Are You Voting Tuesday?

[Lihu]

I agree, I'm a fiscal conservative, but we have to be realistic.  It's easy to say, just tell the government to tighten their belt, make cuts  and get our spending under control but what does that really mean?  What gets cut, what are the short term and long term impacts?  Do we cut the military?  What happens to our recruitment numbers, what happens to the government contractors that make money providing consulting, services and equipment to the military.  Everything has a ripple effect and no cut is as simple as it seems at the surface.

I'd be happy with a balanced budget but we can't even achieve that.  I'd be happy if Treasury didn't print new money every time the threat of recession was mentioned.  I'd be happy if we looked at the long term impacts of programs like ACA before we just spend trillions of dollars to implement them and I'd be happy with a government that told the truth rather than telling us it's raining when they peed on us.

Rich people do that to the poor.

Spending is the American government way of solving any problem. Doesn't really matter who's in office, because most of our leaders are part of the "elite class" in our society. Most of them went to elite schools, and had been surrounded by wealth all their entire lives. Their parents bought their way out of any problem for them as children, and they have learned to "solve" problems using that same mentality.

It going to be easier to get every American to become more productive and inspire them to make enough money to pay the taxes that go into this black hole of a government budget than it is to balance the budget.

[dfreuter415]

Look at what they do -- not what they say or what they look like...

I don't agree that they all lie, but many do, and don't we deserve better? Can't we take a person at their word without having to worry if they aren't handing us a line of BS? In the end, how can you really trust anyone who continually tells you things that aren't true?

[Mr. Desmond]

I've been taking an ap European history class and it's made me realize just how unstable our govornment is. Granted it's more stable than the absolute monarchies, but I still think we need to strengthen our military and exploration endeavors, and cut welfare, and govornment insurance. I also think our resession must be treated differently than the Great Depression. Where the govornment had tons of money to blow and a very liberal approach can be taken.It's the opposite now where the people have more money than the govornment so a less liberal approach can be taken and the private sector must be relied on.

Well, 2009 was not that long ago, and only one entity would spend ... and it was not private businesses.

If the Government had not spent, it is the contention of many economists, if we had done what Europe did (and what the GOP wanted us to do), and gone to austerity, we'd have had unrest in the streets (as Europe did), and still be locked in a recession, as many in Europe still are ... and most, if not all, with a higher rate of unemployment than the US.

Many now regard our current problem as  caused by stopping the second stimulus ... blame the GOP, not Obama, for that. Obama wanted to spend on our weakening infrastructure. Okay, so that did not happen.

At least our deficit spending is being reduced due to sequestration.

IF this Congress had not kicked the can down the road and had actually tackled the problem with tax reform and economic business incentives, we might be more down the road of strength.

But they want to show Obama as the "boogeyman" or bogeyman, the golfing, vacation President.

The propaganda worked, and Obama was an easy target -- because he is not a backslapping, coalition building, I love business President. Eventually, the combination will catch up to you ... and it caught up to him. He deserved the defeat. He did not deserve the lies. The truth was sufficiently bad.

But let's be truthful about all of this ... the GOP's hands are not clean ... they are filthy.

And now that they have power ... they can govern or they can make the next 2 years a circus and do nothing.

It's on them.

[newtogolf]

Well, 2009 was not that long ago, and only one entity would spend ... and it was not private businesses.

If the Government had not spent, it is the contention of many economists, if we had done what Europe did (and what the GOP wanted us to do), and gone to austerity, we'd have had unrest in the streets (as Europe did), and still be locked in a recession, as many in Europe still are ... and most, if not all, with a higher rate of unemployment than the US.

Many now regard our current problem as  caused by stopping the second stimulus ... blame the GOP, not Obama, for that. Obama wanted to spend on our weakening infrastructure. Okay, so that did not happen.

At least our deficit spending is being reduced due to sequestration.

IF this Congress had not kicked the can down the road and had actually tackled the problem with tax reform and economic business incentives, we might be more down the road of strength.

But they want to show Obama as the "boogeyman" or bogeyman, the golfing, vacation President.

The propaganda worked, and Obama was an easy target -- because he is not a backslapping, coalition building, I love business President. Eventually, the combination will catch up to you ... and it caught up to him. He deserved the defeat. He did not deserve the lies. The truth was sufficiently bad.

But let's be truthful about all of this ... the GOP's hands are not clean ... they are filthy.

And now that they have power ... they can govern or they can make the next 2 years a circus and do nothing.

It's on them.

There's a little revisionist history here.  How about all the money that Obama had the Treasury print to stimulate the economy that will come back to bite us when he's long out of the White House.  How about the spin doctoring on ACA not being a tax?  Where's the real teeth in the fines for those that refuse to purchase health care?

The GOP hands are no dirtier than Obama's and the democrats.  Obama has to take responsibility for his own failures and inability to do any of the things he promised including being transparent (which was completely under his control).   If he stood up in front of us and took some responsibility for his failure as POTUS I'd respect him a lot more than him standing at the podium and still blaming GW after he's been in office for almost 6 years.

[Mr. Desmond]

There's a little revisionist history here.  How about all the money that Obama had the Treasury print to stimulate the economy that will come back to bite us when he's long out of the White House.  How about the spin doctoring on ACA not being a tax?  Where's the real teeth in the fines for those that refuse to purchase health care?

The GOP hands are no dirtier than Obama's and the democrats.  Obama has to take responsibility for his own failures and inability to do any of the things he promised including being transparent (which was completely under his control).   If he stood up in front of us and took some responsibility for his failure as POTUS I'd respect him a lot more than him standing at the podium and still blaming GW after he's been in office for almost 6 years.

Bad label.

But if you have additional facts, go at it.

I welcome it.

In the big scheme of things, none of this crap matters....  everyone's hands are filthy .... but if you keep on electing the same guys, their hands just get dirtier... because they can get away with it.

And today's circus, who is anyone fooling. They talk about cooperation ... let's see it.

Proof is in doing it.

[MS256]

And now that they have power ... they can govern or they can make the next 2 years a circus and do nothing.

It's on them.

If I remember right that's not exactly how it works. Both or either side can make it a circus.

The Congress can pass anything they want and it won't amount to a hill of beans if the President uses a veto.

Remains to be seen if President Obama can or will switch gears and work with the other side and remains to be seen if the Congress is in any mood for compromises or olive branches.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton had to do it but at least until this point President Obama hasn't really had to or shown a willingness.

Could be two years of conflict, blame, and stalemate or maybe they work together and get some things accomplished.

BTW I'm betting on the circus but hoping otherwise.

[Mr. Desmond]

If I remember right that's not exactly how it works. Both or either side can make it a circus.

The Congress can pass anything they want and it won't amount to a hill of beans if the President uses a veto.

Remains to be seen if President Obama can or will switch gears and work with the other side and remains to be seen if the Congress is in any mood for compromises or olive branches.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton had to do it but at least until this point President Obama hasn't really had to or shown a willingness.

Could be two years of conflict, blame, and stalemate or maybe they work together and get some things accomplished.

BTW I'm betting on the circus but hoping otherwise.

It can't be worse than the last 2 years...

Hell, if I voted for a Republican yesterday, Obama can work with Congress.

[boogielicious]

Thanks everyone for keeping this thread polite. I've read through the posts and you all have done well at keeping the discussion calm.  Political thread can get out of hand quickly.

[dfreuter415]

I agree. There will always be political zealots, but most people would just like to see both sides work together. This has been a period of unparalleled political polarization in American history. However, I can remember  when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out successful budgets in the 1990's. What happened was a sustained period of growth and prosperity, and a sense of accomplishment when both sides worked together for the common good. Maybe we can get back to those principles of compromise, common sense, and good will.

[newtogolf]

Thanks everyone for keeping this thread polite. I've read through the posts and you all have done well at keeping the discussion calm.  Political thread can get out of hand quickly.

I agree, it's nice to have intelligent discussions without the name calling.

It is OUR country, I don't care if a democrat, republican or independent can fix it, I just want it fixed.  I'm tired of big government, I'm tired of the mixing of religion and government, I'm tired of seeing our constitutional fights eroded through fear mongering and I'm tired of paying more money every year in taxes and seeing less in return for it.

Any side that is willing to step up and fix it gets my vote.  Until then I will just continue to vote against those that have failed to make a difference.

[RandallT]

What a satisfying vote that was on Tuesday, even if my Virginia Senator didn't quite work out.  What was the deal with the polls being so skewed toward Democrats this election cycle? Nearly every close race went for the Republican decisively. Ones that were "Leaning Dem" went Republican. Even elections like here in VA that were "Likely Dem" were nearly won by a Republican. In 2012, the polls were skewed toward Republicans, so I don't think there is bias in the pollsters. But they are definitely having trouble identifying the makeup of the electorate in their estimates.

Just shows: you need to actually vote. Polls don't mean anything.

Edit: Just FYI- the main reason for my vote was Obamacare. And federal government intrusion/spending generally. Made me realize that in 2009 when Obamacare was approved there was a 60-40 majority in the Senate for Dems and a huge majority in the House.  Soon, it will be 56-44 for Republicans in the Senate (a change from +20 to -12!) and a huge Republican majority in the House. Coincidence? Amazing what just 5 years or so can do for the electorate.

[mmoan2]

Rich people do that to the poor.

Spending is the American government way of solving any problem. Doesn't really matter who's in office, because most of our leaders are part of the "elite class" in our society. Most of them went to elite schools, and had been surrounded by wealth all their entire lives. Their parents bought their way out of any problem for them as children, and they have learned to "solve" problems using that same mentality.

It going to be easier to get every American to become more productive and inspire them to make enough money to pay the taxes that go into this black hole of a government budget than it is to balance the budget.

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit with the "parents bought them out of all problems" bit. A few high-profile politicians recently may have fit that bill, but many members of Congress and MOST State government officials were not silver-spoon, Ivy League, cookie-cutter rich brats. I can't think of a single state legislator in AZ who went to anything other than a state university off the top of my head.

[Lihu]

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit with the "parents bought them out of all problems" bit. A few high-profile politicians recently may have fit that bill, but many members of Congress and MOST State government officials were not silver-spoon, Ivy League, cookie-cutter rich brats. I can't think of a single state legislator in AZ who went to anything other than a state university off the top of my head.

That's why I said "most".

Many other states are not that lucky.

[newtogolf]

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit with the "parents bought them out of all problems" bit. A few high-profile politicians recently may have fit that bill, but many members of Congress and MOST State government officials were not silver-spoon, Ivy League, cookie-cutter rich brats. I can't think of a single state legislator in AZ who went to anything other than a state university off the top of my head.

I guess it depends on what you consider wealthy or elite.  Obama has a net worth of $12M, GW - $20M, Clinton - $44M (most of his wealth was earned post presidency).  In the scope of wealth these guys don't make any of the Forbes lists.  I know guys on Wall Street that have a higher net worth.

The real wealthy (what I consider elite) are usually altruistic, look at Gates, Allen, Walton, Buffet, etc.  Guys like that realize they can't spend all their money if they tried and donate a lot to charities.

IMO the guys you have to worry about are the ones that have some wealth but crave power to secure their position of wealth.

[Lihu]

I guess it depends on what you consider wealthy or elite.  Obama has a net worth of $12M, GW - $20M, Clinton - $44M (most of his wealth was earned post presidency).  In the scope of wealth these guys don't make any of the Forbes lists.  I know guys on Wall Street that have a higher net worth.

The real wealthy (what I consider elite) are usually altruistic, look at Gates, Allen, Walton, Buffet, etc.  Guys like that realize they can't spend all their money if they tried and donate a lot to charities.

IMO the guys you have to worry about are the ones that have some wealth but crave power to secure their position of wealth.

Sure, this is exactly the type I mean.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit with the "parents bought them out of all problems" bit. A few high-profile politicians recently may have fit that bill, but many members of Congress and MOST State government officials were not silver-spoon, Ivy League, cookie-cutter rich brats. I can't think of a single state legislator in AZ who went to anything other than a state university off the top of my head.

I guess it depends on what you consider wealthy or elite.  Obama has a net worth of $12M, GW - $20M, Clinton - $44M (most of his wealth was earned post presidency).  In the scope of wealth these guys don't make any of the Forbes lists.  I know guys on Wall Street that have a higher net worth.

The real wealthy (what I consider elite) are usually altruistic, look at Gates, Allen, Walton, Buffet, etc.  Guys like that realize they can't spend all their money if they tried and donate a lot to charities.

IMO the guys you have to worry about are the ones that have some wealth but crave power to secure their position of wealth.

Good point.  Let's face it, no one goes into Congress or the Presidency for the actual salary.

[MS256]

Good point.  Let's face it, no one goes into Congress or the Presidency for the actual salary.

I used to always wonder how guys got elected to State Legislatures, made less "salary" than I did, but within a year were building a new mansion on a hill.

Then a friend of mine became a lobbyist and I found out.

[mmoan2]

I used to always wonder how guys got elected to State Legislatures, made less "salary" than I did, but within a year were building a new mansion on a hill.

Then a friend of mine became a lobbyist and I found out.

Care to divulge which state legislator got a kickback from a lobbyist to build a mansion? I'm all ears, but this sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory that makes the American public over-the-top skeptical for no good reason. Here's the real explanation to your enigma: Most state legislators are part-time employees, and they usually already have successful careers going before they run for office. If you are organized, funded, smart, etc. enough to win a major political office, you usually are pretty good at your day job in the first place. Probably a lawyer, business owner, engineer, or something lucrative, and often with a spouse or significant other who has a good salary as well. I'm not naïve enough to deny lobbyist influence gets some people a little wealthier, but let's be realistic. No state legislator is funding their million dollar homes with a salary that an office clerk earns. The vast majority are not getting most of it from kickbacks either. Those guys usually end up in prison.