full of principle but entirely lacking in substance. You could not have actually run a government on the budget he proposed, it was too incomplete, and it wasn't ever actually intended to be a working budget anyway-- it was a political statement.
Would Shakespeare be mentally ill, or the character having a conversation with an objective/person not present? We don't have any evidence of Shakespeare himself doing any such thing.
I think you missed the part where he was talking to an empty chair... and responding to it.
Ahem... Shakespeare much? I guess he was off the meds also?
What point exactly are you getting at here?
The whole reason you have monologues within plays like Shakespeare is that they are a visual/auditory medium as well as a literary medium.
The characters can certainly show you how they feel, but that does not necessarily advance the story. Sometimes a bit of exposition is necessary, such as the infamous
"Alas, poor Yorrick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it."
Hell, the same thing can be applied to Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. If he just does it, it leaves one slightly confused or lost as to what is going on. But by explaining it...the genius is evident.
WarOne wrote: Not all of us have such a luxury as being as well off as dogma to not see jordanis' argument in a clearer picture.
People making less than a Senator (significant less especially) may argue that because the disparity is another highlight of the haves and have nots, streamlining government expenses should also include "bloated" incomes from working for the federal government, spotlighted by clearly visible public servants (Senators). So a Senator becomes a symbol of government excess because they make $175k+ a year, plus healthcare, plus expenses, plus what they make privately in whatever way they can.
I can see what jordanis wants to do and the intent, but I agree with dogma that it is not the senators themselves. Rather, it is the system itself that needs streamlining as a whole. But to replace what we have, we need a system that incorporates those who loses governmental jobs as well due to said streamlining.
Or if you want to talk about money and the problem with senators, then you need to look into the problem that no-one with a real chance at becoming a senator would even notice his salary. There's a minimum level of wealth and moneyed connections needed to become a senator, and that excludes 99% of people.
And speaking of the mildly curious voters … Though many of them may enjoy and admire someone like George Clooney, they probably don’t relate to him. Clint, on the other hand, cuts through generations and fan bases. He’s about as close to universally liked as a celebrity can get. This is why Chrysler used his voice. Eastwood’s appearance will do nothing to amuse those who take their politics too seriously, but he certainly lightened up what is by nature an artificial and highly-scripted event. No, Eastwood didn’t lay out an eloquent, bullet-point argument against Barack Obama’s economic policies, what he did was convey a prevalent sentiment in nonpartisan language that a lot of people who don’t care much about politics can relate to.
This to...
What is most humorous is that by presenting in a seemingly unscripted manner, Eastwood masterfully uses his craft to interact with all voters in a playful, personal way and squarely hits his mark. His performance caught the liberal main stream media off guard because they didn’t understand the intent of his speech, and so in their haste to destroy all things Romney, they’ve dutifully trashed Eastwood’s appearance. What the liberal pundits do not realize (yet) is that by trashing Mr. Eastwood speech, they have simply helped to bring more attention to Eastwood’s message: Obama must go.
Hence why "Eastwooding" has remained one of the top twitter subjects. Weirdly so...
Hordini wrote: In what field? I'm not saying that certain fields don't have management positions that go way above $80,000, and maybe for CPAs $80,000 is low. But there are plenty of other fields where $80,000 is on the upper end.
And when we say government employees, are we talking about politicians, or regular (that is, unelected, civil service type) government employees. I thought we were talking about the latter, primarily.
In the little table I went and fished out last night, for 2011, the average among people classified as managers is $107,410. CEOs took home $176,550. Your average financial professional, so a guy just running spreadsheets and cost analysis and all that and not actually managing anyone, takes home $68,740.
To try and find someone with the ability and experience needed to run a large organisation like, say, a hospital, and pay them $80k is ludicrous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I can agree to more flexibility in elected official pay. Provide room & board and travel expenses (coach only) and probably a stipend for other expenses and health care and such. Tie actual pay to the performance of congress and the economy.
Would this ever happen? I don't think it ever would.
It'd be terrible. What incentive scheme is there if your pay or bonus is tied to things entirely outside of your control? So you put through reforms that cut staff and therefore save on payroll while maintaining services... and you don't get your bonus because guys three levels above you couldn't agree to get a budget passed? feth that.
If you want incentive schemes to work you need to tie them to things the person actually has under their control. So you give them KPIs on service delivery and on staff FTE numbers, and if they can achieve those they get their budget.
Not that incentive schemes have a particularly good record anyway, as good ones are really hard to set up - who decides what KPI standard is achievable, but also hard enough to justify a bonus? Then there's the problem of systems getting gamed by canny employees (go read about what Harvey Weinstein did to Disney for a classic example). There's also long term evidence mounting that people don't actually work any harder - it appears that people, and especially people who've worked hard enough to get into executive positions that justify an incentive based bonus scheme, actually just do their job as well as they can because of their professional ethic. Incentive schemes are more likely to screw with that than anything else.
Ahem... Shakespeare much? I guess he was off the meds also?
The ability to have someone engage in dialogue with an imaginary person and not look bonkers takes talent. Turns out Shakespeare had talent. Turns out Eastwood's writer didn't.
whembly wrote: This is the effect I think Eastwood his having:
No. They're right that Eastwood is extremely popular and well respected, and so with even a half decent speach that's the effect it might have had (to the extent that any celebrity endorsement relly makes any kind of difference). But you don't just get to say that and then pretend his speach was great. It was incredibly awful. There's no pretending otherwise.
Hence why "Eastwooding" has remained one of the top twitter subjects. Weirdly so...
Well, yeah. I mean we just saw one of the most famous and popular celebrities in the world stand up and give one of the most awkward, and just plain bizarre speaches in modern memory. Of course its going to be an event.
The only thing that's weird is the effort of Republicans to pretend it was a good thing... they should instead be trying to shut it down, and move onto something that isn't so embarrassing for them.
Hordini wrote: In what field? I'm not saying that certain fields don't have management positions that go way above $80,000, and maybe for CPAs $80,000 is low. But there are plenty of other fields where $80,000 is on the upper end.
And when we say government employees, are we talking about politicians, or regular (that is, unelected, civil service type) government employees. I thought we were talking about the latter, primarily.
In the little table I went and fished out last night, for 2011, the average among people classified as managers is $107,410. CEOs took home $176,550. Your average financial professional, so a guy just running spreadsheets and cost analysis and all that and not actually managing anyone, takes home $68,740.
To try and find someone with the ability and experience needed to run a large organisation like, say, a hospital, and pay them $80k is ludicrous.
Again, in what field? Are we talking only CPA jobs in the US? If that's the case, then that makes a bit more sense, but if we're talking about management jobs in every industry and field, I'm skeptical. $107,410 and up would be considered a huge salary in many parts of the US. Whether or not $80,000 a year for a management position is ludicrous probably depends a lot on the area. I agree, for someone running a hospital it wouldn't be great, but there are a lot of management positions in between starting management and running an entire hospital.
Again, I'm not saying we should cap government salaries at $80,000 a year. I'm not saying someone running a hospital should only get $80,000 a year. What I'm saying is $80,000 a year is not a low level salary for management or otherwise. If we're only talking things like humongous corporations and large hospitals and entire government departments, then yes, it's low, but if we're just talking management in general, it's not.
Managers. I've said that in every post I've made on the subject.
"So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?"
"$80,000 is the kind of thing you get paid at the bottom end of management."
" the average among people classified as managers is $107,410"
Every post has been about management wages in the US.
Are we talking only CPA jobs in the US?
Nah, like I said in my post above finance professionals, qualified or not, averages $68,740.
If that's the case, then that makes a bit more sense, but if we're talking about management jobs in every industry and field, I'm skeptical. $107,410 and up would be considered a huge salary in many parts of the US. Whether or not $80,000 a year for a management position is ludicrous probably depends a lot on the area. I agree, for someone running a hospital it wouldn't be great, but there are a lot of management positions in between starting management and running an entire hospital.
There are lots of management positions in between. So you'd have the CEO on $176,550. And you'd have the Finance Manager on $120,450. And the Construction Manager on $93,490.
I think maybe you're thinking of maybe Restaurant Managers, or things like that?
I think maybe you're thinking of maybe Restaurant Managers, or things like that?
Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything.
So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count? If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up. But if you're including all managers, which when you say "Managers. I've said that in every post I've made on the subject," I'm assuming you are including all managers, I don't see how the average could be that high. After an admittedly brief google search I've found $85,000 as the median income for management jobs in the US, with a range of $44,000 to $123,000. So in that case, I'd consider $40k-ish to be low (which is about what was thinking), $120k+ to be high (which I think we agree on) and $80k-ish to be, like I said, not low.
Hordini wrote: Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything. So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count?
How many people do you know who manage restaurants for the government?
I mean, we're talking about a low ball figure that was thrown out in a very silly hypothetical by someone who I don't think is even posting in this thread anymore. He wanted government wages capped at $80,000. I said that was a very low figure.
At what point did you think that included restaurant managers, or anything other than the types of white collar professional managers you get in government?
I mean seriously, why is this being talked about at all?
If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up.
You don't get to choose to believe it. It's published in Black & White, who took their figures from "National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States"
EDIT - And I just went to go find the CPA data on their website. Their search engine sucks all kinds of ass so I tried doing a run around through google, and found nothing on the CPA website but did come across the original data published on the United States Bureau of Labor website. Here it is;
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#51-0000
Interesting to note the expanded range from the figures published in my magazine, does include restaraunt managers and the like. And the average still comes to $107,410. Makes sense, there's a lot more mid and low level managers than there are restaurants.
Hordini wrote: Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything. So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count?
How many people do you know who manage restaurants for the government?
I mean, we're talking about a low ball figure that was thrown out in a very silly hypothetical by someone who I don't think is even posting in this thread anymore. He wanted government wages capped at $80,000. I said that was a very low figure.
At what point did you think that included restaurant managers, or anything other than the types of white collar professional managers you get in government?
At the point that you started making comparisons to managers who don't work for the government. When I asked you if you were talking about specific kinds of managers or positions, you just kept saying "managers" and never specified. If you were talking about "white collar government managers" you should have clarified that when I asked, instead of implying that I should just know what you think "managers" are and are not, up until the point you find out I was talking about all management type positions and not just the specific ones you were talking about.
It's being talked about because you said $80,000 was a low salary for a management position. I said it wasn't low for management. If you'd said "$80,000 is a low salary for white collar professional managers like you get in government" I would have said, "I agree." Which kind of goes hand in hand with why I said I didn't agree with the idea of an $80,000 salary cap.
Hordini wrote: If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up.
You don't get to choose to believe it. It's published in Black & White, based on "National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States"... whatever that is.
Of course I get to choose what I believe, we all do. I wasn't disagreeing it was published in black and white, I was asking for more clarification on what it was actually referring to.
Edit - Thanks for posting the link, that clarifies a lot. I still stand by my opinion that $80,000 isn't low, and there is a really broad range in salaries there, but you're right, going by the population it seems there are a lot of managers making a lot more money than what's on the really low (40-50k) range.
Or if you want to talk about money and the problem with senators, then you need to look into the problem that no-one with a real chance at becoming a senator would even notice his salary. There's a minimum level of wealth and moneyed connections needed to become a senator, and that excludes 99% of people.
You get discussion points here in America about how unpopular giving more money to politicians and government are. Heck, even keeping their current pay is absurdly challenged at times. Any mention of what legislators make simply ignores how a legislator gets his position.
Now of course this particular article does not explicitly state my point but I believe it may or may not have nice pictures in it.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg defended the raises to more than 1,000 legislative employees. But he said he also recognizes they could hurt Democrats' effort to pass an initiative that would temporarily raise income and sales taxes.
The revelation led to widespread outrage because the raises were handed out as lawmakers were making deep budget cuts. Opponents already are using the raises as ammunition against the tax proposal.
Americans right now do not like the fact that any money not being used to benefit taxpayers directly in some way such as a water slide that dispenses free money for absolutely no reason(possibly a Democrat) or does not scale back the scope of government to the point of crippling gun control law enforcement (possibly a Republican) simply do not want to hear about how such money is used for other reasons.
Here you have a state senator who thinks other state senators should get part time jobs.
“If it’s not an adequate sum of money, then I would suggest that people have other jobs,” he said. “It’s very helpful, number one, you can earn more money, but more importantly to really connect with workers and business people to see what they go through on a day-to-day basis. So I don’t really think there is an argument to be made to increase the pay.”[/quote
That would be prety cool. Clint at the DNC with a empty seat by him. Obama on twitter told him "this seat is taking" reply showed he took it in good humor.
Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
Chaplain Levitcius wrote: Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
No one in Shakespeare talked to an empty chair. if you honestly don't know the difference between an aside or a soliloquy and talking to an empty chair then you don't' understand theater
Chaplain Levitcius wrote: Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
No one in Shakespeare talked to an empty chair. if you honestly don't know the difference between an aside or a soliloquy and talking to an empty chair then you don't' understand theater
Hordini wrote: It's being talked about because you said $80,000 was a low salary for a management position. I said it wasn't low for management. If you'd said "$80,000 is a low salary for white collar professional managers like you get in government" I would have said, "I agree." Which kind of goes hand in hand with why I said I didn't agree with the idea of an $80,000 salary cap.
I thought in the context it would be fairly obvious that we would be talking about management positions that are in government. So financial managers, HR managers, that kind of stuff.
Edit - Thanks for posting the link, that clarifies a lot. I still stand by my opinion that $80,000 isn't low, and there is a really broad range in salaries there, but you're right, going by the population it seems there are a lot of managers making a lot more money than what's on the really low (40-50k) range.
$80,000 is really low for the kinds of managment skill sets you see in government and other corporate environments. You can't get HR managers or financial managers for $80,000.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote: You get discussion points here in America about how unpopular giving more money to politicians and government are. Heck, even keeping their current pay is absurdly challenged at times. Any mention of what legislators make simply ignores how a legislator gets his position.
No denying you can make all kinds of noise about dropping the pay of politicians and government workers and score lots of votes among certain groups of voters. My point is that in terms of actually resolving any issues in government it's a nonsense that won't achieve anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chaplain Levitcius wrote: Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
No. As I already explain to you quite clearly, the issue is that it is hard to have a person talk to an imaginary person and have it work. Shakespeare, being very gifted got it to work, whereas Eastwood's speach was excruciating to sit through.
Obama has managed to play golf almost once every two weeks since becoming President? How shocking and appalling. How dare he try to have an outdoor hobby?
Bad argument in that article. I was slightly amused and actually kind of insulted when the writer disparaged having a tournament as a birthday activity, or asking a player in a card game to focus. I really like hearing that the President likes to compete in games, and takes them seriously. That's something I can identify with.
As one of the commenters pointed out, being extremely competitive and confident are qualities pretty close to universal among CEOs, among other ambitious people.
The valid criticism in there was of the quotes which suggest overconfidence, or even arrogance. I could absolutely see a compelling line of attack based on those. But the overall thrust of the article was stupid, and the attempted tie-in to Eastwood was flimsy and silly; probably just tacked on to try to draw clicks from people who enjoy reading about the original story.
More than anything else, I'm just sad that that kind of bs gets treated as political commentary. Put it in the gossip pages, next to the crap about who was best dressed at the latest film opening, and maybe then it's okay.
Heaven forbid someone put actual effort and practice into their hobbies. That's just... un-amurcn'
Arrogance is a negative quality if you don't actually meet your estimation of yourself. I don't think being a perfectionist is a bad thing until it bleeds into obsession.
But, I mean, it's Forbes. Can we really expect them not to take a bit like that and run with it?
I see their argument though, the PRESIDENT, that is the man who commands our entire country, should spend less time on trivial pursuits when there are profoundly more important tasks that need tending to. being President isnt a Privilege, its a responsibility, i can understand SOME down time, but maybe Mr. Obama is having too much down time?
Seriously. Do some research before making these claims.
Even with a large amount of downtime in this day and age of global communication the fact that one is on vacation does nothing to prevent the President from being involved in the day to day necessities of his office.
thats not at all what i was talking about, if you bothered to read the Forbes article, you'd have gotten that. do some research before assuming you know what your talking about.
jordanis wrote: I see their argument though, the PRESIDENT, that is the man who commands our entire country, should spend less time on trivial pursuits when there are profoundly more important tasks that need tending to. being President isnt a Privilege, its a responsibility, i can understand SOME down time, but maybe Mr. Obama is having too much down time?
But the amount of time spent playing cards on a plane can't be used to measure how much time a person is spent being President. It's an impossible thing. Stop, and actually think about how one thing (President plays games seriously) became another inside your head (President isn't spending enough time doing his job). Actually try and get from A to B.
I mean, think about the statement "I play an hour of cards every day". Think about how much that actually tells you about how much time they spend doing other things. I mean, an hour of cards is a hell of a lot of cards, but it doesn't prevent a person from otherwise spending 15 hours on the job, especially if their work has taken them away from their family.
And now please stop, and again think about how you went from "President plays games seriously" to "President isn't spending enough time doing his job".
How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.
For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits.
The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes.
all direct Copy-Paste quotes from the Forbes Article. you guys are rediculous, it took me 30 seconds of skimming the article to find that, and i could find a lot more if i bothered to spend the time to completely read both the Forbes article and the NYT article.
How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.
For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits.
The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes.
all direct Copy-Paste quotes from the Forbes Article. you guys are rediculous, it took me 30 seconds of skimming the article to find that, and i could find a lot more if i bothered to spend the time to completely read both the Forbes article and the NYT article.
Which does not answer the quesiton:
Do YOU think that him spending time doing "trivial" things keeps him from being president, and if so why?
all direct Copy-Paste quotes from the Forbes Article. you guys are rediculous, it took me 30 seconds of skimming the article to find that, and i could find a lot more if i bothered to spend the time to completely read both the Forbes article and the NYT article.
Again, 104 games of golf in 4 years is not a lot. Bowling, basketball, and playing cards are also not terribly time consuming activities. You said it yourself--and it shows-- that you haven't read either article. Had you read both, you might come to the conclusion that the Forbes article is skewing the information presented in the NYTimes article far out of context. This is just a case of journalistic opportunism. Forbes is pandering to their audience.
jordanis wrote: all direct Copy-Paste quotes from the Forbes Article. you guys are rediculous, it took me 30 seconds of skimming the article to find that, and i could find a lot more if i bothered to spend the time to completely read both the Forbes article and the NYT article.
You didn't even spend the time to read your own article. Well I guess by the logic you're claiming in this thead you have enough time to be President. So Hail to the Chief.
God damn this is stupid. I mean, really, just go back and read my post. Read it two or three times if you have to. Really think over the leap from 'plays games' to 'doesn't spend enough time doing President things' that you made. If you need to right up a timetable of how you think a President might spend their day. Plot out the time spent talking to various important people, and the time spent briefing those meetings. Consider travel time, and sleep. Then think about how little you know about the day to day schedule of a President, and how much wild eyed speculative nonsense you have to assume to conclude that the President doesn't have time in his day to play some card games.
Don't forget to consider that with modern communications that even when the President isn't in the Office he is still just as connected and still essentially at work. A President doesn't ever go anywhere alone, and are mobile command centers that are plugged in at all times; there really is no such thing as vacation in the normal idea of the concept so much as just not being in the White House. I suppose they might get to sleep in an extra hour if they are 'on vacation'.
I mean honestly how much time can a president actually spend 'doing' stuff. Strictly speaking he doesn't have to do anything until congress passes a bill, until then he can just sit there if he wants
youbedead wrote: I mean honestly how much time can a president actually spend 'doing' stuff. Strictly speaking he doesn't have to do anything until congress passes a bill, until then he can just sit there if he wants
Only is he wants to be a failure.
1) He is in charge of the operation of the US government. if nothing else, if competent thats a full time job.
2) Additionally there's domestic and foreign policy development. if you want to have an agenda you have to create and work that agenda. That was reagan's strength. He had two or three main points: get the economy moving; kill the evil empire; eat jelly beans. He focused on it relentlessly and succeeded.
As a nice aside, at this time in his presidency, after an equally bad recession but with the joy of inflation, GDP was 4.5% in 1983 and 7.2% in 1984. Mmm...the good old days.
jordanis wrote: I see their argument though, the PRESIDENT, that is the man who commands our entire country, should spend less time on trivial pursuits when there are profoundly more important tasks that need tending to. being President isnt a Privilege, its a responsibility, i can understand SOME down time, but maybe Mr. Obama is having too much down time?
I don't usually pay attention to this kind of thing. Bush was getting jumped all over for a similar thing during his presidency. This is a job that puts the years on a man, anda lot off the time, they are still on the job even if it seems like they're on vacation from what I've read and been told.
The same people who believe government is the enemy to all that is good in the world (except for bombing Iran and putting black men into prison) are now complaining that the very person they hate who runs the hated institution of government is somehow not governing enough?
I'm not saying you folks are stupid and should be ashamed of yourselves, but I'm not not saying that either.
Now the Democrats are bring ing up celebreties today IIRC. Really, if I could force myself to watch one of these things I would start to get offended. Now we just need a high kicking Broadway number.
Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.
Pacific wrote: Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.
I'm half serious..
eh... that's the way its always been. Sure, it's gotten worst lately, but we'll be alright. We're just squabbling brothers and sisters...
Eastwood says his convention appearance was 'mission accomplished'
Spoiler:
By PAUL MILLER
Published: September 7, 2012
AFTER A week as topic No. 1 in American politics, former Carmel Mayor Clint Eastwood said the outpouring of criticism from left-wing reporters and liberal politicians after his appearance at the Republican National Convention last Thursday night, followed by an avalanche of support on Twitter and in the blogosphere, is all the proof anybody needs that his 12-minute discourse achieved exactly what he intended it to.
“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.”
Breaking his silence
For five days after he thrilled or horrified the nation by talking to an empty chair representing Obama on the night Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for president, Eastwood remained silent while pundits and critics debated whether his remarks, and the rambling way he made them, had helped or hurt Romney’s chances of winning in November.
But in a wide-ranging interview with The Pine Cone Tuesday, he said he had conveyed the messages he wanted to convey, and that the spontaneous nature of his presentation was intentional, too.
“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”
Eastwood’s appearance at the convention came after a personal request from Romney in August, soon after Eastwood endorsed the former Massachusetts governor at a fundraiser in Sun Valley, Idaho. But it was finalized only in the last week before the convention, along with an agreement to build suspense by keeping it secret until the last moment.
Meanwhile, Romney’s campaign aides asked for details about what Eastwood would say to the convention.
“They vett most of the people, but I told them, ‘You can’t do that with me, because I don’t know what I’m going to say,’” Eastwood recalled.
And while the Hollywood superstar has plenty of experience being adored by crowds, he said he hasn’t given a lot of speeches and admitted that, “I really don’t know how to.” He also hates using a teleprompter, so it was settled in his mind that when he spoke to the 10,000 people in the convention hall, and the millions more watching on television, he would do it extemporaneously.
“It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen,” Eastwood said. “I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there.”
Eastwood is a liberal on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, but he has strongly conservative opinions about the colossal national debt that has accumulated while Obama has been president, his failure to get unemployment below 6 percent, and a host of other economic issues.
“Even people on the liberal side are starting to worry about going off a fiscal cliff,” Eastwood said.
Last minute decisions
But what — exactly — would he say to the Republican delegates about the $16 trillion national debt and 8.3 percent unemployment rate?
Friends and associates weren’t as much help as he had hoped.
“Everybody had advice for me, except the janitor,” Eastwood said.
Early Thursday morning, when Eastwood left San Jose Airport on a private jet headed for Florida, he was still making up his mind. And even with his appearance just a few hours away, all Eastwood could tell Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades and his aides, was “to reassure them that everything I would say would be nice about Mitt Romney.”
It was only after a quick nap in his hotel room a few blocks from the convention site, Eastwood said, that he mapped out his remarks — starting with his observation about politics in Hollywood, then challenging the president about the failure of his economic policies, and wrapping up by telling the public “they don’t have to worship politicians, like they were royalty or something.”
But even then, with just an hour before he appeared on stage, it still hadn’t occurred to Eastwood to use an empty chair as a stand-in for the president.
“I got to the convention site just 15 or 20 minutes before I was scheduled to go on,” he said. “That was fine, because everything was very well organized.”
After a quick trip through airport-style security, he was taken to a Green Room, where Archbishop Dolan of New York sought him out to say hello. Then he was taken backstage to wait for his cue. And that was when inspiration struck.
“There was a stool there, and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down,” Eastwood said. “When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I’ll just put the stool out there and I’ll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn’t keep all of the promises he made to everybody.”
He asked a stagehand to take it out to the lectern while he was being announced.
“The guy said, ‘You mean you want it at the podium?’ and I said, ‘No, just put it right there next to it.’”
Then, with the theme song from “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” as a musical introduction, and a huge picture of him as Josey Wales as the backdrop, Eastwood walked out to tremendous applause.
“The audience was super enthusiastic, and it’s always great when they’re with you instead of against you,” he said.
‘Enjoying themselves’
Speaking without any notes, Eastwood recalled the good feelings the whole nation had when Obama was elected, but said they had been dashed as the economy stayed in the doldrums despite massive stimulus spending. He decried the “stupid idea” of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and putting terrorists on trial in New York City, joked about Vice President Joe Biden’s intellect and quizzed empty-chair Obama about what he says to people about his failed economic policies. He pretended Obama told Romney to do something “physically impossible” to himself, said it’s time to elect a “stellar businessman” as president instead of a lawyer, and, as a final point, told the people, “You own this country.”
When an elected official doesn’t “do the job, we’ve got to let ‘em go,” he said, and the crowd ate it up.
“They really seemed to be enjoying themselves,” Eastwood said.
Originally, he was told he could speak for six or seven minutes, and right before he went on, he was asked to keep it to five, but he said, “When people are applauding so much, it takes you 10 minutes to say five minutes’ worth.”
Also, there were no signals or cues of any kind, so “when you’re out there, it’s kind of hard to tell how much time is going by.”
He also said he was aware he hesitated and stumbled a bit, but said “that’s what happens when you don’t have a written-out speech.”
As he wrapped up his remarks, he was aware his presentation was “very unorthodox,” but that was his intent from the beginning, even if some people weren’t on board.
“They’ve got this crazy actor who’s 82 years old up there in a suit,” he said. “I was a mayor, and they’re probably thinking I know how to give a speech, but even when I was mayor I never gave speeches. I gave talks.”
Backstage, it was all congratulations and glad-handing, he said. And then he returned to the Green Room, where he listened to speeches by Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. It wasn’t possible for him to watch the media coverage of his presentation.
But the country was listening as the television reporters and commentators covering his speech reacted to it. And they hated it.
“I have to say, as a fan, a movie fan, this was exceedingly strange. It just seemed like a very strange, unscripted moment,” said a shocked Andrea Mitchell on NBC.
“That was the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen at a political convention in my entire life,” said Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, barely concealing the condescension in her voice.
Bob Schieffer of CBS said it was “a big mistake to put Clint Eastwood on before Mitt Romney.”
On the Washington Post website, reporter Chris Cillizza wrote that “‘awkward’ may be the kindest term we can think of” to describe Eastwood’s speech.
“He hemmed. He hawed. He mumbled. He rambled,” Cillizza wrote.
And on CNN, Piers Morgan said Eastwood was “going bonkers” on the stage and said his presentation “looked like complete chaos.” He pressured his guests with questions like, “Weren’t you in pain while he was up there?”
But Eastwood wasn’t aware of any of it, and after the speeches were over, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, came backstage to thank him.
“They were very enthusiastic, and we were all laughing,” Eastwood said.
When he went outside to his car, a large crowd cheered and chanted lines from his speech.
An overnight rebellion
Back at his hotel, Eastwood had a room service dinner and went to bed. The next morning, he got up early and went straight to the airport, still unaware that his appearance was the No. 1 political topic in the nation.
“I read the Tampa newspaper, and every article said something negative about the convention, but there wasn’t much about me,” Eastwood said.
He had no idea that overnight, a rebellion had erupted online against the media’s condemnation of him, with thousands of bloggers, Twitterers and commentators calling him, “a genius,” “1,000 times more brilliant than the media,” and saying he’s “only gotten better with age.”
They also started posting their own versions of Eastwood’s empty chair in droves (“eastwooding”), and, on YouTube, replays of his remarks at the convention were being viewed millions of times.
Even into his 80s, Eastwood has an unprecedented record of success in Hollywood, and is still making two movies a year. He’s currently starring in “Trouble with the Curve,” and is about to direct a remake of “A Star is Born” — things he obviously couldn’t do if he were a befuddled senior citizen. To locals who know him, the idea that he is uninformed or senile is laughable.
Nevertheless, the bitter criticism has continued.
On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, called Eastwood “the perfect icon of the Republican tea party: an angry old white man spewing incoherent nonsense.”
Eastwood said people, including reporters, who were shocked by his remarks “are obviously on the left,” and he maintained that, while many Americans didn’t like the way he handled his convention appearance, millions more have something else on their minds.
“A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama,” Eastwood said.
I love Clint, but that there is some mainline, uncut crazy. It isn't the disagreement so much as the method.
What I also don't get is why he didn't support McCain in such a visible way, but is supporting Romney, who isn't half the statesman McCain was/is. This whole thing is bizarre.
Frazzled wrote: That was reagan's strength. He had two or three main points: get the economy moving; kill the evil empire; eat jelly beans. He focused on it relentlessly and succeeded.
So Reagan invented microcomputers and bankrupted Russia by forcing them to spend exactly zero more dollars on national defence. Uh huh.
fething reality fething matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: The same people who believe government is the enemy to all that is good in the world (except for bombing Iran and putting black men into prison) are now complaining that the very person they hate who runs the hated institution of government is somehow not governing enough?
I'm not saying you folks are stupid and should be ashamed of yourselves, but I'm not not saying that either.
I'm kind of baffled how some of the same people involved in this "Obama spends some portion of his time not doing president stuff" nonsense suddenly find reasoning skills to figure out why the Romney "spends money on a horse". It's almost as if they're willing to switch their brains off and not consider how ridiculous a claim is when it works for their side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.
I'm half serious..
Yeah, it worked so well for India and Pakistan. I mean though only ever get into a war and kill each other about once a decade.
So Reagan invented microcomputers and bankrupted Russia by forcing them to spend exactly zero more dollars on national defence. Uh huh.
fething reality fething matters.
Nice try, but you will never, ever convince the average American that Reagan did not personally beat the Soviets in a cage match. Even people I would otherwise consider extremely bright do not even question this.
They also tend to forget that Reagan negotiated with terrorists, traded arms for hostages, allowed Islamic militants to kill American servicemen without retribution, and ballooned the debt and the deficit.
So while it's perfectly appropriate that Reagan's the idol of the Republican Party, Republicans don't understand why it's so apt.
Seaward wrote: Nice try, but you will never, ever convince the average American that Reagan did not personally beat the Soviets in a cage match. Even people I would otherwise consider extremely bright do not even question this.
They also tend to forget that Reagan negotiated with terrorists, traded arms for hostages, allowed Islamic militants to kill American servicemen without retribution, and ballooned the debt and the deficit.
So while it's perfectly appropriate that Reagan's the idol of the Republican Party, Republicans don't understand why it's so apt.
Yep. I have this theory that people need to pretend their side had a decent president in living memory. It makes sense, it feels pretty weak to have to go back to Eisenhower to talk about the last awesome Republican president, so instead they just pick someone that they can pretend was good.
Bush II is out for obvious reasons, Bush I lost his second term so he can't be used, and if they go past Reagan you're into Ford and Nixon. So instead they just pretend Reagan was someone completely different to the president they actually got.
The same theory explains (in my head anyway ) why the left were suddenly willing to see JFK as the neo-con he actually was and not the patron saint of the left as they'd previously been pretending... because they had Clinton as an actual good president, and no longer needed to make up stuff about JFK.
Yep. I have this theory that people need to pretend their side had a decent president in living memory. It makes sense, it feels pretty weak to have to go back to Eisenhower to talk about the last awesome Republican president, so instead they just pick someone that they can pretend was good.
Bush II is out for obvious reasons, Bush I lost his second term so he can't be used, and if they go past Reagan you're into Ford and Nixon. So instead they just pretend Reagan was someone completely different to the president they actually got.
Reagan was a good President, he just wasn't the President that many paint him as; much like JFK wasn't.
Reagans most significant contribution to ending the cold war would be refusing to compromise with Gorbachev on the star wars defense system, and suggested that both sides dismantle all nuclear weapons. This convinced Gorbachev that he could move forward perestroika and start mass dismantlement as he felt that Reagan would not order an alpha strike. It was in the end the result of political infighting that would kill the USSR but reagans and Gorbachev willingness to dismantle nukes played a major part in bring the confilct to an end.
And as for great presidents, I think that Eisenhower was our last truly great president from any party, and the FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was the longest span of good presidents we've ever had
What about Hoover or Hayes? Were they not great presidents?
Back OT Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.
To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.
Back OT Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.
To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.
Uh... to be fair, most of us didn't like the Patriot Act and the new flying rules (and TSA).
Back OT Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.
To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.
It's important to note that American conservatives are not libertarians. When they speak of wanting government off their backs, they mean strictly in the marketplace. By and large, they're fine with the government nosing around your personal life, and they'll happily sign away half the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
Good point, Seaward, but who are the libertarians in the USA these days? Assuming they exist!
Gun control seems to be another issue. I've mentioned before that historically, it was the right wing in the USA that tried to stop African Americans from getting guns, but these days the right wingers are the champions of guns for all, and the left seem to want to clamp down on them!
youbedead wrote: Reagans most significant contribution to ending the cold war would be refusing to compromise with Gorbachev on the star wars defense system, and suggested that both sides dismantle all nuclear weapons. This convinced Gorbachev that he could move forward perestroika and start mass dismantlement as he felt that Reagan would not order an alpha strike. It was in the end the result of political infighting that would kill the USSR but reagans and Gorbachev willingness to dismantle nukes played a major part in bring the confilct to an end.
I think ultimately the collapse of the USSR began and ended with the inherent failings of the state planned economy. Perestroika was the last in a long line of reforms that attempted to introduce market mechanisms to the Soviet state, each a tacit acceptance that the state planned economy didn't really work. And while the unrest stirred up by Perestroika ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR, that unrest existed because the state planned economy had simply failed to deliver.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.
In 2012 Ron Paul got his first actual, plausible chance of victory, having spent three decades on the outer. As soon as he realised he was a real chance he dumped his ideologically pure positions, among other things reversing his position on abortion. I think that was the point it became clear that no matter how strange the circumstances (and it's hard to imagine them getting stranger than the 2012 Republican primary), no-one holding a genuine libertarian platform would ever compete for major power in the US.
It will continue to exist on the fringe, having some say over general GOP strategy, but too many parts of it are too distasteful to too many potential GOP voters.
Melissia wrote: At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.
Ron Paul
I said Libertarians, not Ron Paul. The two aren't the same thing.
I don't think he was one even before 2012.
Isn't he the most libertarian-ish that had a snowball chance of winning? Not everyone fits in a perfect mold of a "liberal" vs "conservative" vs "libertarin" vs "any-ism"...
Melissia wrote: I said Libertarians, not Ron Paul. The two aren't the same thing.
I don't think he was one even before 2012.
He's been the poster boy for libertarians for nearly three decades. He ran for President as the Libertarian in 1988, and has maintained the highest profile of anyone associated with libertarian policies since then.
Just curious concerning the comments about Reagan: How many of you actually lived in the US during the time period of his presidency (1981-1989) as an adult? I did, he was also my Commander in Chief. Let's just say I have a more favorable memories of the man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Good point, Seaward, but who are the libertarians in the USA these days? Assuming they exist!
Gun control seems to be another issue. I've mentioned before that historically, it was the right wing in the USA that tried to stop African Americans from getting guns, but these days the right wingers are the champions of guns for all, and the left seem to want to clamp down on them!
I'll say this for US politics: it's never dull
It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.
It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.
Well, both parties have undergone some serious demographic shifts since those statements were true.
It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.
Well, both parties have undergone some serious demographic shifts since those statements were true.
They also have undergone serious ideological shifts. The republicans of those days would likely be democrats now, and vice versa.
Chaplain Levitcius wrote: Just curious concerning the comments about Reagan: How many of you actually lived in the US during the time period of his presidency (1981-1989) as an adult? I did, he was also my Commander in Chief. Let's just say I have a more favorable memories of the man.
It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.
but on the other end of the spectrum. Rachel Maddow was just tearing into Clint Eastwood... and people totally just glossed over the other speakers.
. I respect the man for his work as an actor, and much like many liberal-leaning actors whose politics I don't agree with (myself being a more center-politics person, and leaning towards the increasing popularity of social-liberalism and fiscal-conservatism) I ignore his politics for the sake of the fact that he is Clint. Fething. Eastwood 
