US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cali Red said:
Free? No, paid by others for those who can't pay and expensive for those who can. But anyway, thanks for the clarification. Maybe you're in the far left 1%. 1%er....:lol:
Click to expand...

By free I obviously mean free at point of sale. The US spends considerably more per capita on healthcare than any otehr country. To me it just makes sense to improve the system and give everyone access to the same healthcare.
 
mjs020294 said:
By free I obviously mean free at point of sale. The US spends considerably more per capita on healthcare than any otehr country. To me it just makes sense to improve the system and give everyone access to the same healthcare.
Click to expand...

I was taking a little dig at you. I'm pretty much against gov't run or controlled health care but I would like to see access for all. It certainly needs reform.
 
Cali Red said:
I was taking a little dig at you. I'm pretty much against gov't run or controlled health care but I would like to see access for all. It certainly needs reform.
Click to expand...

Ther Health Insurance industry is the only industry I can think off that adds zero added value to a service....when we talk about in the US.

In fact it is legalised extortion.

The only way to reform it is to make it highly controlled like in Switzerland or extend Medicare for all.

All the people in teh industry will migrate to Care giving.

It will happen but the senators and congressmen will fight it, because the industry owns them, just like they own the Supreme Court.
 
Time for a rational discussion...

November-19-2011-04-38-42-1321430782946.jpg
 
Team Brian GB said:
A rather interesting line out of the U.S. Treasury, I wonder how many Republicans will now go from saying it was Obama's bad decision to it was Bush's good one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17720012
Click to expand...

Its always the way GB. You wanna try living with them, they are always right and the left are always wrong. Two wars and a destroyed economy and its all Obamas fault.
 
Ramshock said:
Yes because California did a bang up job looking after itself didnt it?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're on about but if you want a primary reason to move away from lousy liberal policies all you need to do is take a look at California. Deeply in debt and getting worse. And states don't have the luxury of just printing up a whole bunch of worthless money. That's right the Feds will have to step in and bail us out too.

As the saying goes: As California goes, so goes the nation.
 
Ramshock said:
I doubt rational and you would work mate no harm to you. Try another image or soundbite or buzzword which highlights the limit of your mental capacity. I fecking hate stupid right wing rednecks.
Click to expand...

You talking to me? I don't agree with the image, I was just amazed to see someone made it so i stuck it in here, my comment about a rational discussion was ironic. If one is the sort of person to lump Obama in with Hitler and Lenin then it's hard to imagine any discussion getting anywhere.

I'm really amazed where politics have gone in the States, it reminds me of WWII propaganda.
 
Cali Red said:
Not sure what you're on about but if you want a primary reason to move away from lousy liberal policies all you need to do is take a look at California. Deeply in debt and getting worse. And states don't have the luxury of just printing up a whole bunch of worthless money. That's right the Feds will have to step in and bail us out too.

As the saying goes: As California goes, so goes the nation.
Click to expand...

Yes and good old fiscal conservative policies allowed the banking systems and mortgage/housing market to collapse not to mention two money sapping wars. Its funny how you allude to Calfornia being a microcosm of the US, Arnie got a free ride of course being a conservative due to his predecessors policies but the same doesnt work viz a viz Obama and Bush.
 
gooDevil said:
Time for a rational discussion...

November-19-2011-04-38-42-1321430782946.jpg
Click to expand...

That's actually retarded. It has so little basis in reality that it's funny.

Even just putting Lenin and Hitler next to each other is atrocious in a historical perspective. Maybe if it was Stalin.

Actually, it's also atrocious to suggest that the "troubled times" that the US is currently going through is anywhere near the "troubled times" of 1930s Germany or 1917 Russia. It's damn near insulting.
 
niMic said:
That's actually retarded. It has so little basis in reality that it's funny.

Even just putting Lenin and Hitler next to each other is atrocious in a historical perspective. Maybe if it was Stalin.

Actually, it's also atrocious to suggest that the "troubled times" that the US is currently going through is anywhere near the "troubled times" of 1930s Germany or 1917 Russia. It's damn near insulting.
Click to expand...

Mate, they dont have the capacity to differentiate between the word socialist used in each instance. The mouth breathers cant understand the concept that the Nazis were not socialist. So because the word Socialist was in their name it obviously means that they were indeed socialists. They could have called themselves the Nationalist Zionists for feck sake it meant that little to what they stood for.
 
gooDevil said:
You talking to me? I don't agree with the image, I was just amazed to see someone made it so i stuck it in here, my comment about a rational discussion was ironic. If one is the sort of person to lump Obama in with Hitler and Lenin then it's hard to imagine any discussion getting anywhere.

I'm really amazed where politics have gone in the States, it reminds me of WWII propaganda.
Click to expand...

My apologies...anyway you shouldn't be amazed to what lengths people will go to in the states to make sure that their "only choice" is elected president. The loud minority of the right wing in the states have RAWK like tendencies when it comes to accountability and economics
 
Ramshock said:
Yes and good old fiscal conservative policies allowed the banking systems and mortgage/housing market to collapse not to mention two money sapping wars. Its funny how you allude to Calfornia being a microcosm of the US, Arnie gets a free ride of course being a conservative due to his predecessors policies but the same doesnt work viz a viz Obama and Bush.
Click to expand...

LOL, who's giving Arnie a pass? And you are aware that he didn't govern as a conservative? He was a big spender as well. For over a decade they had a windfall of cash that governors have proceeded to waste and now Brown is starting to look more and more like he will have to force the hand of state legislators to cut deep. He won't be able to do it. Not in his nature. And are you actually saying people don't blame Bush? That's all politicians have been doing for over 3 years.

And what are talking about with the housing bubble? That was a nationwide collapse not isolated to California. Your whole post is almost hilarious in that it's typical politics, blame the other guy.

California is a mess. Businesses leaving, high unemployment, high cost of living, etc
 
Cali Red said:
LOL, who's giving Arnie a pass? And you are aware that he didn't govern as a conservative? He was a big spender as well.
Click to expand...

:lol: American conservatives are big spenders when they are in power, thats a proud conservative tradition. Say you will cut spending and taxes while trying to get elected, and only do the latter when you have the chance.

The only way to get Republicans to actually cut the size of government is to keep them in the minority.
 
niMic said:
That's actually retarded. It has so little basis in reality that it's funny.

Even just putting Lenin and Hitler next to each other is atrocious in a historical perspective. Maybe if it was Stalin.

Actually, it's also atrocious to suggest that the "troubled times" that the US is currently going through is anywhere near the "troubled times" of 1930s Germany or 1917 Russia. It's damn near insulting.
Click to expand...

There was a Catholic Bishop who made comments recently comparing Obama to Stalin and Hitler. As for the Hitler comparison, I don't know why he was complaining about it since the Catholic Church was happy enough to stand by and watch or actively collaborate with him. :lol:
 
The polls are getting too close for my liking. Still a long way to go but Obama isn't looking quite the certainty he once did.
 
mjs020294 said:
The polls are getting too close for my liking. Still a long way to go but Obama isn't looking quite the certainty he once did.
Click to expand...

That's because he hasn't started campaigning yet. Once he does and people begin to draw comparisons, Romney will begin to look a bit less viable.
 
Raoul said:
That's because he hasn't started campaigning yet. Once he does and people begin to draw comparisons, Romney will begin to look a bit less viable.
Click to expand...

Hasn't started campaigning? Of course he has. The other thing that will certainly help him is campaign funding. He has 10x Romneys money. That will carry him over the top. I think he'll still win, and fairly easily.
 
Obama has comfortable leads so far in all key swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The national poll means feck all really.
 
Cali Red said:
Hasn't started campaigning? Of course he has. The other thing that will certainly help him is campaign funding. He has 10x Romneys money. That will carry him over the top. I think he'll still win, and fairly easily.
Click to expand...

Compared to Romney, who has been pounding his ubergeneric flipflopping message in through 6 months of GOP debates and being in the news every night, Obama hasn't started campaigning yet. Once he starts, the numbers will level out.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Obama has comfortable leads so far in all key swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The national poll means feck all really.
Click to expand...

correct. Romney will never overcome his "Let the auto industry go bankrupt" stance.

Axelrod's strategy was never based on the Blue Color vote.

Romney gave that to Obama.

Easily a second landslide.

Romney is the worst candidate the GOP has selected in a generation...amazing.


Obama is the most conservative of the last 3 Democratic Presidents.

...so much for the socialist nonsense.

EDIT: I would say Pennsylvania is a lock for Obama. Florida and Ohio certainly leans Obama.

Anyone who wants to win the Presidency must win 2 of those three states. But Obama's firewall are the Western States of NM, CO and NV. Current polls in all those states lean Obama. Even if he loses Florida and Ohio (unlikely), with Pennsylvania and the western states he becomes President again.
 
Cali Red said:
LOL, who's giving Arnie a pass? And you are aware that he didn't govern as a conservative? He was a big spender as well. For over a decade they had a windfall of cash that governors have proceeded to waste and now Brown is starting to look more and more like he will have to force the hand of state legislators to cut deep. He won't be able to do it. Not in his nature. And are you actually saying people don't blame Bush? That's all politicians have been doing for over 3 years.

And what are talking about with the housing bubble? That was a nationwide collapse not isolated to California. Your whole post is almost hilarious in that it's typical politics, blame the other guy.

California is a mess. Businesses leaving, high unemployment, high cost of living, etc
Click to expand...

The simple truth of the matter is two wars costing trillions of dollars and horrible economic policies designed to deregulate and give cowboy assholes free reign to play with peoples money have seriously wounded the country. The next president was always on a hiding to nothing, in fact I believe that McCain would have keeled over and died by now if he had won.

Bush and his government and policies are reason why the world is in such a bad state economically. Obama hasnt the capacity or ability to overcome this and Romney certainly doesnt either. This is what happens when you have a two party electoral system that thrives on scaring voters into voting or not voiting for one of two candidates.
 
Cali Red said:
Not sure what you're on about but if you want a primary reason to move away from lousy liberal policies all you need to do is take a look at California. Deeply in debt and getting worse. And states don't have the luxury of just printing up a whole bunch of worthless money. That's right the Feds will have to step in and bail us out too.

As the saying goes: As California goes, so goes the nation.
Click to expand...

That's a bunch of crap. CA had a republican governor for years and he did feck all. The real problem is that the system doesn't allow for abudget to pass because they need a 2/3s majority...the repubs won't agree to any new taxes so meeting the spending obligations and paying for everything else become impossible. They pass budgets that are pieces of shit and nothing ever changes.

Of course you factor in all the special interet groups and the power they hold over legislators, term limits, the massive lobbying industry, gerrymandering, the fallout from prop 13, and countless other factors and you have waht we are living with today.

To blame it all on "lousy liberal policies " is simplistic and naive, and demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to comprehend the actual reason for the budget mess in CA.
 
Grinner said:
That's a bunch of crap. CA had a republican governor for years and he did feck all. The real problem is that the system doesn't allow for abudget to pass because they need a 2/3s majority...the repubs won't agree to any new taxes so meeting the spending obligations and paying for everything else become impossible. They pass budgets that are pieces of shit and nothing ever changes.

Of course you factor in all the special interet groups and the power they hold over legislators, term limits, the massive lobbying industry, gerrymandering, the fallout from prop 13, and countless other factors and you have waht we are living with today.

To blame it all on "lousy liberal policies " is simplistic and naive, and demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to comprehend the actual reason for the budget mess in CA.
Click to expand...

You mean how you similarly blame it on 'repubs not agreeing on new taxes'. Because of course the only way to pay for things is to raise taxes. Yet oddly enough this state has some of the highest taxes in the nation. The CA legislature has been controlled by dems since 1970 except for 2 years. I'm not blaming just dems either (hell I've voted for some) both parties are to blame but this state has had over 40 years of democrat control and it's a mess.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/local/la-me-state-debt-20110226


I fully understand states/counties acquiring some cheap debt from time to time as it can make lots of sense to do it. But on both state and federal levels it's out of control. I worry that if in the future, and not that far future, our streets will look like the ones in Greece. Big cuts will come and affect everyone.

EDIT: Removed a link to the same article.
 
Drainy said:
Borrowing too much money always means you are spending too much, its not possible to consider that your tax revenue levels are suboptimal. Thats crazy right wing logic.
Click to expand...

It's always a mix of both yet one side absolutely refuses to raise taxes. cnuts like Grover Norquist terrify legislators into stupid pledges and nothing ever gets done. The 2/3s is the problem...let the side in power govern as they see fit and live or die by the results.
 
Grinner said:
It's always a mix of both yet one side absolutely refuses to raise taxes. cnuts like Grover Norquist terrify legislators into stupid pledges and nothing ever gets done. The 2/3s is the problem...let the side in power govern as they see fit and live or die by the results.
Click to expand...

and even worse they then claim that tax revenues are low because the tax rate is too high!! :lol: The laffer curve is, generally speaking, a load of shit in how Republicans are interpreting it at the moment. The rates are already too low for decreases to increase revenue..
 
Drainy said:
Borrowing too much money always means you are spending too much, its not possible to consider that your tax revenue levels are suboptimal. Thats crazy right wing logic.
Click to expand...

Well the flip of your logic is, if you're spending more than you take in you're just not collecting the proper amount of tax revenue.

It has to be a balance. I'm not against paying taxes at all. They are certainly very necessary. But building high tech swimming pools for bears and paying retired government employees $180,000 per year in retirement benefits is lunacy. If they'd use the money effectively I'd happily pay more (a little ;)) but they don't. So until then I don't want to give them anymore. Cut spending. Stamp out waste, abuse, fraud and earmarks. Raise taxes (fairly).
 
Cali Red said:
Well the flip of your logic is, if you're spending more than you take in you're just not collecting the proper amount of tax revenue.

It has to be a balance. I'm not against paying taxes at all. They are certainly very necessary. But building high tech swimming pools for bears and paying retired government employees $180,000 per year in retirement benefits is lunacy. If they'd use the money effectively I'd happily pay more (a little ;)) but they don't. So until then I don't want to give them anymore. Cut spending. Stamp out waste, abuse, fraud and earmarks. Raise taxes (fairly).
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but there will always be some degree of waste and fraud in any bureaucracy. I have no idea where the story of the swimming pool for bears comes from so I can't comment on any value that such a project might have for the tax payers.. on paying $180,000 to workers.. that is certainly not the norm and must be a very senior manager, the question is how does this compare to the private sector and have they got the relevant skills for the job. If you pay a senior manager $30,000 you will probably end up with more fraud and waste because there will be a skills gap.
 
Cali Red said:
Well the flip of your logic is, if you're spending more than you take in you're just not collecting the proper amount of tax revenue.

It has to be a balance. I'm not against paying taxes at all. They are certainly very necessary. But building high tech swimming pools for bears and paying retired government employees $180,000 per year in retirement benefits is lunacy. If they'd use the money effectively I'd happily pay more (a little ;)) but they don't. So until then I don't want to give them anymore. Cut spending. Stamp out waste, abuse, fraud and earmarks. Raise taxes (fairly).
Click to expand...

You seem to think that all those examples of waste are only in effect because of liberals...which is nonsense.The biggest salaries and benefits go to prison guards and staff...repubs love funding that area just as much as dems.

I was a registered lobbyist at a firm in Sacramento...legislators are just interested in getting as much money as they can from anybody who's willing to splash it, in order to keep them themselves in their jobs as long as possible and reward their cronies. 90% of my interactions with legislators and staff were fund-raising related. Term limits was a fecking stupid idea which saw all the experienced legislators removed and a bunch of mostly useless twats in their place who are led around by special interests.
 
Drainy said:
I hate to break this to you, but there will always be some degree of waste and fraud in any bureaucracy. I have no idea where the story of the swimming pool for bears comes from so I can't comment on any value that such a project might have for the tax payers. on paying $180,000 to workers.. that is certainly not the norm and must be a very senior manager, the question is how does this compare to the private sector and have they got the relevant skills for the job. If you pay a senior manager $30,000 you will probably end up with more fraud and waste because there will be a skills gap.
Click to expand...

Sure there will be some degree I can understand that. And as you say that's true in any job, private sector or not. However, in the private sector if it's rampant then a company goes out of business. The swimming pool thing is in one of the LA Times links I posted, I edited the post because I didn't copy the link over correctly. It really just points out some the wasteful things the CA state gov't has done. I read another where a retired Vallejo police (fire?) chief is getting over $150,000 a year at 57 years old. That's obscene money in retirement benefits. If I'm the manager of a private company making $150,000 a year I can't retire after 30 years and then collect the same pay for another 20-30 years. It just doesn't happen. It would bankrupt a company and it's bankrupting governments, especially state governments.
 
Grinner said:
You seem to think that all those examples of waste are only in effect because of liberals...which is nonsense.The biggest salaries and benefits go to prison guards and staff...repubs love funding that area just as much as dems.

I was a registered lobbyist at a firm in Sacramento...legislators are just interested in getting as much money as they can from anybody who's willing to splash it, in order to keep them themselves in their jobs as long as possible and reward their cronies. 90% of my interactions with legislators and staff were fund-raising related. Term limits was a fecking stupid idea which saw all the experienced legislators removed and a bunch of mostly useless twats in their place who are led around by special interests.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just because of liberal (dems) by the way I blame repubs as well. I don't trust either major party at the moment. They are there only to serve themselves.

And if you were a lobbyist then you probably understand the seriousness of the problem. As you say it's only about getting money in order to stay elected. Serving the state/country has nothing to do with it. Hence the mess were in.

Not sure on the term limits. I can see what you say is happening may be true. But how would that be any different than a 20 year elected official? Special interests seem to have just as easy of a hold on career politicians.
 
Cali Red said:
I don't think it's just because of liberal (dems) by the way I blame repubs as well. I don't trust either major party at the moment. They are there only to serve themselves.

And if you were a lobbyist then you probably understand the seriousness of the problem. As you say it's only about getting money in order to stay elected. Serving the state/country has nothing to do with it. Hence the mess were in.

Not sure on the term limits. I can see what you say is happening may be true. But how would that be any different than a 20 year elected official? Special interests seem to have just as easy of a hold on career politicians.
Click to expand...

Yeas ago I interned for John Vasconcellos. One of the smartest, most capable legislators we've had who didn't take any crap from special interests and knew how the capitol worked and knew how to work with people. He was termed out along with all of his colleagues eventually and in their place you get very poor replacements who need two years just to figure out how things work.

Now they are talking about part-time legislators which will just mean it's harder for the average guy to do the job. Only the rich or special-interest funded will be able to do the job and they'll not give a shit about the common man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.