Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Laz · 08-13-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by collegegirlforyou

Well to play devil's advocate if the belief that every politician is evil and they are nothing more then different shades of moral corruption...Would it be safe to say that a person with such a belief would want the smallest possible government? It would seem that way. Expansive government would certainly allow more tyrants and bureaucrats to put their hands in the cookie jar....Just a thought.

We may not know for sure what Romney will do since what they say and what they do are often not the same. However, we know from experience what Obama has done. Small government is definitely not his belief.

trynagetlaid · 08-13-2012, 12:53 PM

What Bernie said...

zach1978 · 08-13-2012, 01:13 PM

According to the Washington Post, "Ryan’s cuts could mean as many as 30 million Medcaid beneficiaries lose their coverage". Seems like a brilliant way to gain voter support. Ironically, they will of course all be dumbfounded when they lose (again) in November. As people live longer lives thanks to advances in nutrition, medical treatments, and technologies, the Republican solution to the increase in longevity of Americans and the associated cost of medical care is to "deny it". I have an even cheaper solution. How about just collecting a cyanide pill when you turn 67 instead of a 401K and medicare / medicaid benefits that you paid into all those years? I wish politicians had to pass an IQ test in order to be eligible to make decisions on behalf of the country.

Laz · 08-13-2012, 01:25 PM

Bernie is an idiot. Cuts to those programs can be relatively modest now or dramatic in the not to distant future but they will happen. It is simple math you can only borrow if people believe you can pay the money back and you can only tax up to a certain point before you start getting less revenue even after raising the tax rates. Those programs are so underfunded they have to change and they will change. he only question is when and how hard it will be on the people counting on them and expensive in taxes to future generations. The sooner they change the less the pain will be.

If this is a sign of Tea Party support by Romney all I will say is great. Support a group that believes in small government and fiscal responsibility. How can that be a bad thing.

Laz · 08-13-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zach1978

According to the Washington Post, "Ryan’s cuts could mean as many as 30 million Medcaid beneficiaries lose their coverage". Seems like a brilliant way to gain voter support. Ironically, they will of course all be dumbfounded when they lose (again) in November. As people live longer lives thanks to advances in nutrition, medical treatments, and technologies, the Republican solution to the increase in longevity of Americans and the associated cost of medical care is to "deny it". I have an even cheaper solution. How about just collecting a cyanide pill when you turn 67 instead of a 401K and medicare / medicaid benefits that you paid into all those years? I wish politicians had to pass an IQ test in order to be eligible to make decisions on behalf of the country.

I wish voters had to pass a test on basic math, economics and capitalism before they vote. Maybe we would stop electing so many idiots. Actually they are pretty smart they get a job with great benefits and even great income if they lose an election in the future. All they have to do is lie about how much they are going to "help" you. We get screwed.

uparoundnoon · 08-13-2012, 01:46 PM

I'm not moving out of the U.S. just because I recognize that we all fight and debate like crazy to see which one of the party's guys we stick in and then nothing changes. The powers that be are too strong. If you think the president has so much power just look at the fact that 85% of the budget is already spent and the president has a say in maybe 5% of it. How come these politicians can't do a thing about OPEC jacking up prices or Exxon making record profits in the history of the corporate world while gas goes up and up so people can't afford to drive across town. How about United Health Care giving Dr. McGuire a 1 billion dollar bonus when he has to resign in the scandal of him back-dating his stock options? And on and on while the energy lobby and the industry lobby and the banking lobby suffocate Congress so nothing gets done.

I mean I appreciate your enthusiasm for politics but all these presidential campaigns are full of empty promises while the real forces that run this country are the tidal waves of corporate greed. These candidates do very little to change our lives on a daily basis. Their programs don't affect our lives. Not since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare and civil rights act. Since then these candidates come in with their tiny pairs of scissors and say they will snip a little here or add a little there. But tell me where the fundamental changes are? Just because we occasionally invade a third world country some times when we leave some other dictator pops up somewhere and not much changes. Presidential power is almost an oxymoron. O boy they can veto a bill. But what's their real legacy.

Carter looked weak because Americans where held hostage. Reagan looked strong because he ran up a 5 trillion dollar credit card and bult up arms while the Soviet Union imploded on itself. Bushh looked weak because of an economic downturn and he had to break his "read my lips" promise. Clinton looked good because he balanced a budget in economic expansion and good times but then got caught getting his dick sucked. Bush 2 supposedly protected us from terrorism but then the world economy went to Hell. And on and on. What's really changed because of the president?

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 02:01 PM

Bernie Sanders is an independent with a voting record in the senate that leans suspiciously liberal. He voted to extend and increase student loan interest rates. Voted against balance budget amendment. Voted against prohibiting and limiting earmarks so that bills don't have special interest riders. Voted for the increase of payroll tax. So exactly how is he a champion of the middle class?

As far as Ryan's medicare bill it was co authored by a democrat. And if you read such a scary account of the bill in an unbiased source such as the Washington post you might want to actually check out whats all in the proposed budgets he laid forth. You can either wait for medicare to go broke or try to amend the damage. You could take 100% from 1 % and without a cut in government spending you will have enough to cover the interest on our growing debt for about a decade.

I keep hearing about how nasty and evil his budget is, but why was there no budget passed when the democrats had the house, the senate, and the white house. Why did Obama want to keep the bush era tax cuts all the way up until this year? Maybe if people saw a jump in how much was being taken out of their pay checks the chances of a re-election would be slim. After November there is no need to keep the people content. Also keep in mind the tax increases associated with the affordable care act will not go into effect until 2014. Two years after any re-election possibility and two years of problematic taxation to make sure whoever takes over in 2016 looks like the damaged economy is getting tremendously worse under their watch.

A lot of democrats have worked with Ryan and have agreed with his budget but still all we hear from our media is that he is a tea party, war loving, women hating, racist. There has been a lot of polarization in this country over the last three years, but.....i think the facts show that there is some politicians who are unwilling to work with others across the aisle and the main one resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If you wanna say Ryan's budget is bad you should at least check it out, it is an actual pragmatic sensible piece of legislation. But again, you have to check it out for yourself.

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 02:29 PM

What's really changed because of the president?

Now the government can require citizens to purchase a product.

That's one example off the top of my head. The president appoints justices to the supreme court which can change interpretations of the constitution. The president also appoints the head of the DOJ which can set legal precedence and forever change judicial issues. Who would of thought that the states would not be allowed to try to make it to where you need a photo ID to vote. Hell, you need an ID to drink, smoke, drive, see a rated R movie, buy spray paint so on so on, but in this great land the DOJ deems it discriminatory to ask for ID to vote. The president also appoints an entire cabinet which for good or bad can have a hand in shaping domestic and foreign policy....I mean now that i sit down and try to list it, It's exhausting. For some reason you think just because a president doesn't sign the dotted line at the bottom of the page that his presidency isn't completely responsible for whatever said item is. I'm honestly confused in your line of thought. The president has an amazing amount of power, much more then what the founding fathers intended him to have.

The Veto is one of the most important role of the executive branch of government.

Again, It seems like your personal belief is one that says "Hey whatever happens happens..." That's cool if it works for you. It certainly would be more relaxing then wondering exactly how far gone this country is. But it's that attitude that if embraced by everyone would welcome complete and utter tyranny. Some people don't care and that's cool, Some people care and want to know that when they vote that they are casting a vote for a Representative that best represents their values and beliefs. There's no wrong answer to why people do what they do. It's human nature to agree and disagree. I happen to disagree with your "It is what it is" approach to politics.

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 02:36 PM

side bar---

Saying Clinton got in trouble because he got his dick sucked is false he was impeached because he lied under oath, and obstruction of justice and whether or not you agree with it if a man lies under oath then what is his word worth?

I have never heard any member of the media refer to him as the formerly impeached president on the united states. Which was how Andrew Johnson was referred to by his peers at the time.

Guest061918 · 08-13-2012, 02:47 PM

".....i think the facts show that there is some politicians who are unwilling to work with others across the aisle and the main one resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

LMAO... Republicans were the one who choose not to work with Obama when he was elected. Do you think as a whole the Republican party has even tried to cooperate with the Obama administration? Cmon now.

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 03:02 PM

When Obama got elected the republicans did not have the house or the senate majority so i'm not sure what you mean?
But in 2010 the Republicans did take majority of the House of Representatives and even though the Democrats had two years to pass a budget they waited til then so they could blame the lack of budget on ....OK you know the rest.

Working with does not mean you do what only one side wants, that's called just laying down and letting anything go. It's compromise and can you tell me something Obama has compromised on with any Republican because every other sitting president (democrat and republican) has compromised before during their presidency.

Guest061918 · 08-13-2012, 03:08 PM

So you are saying then that the Republicans wanted to work with Obama when he got elected? All I recall is how they time and time and time again did just the opposite. No?

Personally I think they did that just to try and make Obama a one term President. Again, that is my opinion and I will not go further into that. I will agree that Obama has too many socialistic tendencies and that has changed my opinion on him. But the first year he tried to work with the Republicans and well that did not work.

How many Republicans signed off on that Budget Bill anyway that was supposed to be a compromise? Was it 1? Was it really that many?

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by latinalover003

".....i think the facts show that there is some politicians who are unwilling to work with others across the aisle and the main one resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

LMAO... Republicans were the one who choose not to work with Obama when he was elected. Do you think as a whole the Republican party has even tried to cooperate with the Obama administration? Cmon now.

And just checking...don't you think that when the people elected a republican house majority in 2010 it was because they saw the out of control government spending that was happening within the first two years, and probably wanted representatives to go up to Washington to combat excessive government spending? Keep in mind Obama inherited a hole and turned it into a canyon. Nothing has even come close to looking in better shape after his first term....he had a chance now its time to move on out.

collegegirlforyou · 08-13-2012, 03:17 PM

What budget are you referring to?

And again i'm confused what was there for the Republicans to work with him on in the first TWO years???

The democrats had majority in both houses, the president didn't need any republican votes to pass anything....so as far as i know i don't remember any bi partisan pieces of legislation that he proposed?

Guest061918 · 08-13-2012, 03:26 PM

The Republicans gave him no chance. So Obama did not have a canyon of a problem when he took office? That this country was fine with George W? I agree that Obama has made things worse and not disputing that point. Obama had one hell of a mess. But in your Republican right wing philosophy spewing I am assuming you think Bush was one heck of a President. Right?

The Republicans got the majority in 2010 mostly because of "The Tea Party" They were elected because the Tea party was supposed to be a different type of Republican. In turned out that way actually. A more right wing Republican. Yes, they did get elected because of an incredible amount of overspending. Did not most of that occur because of the Stimulus bill? I agree it did not work and because of it the Republican majortity in 2010. I also agree that government has gotten way too big and the Obama admin is responsible solely for this incredible amount of debt. My response to you was based solely on your remarks that Obama does not work with the Republicans. Maybe he is returning the favor. Maybe he believes in "Karma is a big fat biatch!!"

It is obvious we will not agree on this issue. Your opinion is completely different from mine. So lets agree to disagree.

I guess it comes down to your rightest views against my liberal ones.

I do think that whether Obama is bad for this country or not that Romney has no shot in November. Of course most Republicans will think I am talking horshit. We will see.