Obama's "redistribution of wealth"

[NM Golf]

but they will also reverse some of the worst damage caused by six years of Bush/GOP domination in Washington.

I have asked several other liberals to explain this to me but exactly how has Washington been dominated by the GOP? The Senate has been held by the Democrats for the past 4 years and the house the past 2. Yet no democrat I have found yet has an answer for why the dems feel they shoulder absolutely no blame what-so-ever for our recent crisis. That is one problem I see with the democrats. How can you possibly say you will fix whats wrong when you take no blame. If you are in control, something happens, and you take no blame then what happened must be alright, right?

George W is an easy target. The dems LOVE Clinton yet when he was in office the GOP had an iron grip on Congress having control 6 or his 8 years. Seems to me you liberals love to take all the glory yet feel you never do anything wrong. Anyway, its gone the other direction regardless. We can expect bigger government, more taxes, (one way or the other) and more handouts. I certainly hope thats what everyone who voted liberal wants. I would hate to think anyone out there voted for Obama on a simple whim because they ran with the crowd. I see Barack Obama as the presidential equivalent to smoking pot for the first time. You did it because it seemed cool and all your friends seemed to be doing it. Then all that happened was your friends raided your refrigerator took all your food, and left you with a bad taste in your mouth. Sometimes it takes an extreme movement for people to wake up.

[NM Golf]

And remember this o' lovers of all that is liberal. Prior to Bush, the last time a party had control over both houses and the Presidency for an entire presidential term was 1977-1981. President Jimmy Carter and the dems. I think we all remember that debacle. The wall Street Journal ranks Carter 30th out of 39 for the worst president ever.

I just think the whole thing runs better if you have a nice moderate mix of liberals and conservatives. If you get too far to either side the whole stinking ship could turn over.

[WilsonWedgeMan]

I've been a Federal employee for over 23 years...thru numerous Prezs, and it's all just a game as far as I'm concerned. I'm paying more taxes on my earnings now than my father did... I'm paying more taxes on the State level than my father or Grandfather did...yet I don't see our infrastructure anywhere near what my(yours) tax collections should provide. Too many services being tapped from the $$ ,I dunno... too many not paying into the system to keep that infrastucture maintained accurately ?... again, I dunno...
but I honestly feel, that it won't matter who sets in the Oval office next term, as we'll still have the same problems, or types of problems, that CAN'T be solved . some of this countries problems will never be solved, and no one man can change that fact. no one controlling power in Congress can change that fact. Democrat or Republican..or even some 3rd/4th/5th party can't change "what is". only the entire population can do that, but only if we're close to being on the same page...which we are not. being on the same page about "wanting" something, be it more freedoms, less government, or legalizing moral issues such as Gay marriages, is a far cry from being on the same page about the solutions. that's where we're terribly bogged down by partianships, be it political..Religious.. or even Racial for that matter. I remember when a man called Nixon promised to get us out of an unpopular war...seems history is repeating itself on that fact...we can't stay out of foreign matters that drain our system of $$ and blood. we'll never change that fact,as 1 example.
to those who think Obama is the Savior of this nation...he is not. to those that think McCain is, he,too, is not..
you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water, but until Americans start coming together on the same page, you're still scrubbingh the baby in dirty water. my family has been in politics on State/local level for decades, and believe me when I tell you, it's a dirty business...and what "clean" thing can come from that environment?
may tomorrow bring no anxiety for anyone here, despite who may win, or who don't... because in the end, nothings' really gonna change...just like the ocean, politics just ebbs and flows..research will demonstrate that.
that's the way I see it...

[Chilli Dipper]

NM Golf, you're so far off the rocker that I don't know where to begin this response.

First of all, the Senate has only had a Democrat majority for two years. The Senate caucus between 2000 and 2006 went from a 50-50 deadlock, to a 51-49 Republican majority, to a 55-45 Republican majority, to a 51-49 Democratic majority

Second of all, the financial meltdown has been years in the making. If we're looking for one person to blame for this whole mess, it's Alan Greenspan for holding dictatorial control over the country's monetary system for two decades. At the same time, people from both parties are responsible for enabling one man to wield such absolute power over the economic processes of the United States for so long that his flawed ideology became above reproach. He was at the head of the Federal Reserve for far too long, in my opinion.

Thirdly, Bill Clinton went into the White House with majorities in both houses of Congress similar to that which Barack Obama will have should he win the presidency. Despite that, Republicans were able to organize their supporters, develop a cohesive party platform, and successfully sell it to voters, winning back both houses in the 1994 mid-term elections. They'll have to do the same thing this time around.

Fourthly, George W. Bush had Congress on his side for six years. Do you want to wager where he'd rank among the presidents if such a poll were taken today?

Fifthly, I've never mentioned anything about there not having a mix of conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, in the federal government. But those groups have to prove that they deserve the privilege of being part of the conversation, which Republicans have proven to be incapable of doing so this year. These things have a way of balancing themselves out, but it process isn't just arbitrary.

[immts007]

First of all, the Senate has only had a Democrat majority for two years.

Thanks, Chilli Dipper - I was just about to compose a post of my own explaining this.

And it's actually not even 2 years until January LOL.

[pjsnyc]

Just out of curiosity - setting partisanships aside - is anyone here voting for their candidate using 'gut feeling' as a major consideration?

[st0wgolf08]

I have asked several other liberals to explain this to me but exactly how has Washington been dominated by the GOP? The Senate has been held by the Democrats for the past 4 years and the house the past 2. Yet no democrat I have found yet has an answer for why the dems feel they shoulder absolutely no blame what-so-ever for our recent crisis. That is one problem I see with the democrats. How can you possibly say you will fix whats wrong when you take no blame. If you are in control, something happens, and you take no blame then what happened must be alright, right?

You seem like the person here that most matches my political views. Amen brother!

[Chilli Dipper]

So, you believe in ad hominem liberal bashing despite a lack of evidence justifying your position? Good to know.

[NM Golf]

So, you believe in

Lack of evidence? I do stand corrected on the 4 years I had a date wrong it was a different period of two years earlier in his presidency where the senate was dem led. But what exactly do you think that they are going to do in the next two years that they haven't been able to do so far. Is it not true they have had control of both houses for two years and have done nothing?

NM Golf, you're so far off the rocker that I don't know where to begin this response.

Now its someone elses fault, NEVER the democrats, they have nothing to do with it. Do you not see the ridiculous nature of constantly saying not my fault. That is maybe what bugs me most about democrats, they never saw an excuse they didn't like.

Democrats don't stand for anything. So wishy washy. I mean its amazing watching Obama, he is so busy jumping from one foot to another trying to please everyone he will always be weak in my book. Whatever you are obviously a gigantic liberal, so what. Good for you I just hope for gods sake that your big liberal landslide doesn't continue to destroy the America I love. We are going in the wrong direction thats no mystery but I fear Obama's extreme liberal agenda will only continue the downward spiral. I hope I am wrong. I will say this in closing. Unlike most liberals when Bush won, if Barack Obama wins tomorrow I will give him a chance. I will not start off with a little O with a line through it in my back window. I will not march or bitch and complain. I will not show up at his inauguration with signs declaring he is not my president. He will be my president and I will put this behind me. Constant bitching, bashing, and protesting just causes more problems. Plus I will have to go to work.

[Chilli Dipper]

Lack of evidence? I do stand corrected on the 4 years I had a date wrong it was a different period of two years earlier in his presidency where the senate was dem led. But what exactly do you think that they are going to do in the next two years that they haven't been able to do so far. Is it not true they have had control of both houses for two years and have done nothing?

It's like you didn't read a single word I wrote. And by your constant ranting about his "extremist liberal agenda," I doubt that you actually will give Obama a chance.

[Rusty2228]

I really think a lot of conservatives will be happy if Obama wins, that way they can continue their delusions that it isn't their fault they have failed, it is the Dems. who have given all of their money to the poor.

I am very close to a conservative who believes this in some form. He rails against the capital gains tax and said this: "if they got rid of the capital gains tax, I would be making so much money because I would buy more investment property." He has installed this tax issue as what is keeping him back. But he hasn't properly analyzed the situation. If this was true,right now he is choosing no money vs. some money. The reality is that he doesn't have the seed money, and probably never will.

And thus is the genius of the republican campaign machine, they have the majority of conservative voters railing against tax increases on fictional money, because everyone is eventually going to be independently wealthy in their minds. But when you look at the numbers only 10% of the people have money to be considered wealthy. And that 10% of the people are continuously getting more money.

40 years ago CEO-worker pay was roughly 35/1, now it is 435/1 (numbers are approximate). Since money can't be created without inflation, that is a serious "redistribution of wealth" to the upper class.

So people should continue to spout rhetoric that doesn't and will not effect them because conservatives will continue to cut their nose off to spite their face.

[LooseLefty]

It doesn't matter who gets elected, it's all the same old crap coming out of these guys mouths. It's easy to stand up there and say you are going to do this and that, however the past elections have shown that what is said during the campaign and what actually happens after they are elected are nowhere near close. Taxes are inevitable. The US Goverment operates on our tax dollars, if the taxes are cut, then what spending gets cut? What officials are going to take pay cuts? What programs get shut down? None. If taxes are cut at all, it would simply be a short term fix, which we will pay for at a later date. Our goverment spending goes up every year. Where do you guys think the money to sustain it is going to come from? WE are the product, OUR taxes run this country.

Can I buy this guy a beer? This is the most intelligent, logical post I've read in this discussion.

The fact that some Americans not only accept the the differential tax treatment, but condone the usage of tax dollars to manipulate the economy disturbs me. I consider it a gross perversion of the constitution. All Men are created equal, but let's not treat them equally.

[WilsonWedgeMan]

I really think a lot of conservatives will be happy if Obama wins, that way they can continue their delusions that it isn't their fault they have failed, it is the Dems. who have given all of their money to the poor.

....that's the biggest travesty of all...because more companies are losing money than are gaining assests, which is what CEOs are paid to do. that scale is waay outta proportion, considering they mainly make decisions on issues that are presented to them by their brain-trust subordinates...any good Janitor could easily be as successful if given opportunity. because it's at best a 50/50 chance of either being a good decision, or a bad one. if you can manage your personal/home budget, you can do the same for any company, with a little common sense and honest advisors who know the big-boy game. I see where 155 Circuit City stores are closing their doors nation-wide.... I'd say that CEO deserves a huge bonus.....

[pjsnyc]

...I will say this in closing. Unlike most liberals when Bush won, if Barack Obama wins tomorrow I will give him a chance. I will not start off with a little O with a line through it in my back window. I will not march or bitch and complain. I will not show up at his inauguration with signs declaring he is not my president. He will be my president and I will put this behind me. Constant bitching, bashing, and protesting just causes more problems. Plus I will have to go to work.

I can only hope the other McCain (or Obama!) supporters share your view.

[LooseLefty]

Not true. Capitalism in its purest, most unregulated form has the endgame of a select few wield controlling power over all wealth and resources. It certainly does not make the people freer. On the other hand, socialism in its purest, most regulated form has the endgame of either the government wielding controlling power over all wealth and resources, or the public holding a collective power which is only achieved by suppressing all possible distinctions of class. Again, it the people do not benefit from becoming freer.

There's a lot of application to support your statement on socialism (Russia, N. Korea, Germany) as communism and facsism are rooted in socialism, but can you tell me one society, country, regime that supports your hypothesis on capitalism?

[Rusty2228]

There's a lot of application to support your statement on socialism (Russia, N. Korea, Germany) as communism and facsism are rooted in socialism, but can you tell me one society, country, regime that supports your hypothesis on capitalism?

There isn't going to be an example of full fledged capitalism, because everyone realizes that there needs to be some sort of structure...the debate occurs over how much structure.

But for illustrative purposes lets look at the W. Bush years, specifically 2004, as an example where there were lax rules, and lets look at what happens when you have a less regulation: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm; Now if we can extrapolate this data to a logical conclusion, pretty soon all of the money ends up in fewer and fewer hands. Think of it as a large scale poker tournament, eventually all the money goes to one person. And if the majority of people start the tournament with a smaller amount of chips than the top 1%.

[LooseLefty]

There isn't going to be an example of full fledged capitalism, because everyone realizes that there needs to be some sort of structure...the debate occurs over how much structure.

I agree. Capitalism in its purest form requires structure, but who should decide the structure? Federal Government? So instead of 3MM people controlling with countries wealth (1% of the population), it should be controlled by a few hundred people in DC?

Competition will prevail. As long as there is incentive to be wealthy/successful. Incentive drives an economy. Citizens should decide what structure is necessary in their respective states. A few hundred in DC should rarely speak for the beliefs of hundreds of millions. While I can see your logic with the poker tournament example, a country's economy is not that simple. Is this concentration of wealth due to a lack of gov't or too much gov't? I'm betting on the latter.

[Rusty2228]

I agree. Capitalism in its purest form requires structure, but who should decide the structure? Federal Government? So instead of 3MM people controlling with countries wealth (1% of the population), it should be controlled by a few hundred people in DC?

I agree in a major part with your sentiment. But...

Yes control should be in the hands of a coulple hundred people in DC, and anothe couple hundred in your state capitol as well. It is called representational government. The difference being that the couple of hundred people are elected to represent the interests of their constituents and thus also be in the best interest of the country (Theoretically) Yes incentive does drive a capitalistic economy. But if incentive is wealth, and there is less incentive out there, then you are telling me precisely why I should vote for Obama. I disagree with the more vs. less government. The distribution of wealth has grown smaller during the time when regulations were at their lowest point. If there is no snow on the ground when I go to bed, and I wake up to a foot of snow. I don't have to have seen it snowing to know that it did.