world

Dark clouds for Democrats as Obama embarks on last push

218 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

218 Comments
Login to comment

Temporary setback.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have been to Woonsocket, RI: There is no "there" there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama did not deliver as he promised - - - the troops are still in Afghanistan; his domestic policies have done very little to assist Joe Average in the USA. NO SURPRISE !

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama's numbers are up.

Has the GOP put up any cocrete policies yet, or are they still content to fill the airwaves with anger and hatespeask like their followers are on message boards?

And has the GOP got a leader yet? Or is the tanned guy it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do the dems have a leader yet? Didn't think so...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

semperfi. "Obama did not deliver as he promised - - - the troops are still in Afghanistan; his domestic policies have done very little to assist Joe Average in the USA. NO SURPRISE !"

Do you really think that all the nation's problems could be solved in less than two years? This Mac Donald's fast food thinking cannot possibly apply to politics.

Do you think a war started ten years ago could end in two? Do you think an economy wrecked by eight years of GOP leadership and two wars would be better over night?

The American people need to learn that real change, beneficial change takes time. Voting in a bunch of noisey right wingers with no clear plan for the future does not help anyone. More likely it will damage the GOP over the long run and delay real change for Americans who badly need it.

Not much to be happy about. And by the way I am not a DEM. I am however an American who is sick of this idiotic political vascilation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 :

Do you really think that all the nation's problems could be solved in less than two years? This Mac Donald's fast food thinking cannot possibly apply to politics.

You are asking the wrong person. IT WAS OBAMA WHO PROMISED THE " McDonalds" solution . . . and the people of USA ( nay, the WORLD) swarmed around him believeing his fantasies !!!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Demoncrats are too busy focusing on irrelevant things like ending “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military instead of illegal immigration and securing the border. They exponentially expand an already unsustainable government budget deficit at a time when most Americans are barley just scraping by. Voters know when they have been bamboozled by BS about hope and change. Obama, after those entire “angry voters clinging to religion and guns who are not thinking clearly” clean house, maybe you can start thinking clearly about what a failure your policies are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And has the GOP got a leader yet? Or is the tanned guy it?"

They will probably roll out someone like Sarah Palin. Afterall they seem more intent upon appealing to the fringe than to the average American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama = puppet

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Democrats relied on more than the president’s time to boost their chances in the final days of the campaign. There was the matter of federal funds, too, in the form of hundreds of millions in grants announced during the day to provide high speed rail service in California, between Chicago and Iowa, and elsewhere

This is a classic example of wasting federal funds. California's high speed rail system should be paid by Californians. Between a city (Chicago) and a state (Iowa)....where in Iowa do they need a bullet train? elsewhere?....Right, "give me two one way bullet train tickets to Elsewhere".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"IT WAS OBAMA WHO PROMISED THE " McDonalds" solution."

I don't think so. If you listened to any of his speaches or read any of his articles, the man talked about a long hard road ahead for change. I think most rational people understood that no immediate fix from either party was forthcoming. We knew well then and do still understand that real change takes time, sacrifice and hard work. All things Obama said and has continued to say.

What is out of sync here are the expectations of the people that change can be instantaneous. It isn't. No good change could be.

I am not a DEM, so I can be equally critical of the last two years. But when I look at the longer term picture of the last 15-20 years the patterns are clear, working people are having a harder time and the middle class is in decline.

What I want to see is the American people start to put the priorities of regular working people ahead of the priorities of the rich. We need jobs, we need education, we need stability, we need health care. We don't want wars, we don't want financial gamblers driving the global economy. We don't want lies or empty promises from anyone. We want solutions.

Solutions can and will ONLY come from a cooperative government filled with voices that prioritize the people over party nonsense. And that is what we as voters need to be thinking about.

The T-party is just one more divisive distraction from the real objective of working for what the people really want and need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We knew well then and do still understand that real change takes time, sacrifice and hard work.

Sacrifice? Obama played more golf in 20 months than Bush played through 2 terms.

Hard work? The First Lady has a personal staff larger than any in WH history. These people jet to NY for a night out on the town. They have hosted far more parties at the WH than I can ever recall seeing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They will probably roll out someone like Sarah Palin.

More likely, they will roll out someone like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Someone who will slash spending and close down useless government agencies and use the savings to reduce taxes. The Republicans learned last time that if they put up an ass-clown, like John McCain, they risk getting some communist like Barack Obama. I can't wait to see the blowback that's gonna hit the Democrats next Tuesday.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is a lame duck

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW. Trains are not a waste of funds. Fuel prices are and will continue to prove difficult in the future. Oil reserves are in decline and the culture of driving will be under more and more pressure to change.

Train systems nation wide make sense for the enviroment and for working people. They are a prime example of infrastructure investment that is future thinking and can be used to help generate jobs. Add to this more local focused economies and stops along the way can become new job centers too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It said the same wealthy Texans who attacked his Vietnam War record during the 2004 presidential campaign were now aiming at Reid. “These guys will say anything and spend anything to get what they want,” Kerry wrote.

Kerry. Real class act. Still fuming that his comrades-at-arms were forced to tell the nation and the world that he was not an honest man or a loyal soldier.

Kerry and his wife are close to being billionaires. He is a lawyer. He could have the best legal assistance money could buy, but he never even tried to contest the Swiftboat Group in a court of law because even he knew their case was rock solid.

Another Sore Loserman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama = puppet

Right CactusJack. Of the right-wing. So, why are they complaining?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama plunged

you can say that again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim. Do you ever post anything other than attacks? What exactly do you believe in friend? Let's hear something about these convictions that you propose are so good for Americans. Been waiting a long time for some substance from you on this topic.

manfromamerica. Same to you. When are you going to add something tanglible to the discussion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica. Same to you. When are you going to add something tanglible to the discussion?

Pathetic!!! The guy has ended up giving page upon page of details, and thought-provoking stuff. You, on the other hand, just 2nd grade snide comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama can “take his endorsement and shove it,” declared Democrat Frank Caprio, battling Republican-turned-independent Lincoln Chafee in a gubernatorial race rated tight in the polls.

Wow. Just wow. Contrast that sentiment with how grateful Repub and even Libertarian candidates are for a Palin endorsement. Her book sold more copies last year than both of Obama's unwarranted biographies have sold in total.

Try, just for jokes, to imagine the faux indignation Lefties would come here with had a Repub said, "Obama can “take his endorsement and shove it.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim. More fluff, more hype, more BS. The only thing you have convinced me of in the past five days of discussion, is that some of the T-party followers...

Have no clue what the T-party actually plans to do. Are very good at personal attacks when they have nothing else to say. Are rabid reactionaries against anything they can define as liberal. Are incapable of formulating rational arguments to support their cause.

Now I am hopeful that there are actually fans of the T-part out there who can do the following.

Offer some real explaination for what these people are advocating. Defend these policies and help the rest us of see the merit in them. Do so without lables, name calling or irrational outbursts.

Challenge is here, where is the hero who can step into this role and help us have a meaningful discussion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Caprio called Obama’s rebuff “Washington insider politics at its worst.”

shouldn't be a surprise as obama's entire political history is back-room deals with political cronies. even Obama's senate seat was for sale.

Obama can “take his endorsement and shove it,” declared Democrat Frank Caprio,

LOL!! good for Caprio! now he has a better chance of winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - do you know the Tea Party movement is not a political party?

you still don't realize this??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica, you are wasting time and space on this board. You offer nothing, repeat the same nonsense and are incapable of articulating a single rational point in any political discussion I have seen you participate in.

Shameful behavior!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's hear something about these convictions that you propose are so good for Americans. Been waiting a long time for some substance from you on this topic.

Tkoind2 - like most Lefties you are much more about the group/the State and or whatever crowd/voting bloc your race/religion/sexual orientation identity politics constrain you to.

I believe in the individual. You seem take my interest in the tea party movement as a personal attack on you and your crowd. In their their narcissism the increasingly authoritarian Left simply cannot believe or tolerate dissent or opposition to their policies, in part because for most their politics fulfill a sort of religious function. No one wants to be told, by people they imagine they are helping, that they are wrong or even dangerously wrong.

Hard to explain this but I am closer to Libertarian than Repub, and what I like best about the tea party movement is the ouster of RINOs like Crist and Murkowski. It may sound counterintuitive to people like you and Smithinjapan but as a Libertarian I often think I want the far left pols you like to be the only ones the Dems have representing them once the Repub base get leaner more fiscally conservative small gov Repubs in office (my hope). The contrast is what I want the country to see.

Try a search on what I consider the single best trend in American politics today - disintermediation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - I don't think so. If you listened to any of his speaches or read any of his articles, the man talked about a long hard road ahead for change. I think most rational people understood that no immediate fix from either party was forthcoming. We knew well then and do still understand that real change takes time, sacrifice and hard work. All things Obama said and has continued to say.

Wow, talk about rewriting history. Guess we're supposed to forget 3 years ago, and the time leading up to the election. Even after Americans made the mistake of choosing an incompetent like Obama, he and the Dems kept up their campaigning. It wasn't until relatively recently, that Obama started saying, its a long road to recovery. Just a few months ago Biden was promising a Summer of Recovery... Thats pretty damn recent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 -

the T-party candidates

the Tea Party does not have candidates. they do not "promise" anything, unlike the looong line of broken Obama promises.

At least Sen Reid saved the world from global depression! lol...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2, TimR, manfromamerica, etc. are unable to state specific policies of the outfits they support because the GOP and TP don't have any concrete credible policies. What can the TimR, manfromamerica, etc. do when they have too little credible policy to talk about and too much time and anger on their hands? I mean, who wouldn't feel the rage if the party you support doesn't give you anything to work with except a handful of empty soundbites?? The rage we are seeing from the Right is totally logical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The rage we are seeing from the Right is totally logical.

"We" ? Thank for the chuckle. You have talked yourself - and only yourself - into believing you can participate in the US election and that you will somehow make a diff.

You can't.

You won't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi:

Even Democrats concede Republicans are poised for significant gains in Congress, and GOP officials are particularly optimistic about their chances for taking control of the House.

this says it all. your views are in the minority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim.... where to start. Does the word paranoya mean anything to you?

First of all I have no crowd, no party, no religious/racial or sexual orientation that drives my political views. I was educated as a politial scientist in college, spent years involved in various political issues. And considerable time in big business.

I believe in the individual. But I equally believe in society and the responsibilities individuals have to society and to the world.

I don't see the T-party as an attack. I see it as a pointless diversion from the real work that needs to be done to fix America.

If I am "authoritarian" then I have very little authority in this world. I am not in power, do not benefit from the rule of any party present on the political board and can only speak an opinion and volunteer my time to effect change. Hardly authoritarian. I am more used to be deemed "radical" or "potential threat" by the seat of power. But if it makes you happy to call my position "authoritarian" I will grant you that one favor in hopes of making you happy. ;)

I am also curious why you think I am far left. I think my views are not that far off other working people. People who simply want to work, send their kids to school so they can have a better future, have good health care so I can keep working and take care of my family and be able to feel a little security for the future. Is this really "far left thinking"? Sounds like pretty normal thinking if you ask around you may even find most people around you share the same values.

I am sick of party politics of any flavor. I want to see working people and their needs come first. And if that means pissing off the wealthy or taking back power to achieve that, so be it! But I equally believe that change has to be rational, well thought through and incrimental. Nothing good happens overnight. Change that can last takes time, effort and sacrifice. These are pretty conservative values.

I also believe in freedom. Freedom of speech, of belief, of movement and the right to work hard and do your best for your family. I believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and government. A powerful ruling class is contrary to this and if standing up for the equality of ordinary people makes me "far left" then so be it!

So far, by my definitions above I am a "mainstream moderate conservative far left" political person. Wow. Guess that means I am a Political Pragmatist who believes that ordinary working people come first and solutions come from a variety of political spectrums to make that happen.

Molenir. Nonsense. Show me the quotes where anyone said the problems would be instantly solved or solved in two years. Put up or give up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People were gullible when they voted for Obama. Obama's speeches and promises were just campaign speeches and promises to get votes, nothing more. The way Obama is running the country is all about what he wants and not what the people want. Obama is a community organizer who have divided the country into two, either for Obama or against Obama. Obama is for himself not for the people. Everything he does is done behind closed doors. Obama talks but his actions are the opposite. No wonder people are confused. Who wouldn't be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see it as a pointless diversion from the real work

this is the problem with the liberals as well as entrenched GOPers, including Rove. they feel the people should shut up and accept their glorious wisdom. really, all the people are stuck with is the libs and RINOs glorious corruption and incompetence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Show me the quotes where anyone said the problems would be instantly solved or solved in two years. Put up or give up.

tkoind2 - you never answered: in your opinion how long should we wait, and how bad should it get before people can finally decide to change?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2, TimR, manfromamerica, etc. are unable to state specific policies of the outfits they support because the GOP and TP don't have any concrete credible policies.

For those who keep saying that the GOP isn't being specific, here is one point that they put in their Contract From America if elected:

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.

Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.

Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see it as a pointless diversion from the real work that needs to be done to fix America.

Well said. You can add the word "intentional" to pointless diversion. A corporate dog and pony show to keep the anger directed where it can be controlled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alphaape -

come on... offer specifics!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can add the word "intentional" to pointless diversion. A corporate dog and pony show to keep the anger directed where it can be controlled.

says the spokesman for the Tides Foundation...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To my previous post, none of those items seems to me to be a threat to any type "right wing thuggary" that is only going to help the rich.

I think the first one alone, deciding that a law that is passed is constitutional before it is enacted, thereby cutting out the need for the government to run up huge court costs trying to justify it is a great deal.

No matter if you are a liberal or a conservative, the whole tax system needs to be revised. Sure I don't mind paying taxes, it is a duty, but the system we have is too cumbersome and not fair in anyway. For those who keep saying the GOP is all for big business, why is it that Google can get away paying only a 2.4% tax rate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

none of those items seems to me to be a threat to any type "right wing thuggary" that is only going to help the rich.

ahh, i guess we didn't tell you about - OOPS!! never mind!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally something to talk about. Hats off to you Alphaape for taking up the challenge.

"Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does."

I have read the constitution and there is nothing that says all laws passed by congress must be justified by specific provisions in the constitution. So why must congress do this? And to what end? I believe this is more pipe dreaming over small government and would constitute a waste of money, time and resources badly needed in other areas.

But if you have a good rationale for this, let's talk.

"Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants."

Good idea. Incentives to reduce emissions is a good idea instead of trading. See I told you I was ok to take good ideas onboard.

"Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification."

Unrealistic. The amendment would hamstring government and cripple the US capacity to function. Again this is another small government pipe dream that may have worked in 1815, but is entirely ill founded today.

Such restrictions would prevent the country from improving infrastructure, from conducting the war in Afghanistan, from addressing economic downturns, from providing education.

I also challenge whether or not the people really want this. What the polls show is that people want health care, they want education and they want jobs. All of that in conflict with this idea.

"Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution."

Why the arbitrary 4,543 words? Is there a point to this really? Don't you really just want a tax code that makes sense? One where the poor are given a break, the working class share the burden with the wealthy?

I am all for reworking the tax structure. It should put more burden on the wealthy and close many of the tax escapes that the powerful use not to pay taxes. But this other stuff about the length is nonsense.

"Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities."

Ok. Audit constitutionality? Based upon whose interpretation? Will this be subject to Supreme Court review? Again this is small government nonsense.

I agree with you that we should review programs for wast, ineffectiveness and look for programs that would be better off private or local. But this needs to be done by a broad committe that truly represent the full spectrum of American society. Forget the nonsese about constitutionality as you have no way of determining that in any kind of rational manner.

"Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth."

Again, more small government nonsense that would rob the government of the ability to adapt to its job year to year. The US will have to increase spending to address infrastructure needs. Will need to retool for energy conservation and new energy. Will need to create education and health care that the people want. If you cap spending on some arbitrary plan, you make it impossible for the nation to remain functional and competitive or to adapt to current events.

This is right wing dreaming and has no foundation in reality.

"Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Ok... and replace it with what?

The American people 70+% want health care. You plan to ignore the majority of American people for this? If thi 2010 plan was not the right one, you still need to come up with one that is the right plan. The US is the only major industrialized state without a health care plan. Shameful!

The people want it, and you have to find a way to give it to them. Comprehensive access to health care for all Americans in the only long term answer.

"Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation."

Look, don't you know that nearly every reserve has been found already? Fossil fuel dependency is a long term liability that new reserves will not address. New Energy is the only solution. To adapt, the US must also retool our infrastructure to reduce energy waste, adapt to new energy and to prepare the nation for the inevitable changes that peak oil will bring.

The very existence of our nation depends upon good thinking here. Your ideas here are 20th century. We need 21st Century solutions and not mindless deregulation again.

Your policy won't work. Too little and not enough future planning.

"Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark."

Ok. Let's make funding more transparent.

"Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011."

Tax cuts won't work when the country needs investement in energy, infrastructure, jobs and education. I think if you go to the average American with a real plan for the future and tell them what it will deliver, they will gladly pay for it with taxes.

The problem is there are no good plans on the table. So we need to formulate some. Then we can work hard to make them benefit the people.

Tax cuts won't help solve our problems.

Your turn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not going to change anything. The republicans can't get enough power to reverse Obama's changes and they can't force anything through. Talk about a stalemate. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not going to change anything. The republicans can't get enough power to reverse Obama's changes and they can't force anything through. Talk about a stalemate.

perhaps you're right. and some republicans don't want to change anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The American people 70+% want health care. You plan to ignore the majority of American people for this?

they want health care, but they don't want to pay for yours... or illegal immigrants...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is pretty obvious from reading over the posts that certain posters have zero understanding of the causes of America's economic problems. But maybe I am wrong. Please explain the following.

What is the cause of the US deficit? How does a deficit create an economic recession/depression? How will a balanced budget be a solution to the problem? How does a country with out-of-control government spending manage to have a real unemployment rate of over 20%? How does an anti-government libertarian (so trendy that) deal with one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism, that things which can not be provided by the private sector at a profit will not be provided? Are there maybe things going on that just sail over the head of your average Tea Partier?

And I have no idea what the Tides Foundation is - is that the right-wingers bogeyman of the week? Chasing another frisbee looks like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I have no idea what the Tides Foundation is -

and there you have it. you don't know who creates the agenda you support.

tkoind2 - did you read the healthcare bill? if you read 1 page, that's more han congress and the white house did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"they want health care, but they don't want to pay for yours... or illegal immigrants..."

Show me the numbers. Most Americans believe that the government should be more involved in the provision of health care. I can show you numbers to back this statement. People will pay for a system that makes sense. Period.

You offer nothing as an alternative. And just play upon the fears of people. Not helpful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man... I don't support Obama's health care plan either. It falls well short of what working people and families need. So yes I read it, and yes I rejected it.

But rejecting one health care plan does not mean I reject universal health care all together. I strongly believe that America needs a universal health care program that assures at least base coverage for every citizen or legal resident.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

take a look at Alphaape's post on the other thread. He very courageusly posted his ideas for change. And is debating them in a constructive manner. We agree on some points, disagree on others. But in the end he has shown great consideration to the topic by actually posting ideas.

Where are your positions on the issues?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people want it, and you have to find a way to give it to them. Comprehensive access to health care for all Americans in the only long term answer.

What people. Obama and the Democrats pass the health care behind closed doors. Without Fox News nobody would know about it. Obama and the Democrats did not ask the people of the USA if they wanted a universal health care. Why didn't they? They knew people were not going to allow it in the first place. The health care from hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceuticals needed to be regulated like the financial institutions and Wall Street. The universal health care is going to drive up the cost for everyone. People will be paying double for their universal health care through taxes and having a health insurance plan. The data bases that will hold everyone information is going to keep track of everyone.

How is this going to work when people will not be making the money they did about 3 years ago, and when people don't have jobs? The living of standards is only going to go down for the majority of the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's pretty amazing to see so much faux anger from the Right. Where were the voices of TimR, manfromamerica, RR2, etc. when bush and the GOP was ratcheting up the federal debt by $6 trillion? Silent. Nothing. Not a squeak. Now, when the other team is in charge, they all go nuts. Conservatives' thought masters in the Right wing media may well turn out to be king makers this cycle. However, I think America will only start seeing things improve when conservatives start thinking for themselves and begin to realize that the baseless sound bites they are slurping up aren't enough to run a country on. Conservatives - poor them - are being taken for an epic ride to oblivion thanks to their own collective failure to see that the 'policies' they are being sold by their thought masters are nothing more than empty words.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"America needs a universal health care program that assures at least base coverage for every citizen"

Where does it say in the Constitution that the U.S. government must provide health care for all citizens? Heck, why stop with health care, how about having the government provide everyone with 2 chickens in every pot and a car in every garage, LOL.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthebeat. "The universal health care is going to drive up the cost for everyone. People will be paying double for their universal health care through taxes and having a health insurance plan."

Nonsense. What do you base this assertion on?

"The data bases that will hold everyone information is going to keep track of everyone."

For what reason? You do know that your current records are equally trackable right?

Look, most of Europe, Canada, the UK and Japan all have socialized health care that works. People get the care they need without catastrophic loss of family wealth. It works, it protects families and it maintains the health of society.

There are so many examples that we can certainly create a program that works for Americans. It is big health care industry that is afraid of this happening and they are the ones putting out these false messages of fear that you are talking about.

A rational review of the facts shows that it will cost money but be affordable, it will protect families both in health maintenance and against catastrophic loss due to illness. It will benefit all strata. And it is unlikely to diminish either quality or selection.

Change in this area is inevitable. Better to have health care than not and the American people know this. It is the fringe right that is out of touch on this issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Where does it say in the Constitution that the U.S. government must provide health care for all citizens?"

It doesn't have to say so in the Constitution. The forefathers had the good sense to make our system of government flexible enough to adapt to change and face the challenges that the future presents. To nail it down to only those things listed in the constitution is an absurd expectation without any practical merit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So why must congress do this? And to what end? I believe this is more pipe dreaming over small government and would constitute a waste of money, time and resources badly needed in other areas.

@tknoid2, the reason why you want to make sure a bill is in accordance with our constitution is so that it will not be challenged in the courts by those who may not like it. If Congress passes a law that is an infringement on state's rights (and that is not a bad term) or individual freedoms (like demanding that each person has to purchase health insurance) then those types of laws would be unconstitutional if found so by the courts. Why do we need laws passed that would not meet the judical requirements.

Ok... and replace it with what?

Well, that is what we pay the Congress for, to come up with a solution that is a best fit for the people. It could be a combination of tort reforms (to keep malpractice suits down), and provisions for persons to have health savings. But the current bill is not going to work. The main points that were being said was that if you have health insurance, your premiums would not go up. Well, guess what, they have.

Will a balanced budget solve all of our problems, maybe not. But it does make Congress curb their spending, by letting them know we are no longer just going to sit and watch them spend blindly.

The very existence of our nation depends upon good thinking here. Your ideas here are 20th century. We need 21st Century solutions and not mindless deregulation again.

Your policy won't work. Too little and not enough future planning.

Then why are they cutting funding to NASA? It seems that private industry can best solve our problems in science, but not good enough to solve the health care issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I see is the Leftists here parading their ignorance of or contempt for free markets and how they work. Mankind has never devised a better, more effective, more just system. Perfect? No, but still far far better than central planning and a mercantilist Party A/Party B welfare/warfare state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not amazing at all to see SushiSake3 continuing to blame George W. Bush and the GOP for the current financial fiasco, and refusing to admit that the Democrats are in trouble because of their policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimR's probably the only conservative/Libertarian on this board with the ability to see that the policies being proposed by the GOP/TP will do little if anything to fix the economy, but even s/he appears no where close to seeing it. The Right's 'cut taxes!' mantra is dandy until you realize someone's got to foot your Social Security. That's just 1 example of where the Right's agenda hits the wall. There's a whole lot more, baseless soundbites all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't have to say so in the Constitution. The forefathers had the good sense to make our system of government flexible enough to adapt to change and face the challenges that the future presents.

You punted again. Where do you find this supposed flexibility in our Constitution?

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@tkoind2, if our forefathers could see what's happening with the U.S. government taking over the health care system ( which, make no mistake, is Obama's goal ), they would be rolling in their graves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Alphaape

"the reason why you want to make sure a bill is in accordance with our constitution is so that it will not be challenged in the courts by those who may not like it."

But there is merit to these challenges. The court process has helped us review laws and even amend the constitution to make it a better document for the governance of our country. I think the capacit to challenge decisions is a good one that we should not undercut.

Though I will grant that there should be review that anticipates and hopefully seeks to address potential conflicts up front. I think we have a compromise opportunity here.

"But the current bill is not going to work. The main points that were being said was that if you have health insurance, your premiums would not go up. Well, guess what, they have."

Agreed. It won't work. The problem is that an entirely new approach is required. One that will enable us to achieve the kind of universal affordable health care that Canada, the UK and much of Europe enjoy. This is hard for Americans to digest at first, but long term it has the greatest degree of protection for individuals and families in terms of care, finanical protections and certainty when illness arises.

If anything health care should become a civil right.

"Will a balanced budget solve all of our problems, maybe not. But it does make Congress curb their spending, by letting them know we are no longer just going to sit and watch them spend blindly."

My Mom would have said this is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." I agree spending needs to be managed and cut where it does not benefit the people. But forcing a balanced budget takes it too far and will do more harm.

We can compromise here too. Pass transparency laws that force funding to be more transparent. Audit programs to make sure they are efficiently run and not redundant. Cut non-productive programs. And place a greater oversight on spending to assure public input.

"Then why are they cutting funding to NASA? It seems that private industry can best solve our problems in science, but not good enough to solve the health care issue."

The sad reality is that private industry is not out to solve problems. They are out to make money. The Oil industry has known about peak oil for decades, yet they actively tried to kill legislation that would have forced cars to be more fuel efficient. And I can go on all day with examples where profits got in the way of common sense and patriotic thinking.

We simply cannot entrust our energy future solely to business. We need a comprehensive government policy that does several things with strong intent and speed.

Reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Programs for alternative energy development, incentives to reduce consumption, changes in infrastructure to reduce consumption, implemenatation of more public transport and incentives for families to have home based energy generation.

Retool our country to use less fuel and to use alternative and green solutions.

Fund programs that can deliver energy saving products by offering incentives for companies to make longer lasting, energy friendly products.

And by doing so reduce our overall risk exposure to peak oil and to foreign oil.

If Congress passes a law that is an infringement on state's rights (and that is not a bad term) or individual freedoms (like demanding that each person has to purchase health insurance) then those types of laws would be unconstitutional if found so by the courts. Why do we need laws passed that would not meet the judical requirements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unrealistic. The amendment would hamstring government and cripple the US capacity to function. Again this is another small government pipe dream that may have worked in 1815, but is entirely ill founded today.

Since the economy is off the gold standard, consumer confidence is what keeps it going. If the government can tax me for Social Security, and then when I am eligible to receive it, can set restrictions on me as to how I can use it (even though I paid into the system), well then they should be held to the same standard as being told what to do with the money I am sending them. By attempting to enact a balanced budget.

If business sees that America is reaching towards sound phiscal policy, then they will have more confidence to invest and spend in America, and not have to worry that in the future, in order to pay off our debt tax rates must rise. Think I am off on the consumer confidence, look at it this way; there was plenty of consumer confidence in the free wheeling days when people were making money off the housing bubble and people were willing to overestend themselves becuase they had confidence in the markets. I am not saying we go back to that, but at least we can start back getting on track by trying to enact sound financial policy.

Let me ask, would you keep lending money to someone who overextends themself every month?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't post the URL but I can tell you to do a search for "obamacare unconstitutional" and click on the CATO Institute site article by Gene Healy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Alphaape.

Your sentiment is absolutely in the right place. And I agree with the principle that government needs to be accountable for the money we give them.

But a balanced budget amendment still goes too far. You don't want to prevent government from doing what is right for the times or for the people. But you do want to implement some greater accountability. Which is good. The question is how to do so in a way that still enables the flexibility a government needs to be effective.

The process to get on track must be comprehensive. Tax reforms, spending oversight, transparancy, audits of programs and great accountability must be a part of a plan if it is to deliver any real results.

We are essentially investors as well as citizens in our government and need to have a greater say in how things are run. We don't disagree on this point at all I think.

But it is very clear that a forced balanced budget is not viable for many reasons to deliver what I think we both most want. And that is a government and a nation that benefits the working people and families of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If Congress passes a law that is an infringement on state's rights (and that is not a bad term) or individual freedoms (like demanding that each person has to purchase health insurance) then those types of laws would be unconstitutional if found so by the courts. Why do we need laws passed that would not meet the judical requirements."

Missed this part.

States rights are important. Agreed not a bad term.

On forcing health care. Ok. Universal health care benefits the majority of people. Why? Because it will provide affordable access to care for everyone.

Why force. I think we don't have to force it. If you want to opt out, ok. But you must have an alternative health care plan. Because if you don't and you get sick, then you burden the system that everyone else is supporting and that isn't fair.

There will always be elective medicine as we see in other nations with national health care. There will be add on programs that companies can gain profits from. And there will still be R&D and high end special services that people can access if they want.

But the mainstream system must assure that every citizen and legal resident has good care.

As for court rulings. I don't think you can assume the outcome. It is better to let these cases gain public input and go before the courts. That is how our nation improves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Nonsense. What do you base this assertion on? For what reason? You do know that your current records are equally trackable right?

First off. Since the health care reform is secretive because no one really knows what it actually is about. Assertion base on where will the government get money to fund the universal health care reform. Taxes and health care premium and higher deductible. How else will the health care reform be funded.

Taxes. Higher premium. Taxes. Higher premium. Taxes. Higher Premium.

People are already saying they are paying a higher premium and deductible for heath insurance as we speak. Do you seriously think universal health care is going to be cheaper because it is for the masses? The doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals want their cut. People will go into the field because of money.

If a person can't pay for the universal health care it will be taken out of their income taxes when filed. It wouldn't be a shock if it comes out of their paychecks backpay to the government.

The health care reform is going to penalized businesses if they don't offer health coverage. The incentives is to offer health insurance so not to be penalized.

Big hospitals are built each year, and the hospitals lay people off to cut down on expenses.

A universal health care will bring a universal data base to track people. The chip is coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Right's 'cut taxes!' mantra is dandy until you realize someone's got to foot your Social Security.

Sushisake3 is perfect example of what I spoke of. S/he is all too eager to show us s/he does not quite grasp that though tax cuts mean less is taken from you in taxes the money private citizens therefore save and invest means the government, if doing its job and creating a pro-free market environment, can recoup "lost" money from the increased receipt of taxes upon things like capital gains. Reducing tax rates also reduces tax avoidance and other counterproductive measures the "rich" engage in as a reaction to punitive taxation and wealth redistribution. Tax cuts create incentive (something the Left never understands...) to create, to generate more income, which in turn raises revenues. Who knows domestic and foreign markets better - - millions of private businesses and their employees, or small govt committees of mandarins?

The Democrat John F Kennedy understood those things. But sadly for America the socialist new left have highjacked his party.

Next week we take long overdue action to remedy this, though one election does not mean the so-called tea parties will end.

Can't help but notice that Susisake3's "argument" is little more than a threat: pay more and more taxes or you lose your Social Security. But Americans are already aware that the cause is lost - if you are in your 70s today you will get pretty much full "reimbursement" from the govt. But for those of us in our 50s 40s 30s and 20s the return when we get to 70 will be much, much smaller.People are saying it is high time to call it what it is - a Ponzi scheme.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The health care reform can be pinned on Obama and the Democrats. People did not get a voice in it. That should be a wake up called for everyone. Your voice does not count because Obama and the Democrats knows what is best for you. As I was told, Obama knows what's best for the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Taxes. Higher premium. Taxes. Higher premium. Taxes. Higher Premium."

You are still talking about the existing system. I am advocating a completely new approach. Something much more akin to Canada the UK or even Japan. Nothing short of this solves the problem. Health care in America needs to be rewritten. Period.

You need to start thinking about how other nations have made this work. Insurance as you know it today will go away to be replaced by plans far more akin to countries with fully socialized health care.

"A universal health care will bring a universal data base to track people. The chip is coming."

Nonsense again. This is coming anyway. Health care will have little to do with this either way. And if you don't like the chip, then become active to assure it does not happen. Don't throw out health care over one paranoid point.

Tim there was no threat it Sushisake3's post. Come on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Right's 'cut taxes!' mantra is dandy until you realize someone's got to foot your Social Security.

Sushisake3, you miss the point on Social Security. Each person pays into their social security. We get statements on how much we put in, and what we are supposed to get back. It was the Governments job to safeguard that money, placing it in bonds and other avenues to have what we put in to grow, therefore, the money they would be paying a person is a reflection of what they put in.

But along the way, with that much money, many elected officals got greedy and spent what they shouldn't have. Basically, they used it as a ponzi scheme.

Welfare and those other social services come from generated federal taxes, not what people put into social secuirty.

That is what the left keeps putting out there, and that is not the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 -

I don't support Obama's health care plan either. It falls well short of what working people and families need. So yes I read it, and yes I rejected it.

You read 20,000 pages? wow. The Congress and the white house didn't read any before they passed it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where were the voices of TimR, manfromamerica, RR2, etc. when bush and the GOP was ratcheting up the federal debt by $6 trillion? Silent. Nothing. Not a squeak.

??? obviously you didn't read our posts when the Dems and GOP ratcheted up spending and ran Fannie and Freddie into bankruptcy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I agree with the principle that government needs to be accountable for the money we give them... States rights are important. Agreed not a bad term.

see? you agree with the Tea Party movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read enough of the plan to make an eduated decision. Don't be absurd. It does not help the discussion.

Alphaape. You have a valid argument on Social Security and spending. It was a covenant that people really expected to be there for them.

But this is symptomatic of the real problems. We throw money at short term solutions and run away from the hard decisions. Is it any wonder we are deeply in debt and no farther ahead?

We have to have a generation that has the courage to step and solve these problems. Health Care is one. Social Security and retirement another. Employment and labor standards. Education. Infrastructure.

My parent's generation went off to fight WWII. Many didn't come back. All of them had to sacrifice a great deal to win that war. But the courage and strength of our people at that time did what was required and got on with the work and selfsacrifice that was required. And saw it as their responsibility.

We need that kind of backbone today. A generation that can say look, it ends here. We buckle up, make the changes, make the sacrifices and sort this mess out. Because if we don't we continue to decline and we lose all that we stand for along with our place on the world stage.

It costs money to solve these problems. It required cooperative governance to achieve these goals. And it means that every one of us has to make sacrifices. But the long term picture is better for the future of our country if we do the right thing now.

We cannot afford to continue ignoring problems in favor of partisan nonsense. It is time to stop slogans and start looking at the work ahead with committment and a strong dose of reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"see? you agree with the Tea Party movement."

No, I agree that government should be accountable. The world is not black and white friend. The world, reality, is a full spectrum of color. Only one of which is your T-party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All the garbage. That is why I voted for Nader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read enough of the plan to make an eduated decision. Don't be absurd. It does not help the discussion.

my point is totally correct. the way congress and BO passed the healthcare scam is one reason there are "dark cloud for Democrats"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We buckle up, make the changes, make the sacrifices and sort this mess out. Because if we don't we continue to decline and we lose all that we stand for along with our place on the world stage.

what changes? you only talk in generalities. "be responsible", "make a change", "help people", "new energy"...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And it means that every one of us has to make sacrifices.

what sacrifices will the unions make? or people living on the welfare state? or businesses who contribute to Obama? ahh, it's only the rich who have to sacrifice, but all of us will have to suffer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: You need to start thinking about how other nations have made this work. Insurance as you know it today will go away to be replaced by plans far more akin to countries with fully socialized health care.

The universal health care is causing countries to go broke. Some people in those countries have seen first hand what a universal health care have done to their country. Universal health care is socialism.

How is a universal health care going to be competitive in a capitalism society?

The universal heath care reform is model after the Massachusetts health care reform. Check out Massachusetts.gov site or wiki it.

Mandated Health Insurance law: Key provisions of the law include subsidized health insurance for residents earning less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, and low-cost insurance for all other residents who are not eligible for insurance through their employers.

Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure (HIRD) Information: Massachusetts employers of 11 or more FTE employees must also disseminate and collect an Employee HIRD form from each employee that declines to enroll in employer-sponsored insurance or declines to use the employer's Section 125 Cafeteria Plan to pay for health insurance. The employer must retain the signed Employee HIRD for a period of three years.

November 2 will be the day the people decides if Obama and the Democrats knows what's best for the voters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do I really need to define sacrifice?

You know Orwell was wrong. You don't need commisars or torture chambers to enslave humanity. All you really need is TV, food and something to distract the lazy masses from caring. Afterall it is far easier to care about Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt than it is to care about your unemployed neighbor. Or the family down the street that lost their home after their child had a catastrophic illness.

No we buy into sound bites and empty promises and tune out responsibility.

Sacrifices mean we all pay to make changes happen. We give up a little comfort in favor of benefiting the guy next door and the people of the nation. We volunteer and work hard on to help realize the changes that we need. We personally become active in working for change. Volunteer, campaign, get out and help. That is sacrifice manfromamerica.

I have given very specific answers on new energy if you bothered to read my posts. Same goes for the changes I advocate. Until you offer some alternative I will just refer you back to both threads to read what I stand for and the very tangible solutions I propose.

Where are yours?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - what sacrifices? do you mean the rich need to pay for everyone? if you do, well they don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read my posts man.... It is already on the board.

You don't have a single tangible argument to offer do you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afterall it is far easier to care about Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt than it is to care about your unemployed neighbor. Or the family down the street that lost their home after their child had a catastrophic illness.

where do you live???? people are just losing their homes when their kids get sick??? that is largely a fantasy.

however, there are hundreds of thousands of cases where banks were forced by the government (thanks Cuomo and Dems!) to give mortgages to people who can't pay them and who instead bought houses hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their price range. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthebeat. Not true. These care systems are working very well in many countries.

And why does one social program have to be "socialism." You have a national military is that socialism? You have many services provided by the government, are those all socialism too?

And why are you so afraid of social-democratic solutions to problems. Most of our European allies are social democracies. You are holding on to outdated cold war definitions that no longer apply. Perhaps that era of propaganda was far too effective and we are now seeing irrational backlashes resulting from that.

Universal health care protects families, assures access to care and resolves many of our health care realted issues.

Do you have a viable alternative to offer? One you can defend?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 -

Afterall it is far easier to care about Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt than it is to care about your unemployed neighbor.

it sounds like you have an issue with modern society. but yet you still are a party-line Dem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man I am done wasting time responding to you until you talk about something worthy of comment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These care systems are working very well in many countries.

like when 15,000 people died during the French heat wave while the doctors vacationed for 2 weeks?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape. You have a valid argument on Social Security and spending. It was a covenant that people really expected to be there for them.

But this is symptomatic of the real problems. We throw money at short term solutions and run away from the hard decisions. Is it any wonder we are deeply in debt and no farther ahead?

tkoind2, when a hard suggestion was put forth, privatizing Social Security, all we heard was that the GOP was going to take from the poor, and all of the other talking points. Make SS private, and allowing those who so desire to keep it with the Feds as long as they don't spend it unwisely is a good thing. But the current plan of them taking my money, and then using it to pay someone else, while I am hoping that someother person will pay mine is not right, and a better way can be found.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@tkoind2,

At wiki.com about Mass. health care reform.

Individual taxes: If a resident does not have coverage and does not have a waiver, the Department of Revenue will enforce the insurance requirement by imposing a penalty. In 2007, the penalty was the loss of the personal exemption. Beginning in 2008, the penalty will be up to half the cost of the lowest available yearly premium which will be enforced as an assessed addition to the individual's income tax, up to $912 a year.

Employer taxes: Employers with more than ten employees must provide a "fair and reasonable contribution" to the premium of health insurance for employees.[23] Employers who do not will be assessed an annual fair share contribution that will not exceed $295 per employee per year...

November 2. People choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the current plan of them taking my money, and then using it to pay someone else, while I am hoping that someother person will pay mine is not right, and a better way can be found.

most people have no faith the government can run anything successfully, and don't want them messing with our health.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We won't solve the issue of SS here. I agree with you in principle that it needs to change. I disagree that privatization is a good idea. Too much risk there.

And an elective system is dangerous for people who may later become social burdens.

We need a solution that covers everyone while placing far greater responsiblity on those running the program to assure the program. Perhaps that means treating it like an investment bank run by the government with strong regulation and mandate to make money for the stock holders, aka all of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2-

there are hundreds of thousands of cases where banks were forced by the government (thanks Cuomo and Dems!) to give mortgages to people who can't pay them and who instead bought houses hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their price range.

this is what government control gets you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I disagree that privatization is a good idea. Too much risk there.

what risk? the government is bankrupting it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the start of the recession we have seen 7 million jobs in the private sector lost, but 200 000 created for the federal gov't.

Federal employees now average , with benefits, $123,000/ yr.

Private sector employees w/ benefits average $61, 000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim-

But what about the millions of jobs Obama "saved"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Need to see a link for that Tim. I have a lot of friends in state or national jobs and I make a lot more than they do with my private job. show me some proof for that statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, man. Rasmussen pollsters have this out today:

"The tea party movement may well be the most powerful and potent force in America."

"More than half, or 54 percent, of Americans believe the tea party movement has been a good thing for the U.S. political system, our new survey revealed. Only 22 percent say that it is a bad thing, while 19 percent say it has made no difference."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"More than half, or 54 percent, of Americans believe the tea party movement has been a good thing for the U.S. political system, our new survey revealed."

awesome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rasumussen polls:

"TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[17] The Center For Public Integrity has pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign."

"The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls."

"According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com, “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”"

So of course his results favor your side Tim. Nice try though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Federal employees now average , with benefits, $123,000/ yr... Private sector employees w/ benefits average $61, 000.

tkoind2 -

check cbsnews, date 8/10/2010. it's easy to find.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Universal health care protects families, assures access to care and resolves many of our health care realted issues.

There are some people who would disagree.

The universal health care reform will eventually turned out to be like SS and Medicare. Where is the government going to get the funding. Are you willing to give up 25% of your paycheck each time to fund your universal health care and everyone else?

The reality for universal health care is only going to get more expensive in the future not cheaper.

November 2 will decide if people want change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - show some data proving Rasmussen is right leaning. fact is Rasmussen makes money by being accurate, it's not a GOP charity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Midterm Elections will be the beginning of the end for President Obama. He will not get a second term in the White House. Hallelujah!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"tkoind2 - show some data proving Rasmussen is right leaning."

Wow... a guy who can't even post an opinion/argument on this site demanding proof. I think tkoind2 spelled it out pretty well in his quotations, no? tkoind asked, "What are your positions on the issues?" and you have yet to come up with an answer.

realist: "The Midterm Elections will be the beginning of the end for President Obama. He will not get a second term in the White House."

Not necessarily, my friend. Once the Republicans gain ground in the Senate the public MIGHT come to their senses again and realize the fools in the GOP have nothing to offer but 'we are not them'. I still haven't seen one thing they've offered, and it's much like a lot of GOP supporters on this site -- no argument, no opinion, just attack other posters.

Colin Powell said it best: a Republican win this time might actually help the Obama government -- the former will stop crying to mama about everything and filibustering something simply because it came from a Democrat. They'll start working towards getting things done so they can retain their position, but best of all it will still be under a Democratic president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith -

All polls point to major GOP victories. there is nothing to dispute. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Colin Powell said it best: a Republican win this time might actually help the Obama government -- the former will stop crying to mama about everything and filibustering something simply because it came from a Democrat. They'll start working towards getting things done so they can retain their position, but best of all it will still be under a Democratic president.

The reason why a GOP win will benefit America, is the fact that the media is left leaning, and you can bet that every misstep made by the GOP will be widely broadcast. No stone will be left unturned by the media for a GOP error, but with the Dems in, you can see how they do provide more cover for their mistakes.

For those who want proof, just go back to your own posts here that many of you say about Fox (or as some have posted Faux) News, and how they are they only are towing the GOP line. Well, if the GOP wins, according to some logic, only one station will be flying their banner, and the rest of the media (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc) will definately be out there doing more "hatchett jobs" on whatever happens.

So, it may be a good thing. Fear of media scrutiny will at least try to keep them honest this time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still haven't seen one thing they've offered, and it's much like a lot of GOP supporters on this site -- no argument, no opinion, just attack other posters.

Why is it the Left demands specifics from a spontaneously organizing populous movement that has independent (and even Dem) support; but the same people deflect or ridicule every request that Obama honor his campaign promises about transparency? Why do we get called 'racist' for asking the DNC or Obama's American supporters to provide the voting public with the chance to view Obama's university transcripts, his thesis , the client list from his lawyer days and documentation of the extent of his involvement in ACORN?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is it the Left demands specifics from a spontaneously organizing populous movement that has independent (and even Dem) support; but the same people deflect or ridicule every request that Obama honor his campaign promises about transparency?

if the Tea Party were Republican, they could just write it off as political. however the Tea Party are your average americans, and that scares the heck out of Dems because Dems don't understand common people, they only understand political opponents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you willing to give up 25% of your paycheck each time to fund your universal health care."

Where did you get this number? In Japan, a system that could be improved upon, I pay around 6% and have comprehensive dental and health care with a modest copay. Why would the US system be worst? What are you basing this on?

Alphaape. A reasonable opinion. thanks. True there is a silver lining here. A GOP victory will benefit the US in the sense that it will unmask the T-party for what they really are, sensationalists with nothing to offer the people. And it will cement the fact that the GOP do not care about working people by proving this to be another stunt and not tangible change.

But it comes at a great cost. More deadlock in government and more delays in getting on with the real work that people need to have done. And that is why I am so against them.

Tim "Why is it the Left demands specifics from a spontaneously organizing populous movement that has independent (and even Dem) support;"

Why? Because it is the rational thing to do. If people are proposing to help lead our country, shouldn't we ask them what they intend to do and how? It is primary basic thinking to want to know. The fact that you don't want to know is scary!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(CNSNews.com) - "When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department."

They just lie, and lie, and lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If people are proposing to help lead our country, shouldn't we ask them what they intend to do and how?

Funny. I don't recall the brave, vigilant gatekeepers of the mainstream Legacy Media asking any of the zombies of election 08 in their "Change" t-shirts what that very vague and insidious nominalization actually meant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "All polls point to major GOP victories. there is nothing to dispute. :-)"

Deflection. You still fail to answer a single question posed to you on this thread. No surprise you're a Republican.

TimRussert: "Funny. I don't recall the brave, vigilant gatekeepers of the mainstream Legacy Media asking any of the zombies of election 08 in their "Change" t-shirts what that very vague and insidious nominalization actually meant."

And what were McCain/palin's strategies? "We are not Obama". Sadly, that kind of 'planning' still works on a lot of you. Zero plans put forth, and zero arguments -- you just want a 'change' from the Democrats, bottom line.

"in the US with most healthcare plans, you have around a $10 copay."

And with universal healthcare it's free... thank you for the support.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And with universal healthcare it's free... thank you for the support.

no it's not. aside from taxes, tkoind2 posted some phony info about Japan's mandatory government healthcare system.

need fillings at the dentist? only metal are covered. otherwise pay $250 min per tooth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what were McCain/palin's strategies?

McCain shouldn't even have been running, and he should be out of office. but that doesn't make BO's failure any less of a failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But this system is far more than what most Americans have to day. And far more affordable.

A friend from the UK spent 30 days in hospital here with a serious illness. He had great treatment and ended up paying something like USD3,500 for everything. A friend in the US who was laid off last year had an accident and spent three days in hospital and paid nearly as much. Money he could ill afford to spend. And that was with some insurance.

So from this point of view, most Americans would be better off even with the imperfect Japanese system. But it is clear that we could do better if we learn from the serveral other good examples out there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "no it's not. aside from taxes, tkoind2 posted some phony info about Japan's mandatory government healthcare system. need fillings at the dentist? only metal are covered. otherwise pay $250 min per tooth."

So in other words you are in favour of universal health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"tkoind2 posted some phony info about Japan's mandatory government healthcare system."

Better be ready to back that up Smith. Sure there are limitations to what you can have done included in the fee. But I had a root canal and cap done and it was all less than 12,000 total. Try that in the US.

Most common treatments are available. Surgery is affordable. Emergent care affordable.

Anyway, I think I made myself very clear Smith that the existing Japanese system is not perfect. I am not saying copy it exactly. But I am saying it is a model to improve upon. Why is that so hard for you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: It's funny to watch you argue that US health care is cheaper than in Japan, knowing full well that with universal health care it would be cheaper still. So you are for Obama on that. Good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry Smith. I mistyped. I meant Man. in the quote above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A friend from the UK spent 30 days in hospital here with a serious illness. He had great treatment and ended up paying something like USD3,500 for everything.

tkoind2: it is mandatory now for people living on any of the bases in Japan that have visitors come and stay with them, that they have to show proof of insurance. There have been cases where people got sick, went to the hospital, and got hit wih huge bills. It is even so bad that one of the local hospitals in Atsugi will not take US patients now, becuase they don't like the system we have (where you get the bill and send it to the insurance company, vice having to pay up front with the Japanese way).

Why do I bring this up because in the US, if you are not a US citizen and need medical treatment, contrary to popular belief you get it, at the taxpayer cost.

A GOP victory will benefit the US in the sense that it will unmask the T-party for what they really are, sensationalists with nothing to offer the people. And it will cement the fact that the GOP do not care about working people by proving this to be another stunt and not tangible change.

Actually, that's what we got in 08. A bunch of slogans and no real benefits. It's the Dems who don't care about the working people. Based on their policies of "spreading the wealth around" who are they spreading it from? Looking at coporate pay, those companies that got bailed out their executives still got rich. It's the middle class, who has to "share their wealth" and I am not for that. I believe in helping those who are in need, but I don't feel my income should be reduced (via taxes and other fees that are to be asked) so that government entitlement programs and wasteful spending can continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Why do I bring this up because in the US, if you are not a US citizen and need medical treatment, contrary to popular belief you get it, at the taxpayer cost."

But if you are an American who has no insurance and develop a serious illness, they won't let you die in the waiting room, but you wil be in debt for the rest of your life if you don't have coverage. How is that good?

In the end, families can lose everything over an accident or illness. How is that beneficial for America as a society? We must address this problem with comprehensive universal care.

"Actually, that's what we got in 08. A bunch of slogans and no real benefits."

I don't think that is a fair assessment. What did you expect to change in just two years? Nothing meaningful changes that time. This goes back to this fast food attitude about politics. It just isn't realistic.

""spreading the wealth around" who are they spreading it from? Looking at coporate pay, those companies that got bailed out their executives still got rich. It's the middle class, who has to "share their wealth" and I am not for that."

Again not true. I don't think anyone is talking about making the middle class share wealth. Obama, in his defence talked about helping the middle class not taking away their wealth. Afterall it is the middle class that they most hope to help.

You are right we need to sort spending and curtail useless programs. But we cannot forget the needs of the entirety of American working people. So we need programs for health care, for infrastructure, job creation and the urgent need to shift energy policy. Middle classes with share the load but not bear it alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But if you are an American who has no insurance and develop a serious illness, they won't let you die in the waiting room, but you wil be in debt for the rest of your life if you don't have coverage.

no you won't. the hospital eventually writes off those debts. you will never be forced to pay. millions in america don't.

Moderator: Readers, no more sniping at each other please. Focus your comments on the topic, not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

costs don't just go away. There are costs associated with the management of those costs. And there is impact to credit ratings and other consequences. It is inane to think that it just evaporates. It doesn't for the hospital or the patient.

Moderator: No further references to health care please. It is not relevant to the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain shouldn't even have been running, and he should be out of office. but that doesn't make BO's failure any less of a failure.

Agreed. If only the whole tea party thing had started in 07...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Where were the voices of TimR, manfromamerica, RR2, etc. when bush and the GOP was ratcheting up the federal debt by $6 trillion? Silent. Nothing. Not a squeak. Now, when the other team is in charge, they all go nuts. Conservatives' thought masters in the Right wing media may well turn out to be king makers this cycle."

SushiSake is RIGHT on the MONEY. WHERE oh where were the Republican fanboys when Bush1-2/Reagan ran up the federal deficit and with massive military spending?? All that money that went to the military could've been used to pay off debts and fund programs for the WORKING CLASS. Can a right wing fanboy please explain this long slumber and a sudden AWAKENING once Obama came to power???

Mind u, I'm not too thrilled with Obama -- I'm not even American. He should NOT have bailed out the banks or even GM. Republican fanboys claim they don't want the government interfering with the economy?? Right?? Well, the Feds should've cut the life-line to the banks, GM and other UNPRODUCTIVE entities. Also, Obama should've ended the War on Drugs and save his countrymen BILLION$. And the US needs to cut Defence (er Offence) spending to about $380 BILLION. Bush was very soft of illegal immigrants because most businesses LOVE the CHEAP labour costs that Americans won't accept. Utter hypocrisy here.

Finally, it was big business (what Republicans like) that sent all of those jobs to China. And they ain't ever coming back. So HOW will these jobs materialize in the future??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moderator. If you read the thread you will see that health care is a critical point of contention between the GOP T-party movement and the current US president. Therefore separating the topics does not hold to reason.

Any issue that is under contention in the election should be relevant to the discussion of the outcome of that election. As a US citizen I can tell you with absolute certainty that my voting habits are driven not by surface party names, but by the issues at hand. Key among which are the considerations of nationalized health care.

Further, when evaluating the viability of a US health care program as advocated by the DEM party and as resisted by the T-Party GOP movement, it is very topical to discuss the implications of socialized health care and models in other countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dark clouds here as well, of the sort that will rain long and hard on the fools' parade led by Obama, Reid and the despicable Nancy Pelosi.

Dem supporters, American and other, are consumed with frustration:

" Tell us what every single tea party activist across the country is thinking! I can't understand those signs they carry! What are there real policies ? Who are they ? ! Must be a conspiracy in there somewhere ! Who is their leader ? ! "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man, but you miss the key point. 70+% of Americans want the government to sort out health care. Yet the T-party are not listening to this point. Instead they are just eager to do away with Obama's plan without offering an alternative.

The American people want health care. Sooner or later it will have to be addressed. It cannot be swept aside as the T-party is trying to do.

But in the end, I agree with the posts here that the T-party are likely to fail in their promises to deliver anything to the American people and may sound the death tone for the GOP and right in America for a while to come.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

back to topic: GOP will gain big this year. Hopefully they'll do what the people are electing them to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama can “take his endorsement and shove it,” declared Democrat Frank Caprio

I love this quote :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Hopefully they'll do what the people are electing them to do."

Still waiting for you to tell us exactly what you expect them to do. I think you have no plans and once these people are in office it will become painfully clear that they have nothing to offer.

My bet is, a few months into office and they will be indistinguishable from ordinary GOP. And just and inept at helping working people in America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..."Mind u, I'm not too thrilled with Obama -- I'm not even American."

..."Finally, it was big business (what Republicans like) that sent all of those jobs to China. "

The first quote there explains the fallacy in the second one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think that is a fair assessment. What did you expect to change in just two years? Nothing meaningful changes that time. This goes back to this fast food attitude about politics. It just isn't realistic.

But if you go back and watch all of the campaign materials, that is exactly what he said he would do. He had his agenda set, and was ready to do work, but he failed. Keep in mind I understand that he can't change things in a day, but it all goes back to what I said earlier about building consumer confidence. If investors and business don't ahve confidence in American policy, they will not invest heavily or find other places to do business. And so far with Obama, he has not instilled confidence for business to start back again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The dems will deservedly lose the House and I sincerely 'hope' the Senate 'changes' hands as well. Next, the rinos get weeded out. Thank you Obama for reminding us all of the importance of The Constitution ! A 'historical' presidency indeed....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's fun watching the collective heads of those on the left explode as their heroes, the democrats, head for a political lynching next Tuesday.

The champagne's on ice here at Casa Romeo. Bring on Nov. 2nd.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you Obama for reminding us all of the importance of The Constitution ! A 'historical' presidency indeed

Well put, WT. Best post of the day. And welcome to JT.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man, but you miss the key point. 70+% of Americans want the government to sort out health care. Yet the T-party are not listening to this point. Instead they are just eager to do away with Obama's plan without offering an alternative.

How about the alternative being what we had before? Yeah, costs were going up, though not like they are now, and not everyone had coverage, but we had the best health care in the world, for 90% of Americans. Thats pretty damn good. As to what fixes to apply. Republicans made a lot of suggestions during the debate. Suggestions that were almost entirely ignored. Stuff like being able to purchase health insurance across state lines. Tort reform, in order to stop the frivolous lawsuits and reduce doctors ever increasing malpractice premiums. Republicans wanted to tweak the system, not destroy it the way Obama did.

While November won't allow us to repeal Obamacare, when Republicans take the house, they can defund it entirely. This will have nearly the same effect. We'll have to wait for a competent President to be elected in 2012 to actually repeal Obamacare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's now polling at a 37 percent approval rate among Americans. In that regard he is doing better than Mr. Bush because it took him seven years to get into the 30s.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Hopefully they'll do what the people are electing them to do."

More like

"Cynically they'll do what the people are electing them to do."

"It's fun watching the collective heads of those on the left explode as their heroes, the democrats, head for a political lynching next Tuesday."

This really sums it up for the gop/tp cheerleaders. Nov. 2 is the end. It is what they were praying so hard for. tkoind is exactly right about you all, though, it really will be the end. There is no agenda or plan, just anger. Thermidor. Everything that the tp stands for will disappear by the time of the first press conference after Nov. 2. What is their mandate? In truth, there isn't one. Well, it is whatever the elected candidate says it is, but if it is the least bit out of touch with what angry voters were voting for, then the gop/tp will have lost 2012 by Nov. 15.

And if you look at how the gop/tp campaigns were formed and run, there was no platform or consensus building going on. Things might fall apart for the gop/tp really fast because there is no leader or program. Obama is holding the whole Republican party together. Karl Rove is not eligible to be the House Majority Leader. How long can they stay united when the RINOs are calling the TPers lunatics and noobs?

The Dems will do better than people think they will, and all those voters will vote again. The gop/tp anger bus has brought some tourists to the party, but they are not going to be too energized once the tp people become impotent insiders. I don't see what the gop is so happy about. Just for instance, what is the GOP game plan for 2012? What platform is going to keep moderates, rich people, religious people, and TP people all under one tent? And the closer the gop associates itself with the most populous two of those groups, the more of the center they have to give up.

I see a Dewey Defeats Truman in the making. Or if you go further back....

Franklin Roosevelt's Democrats lost plenty of seats in the House and Senate during the early 30s, but knowing what you know about history, ask yourself two questions: Were the Republicans celebrating then? So why celebrate now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's now polling at a 37 percent approval rate among Americans. In that regard he is doing better than Mr. Bush because it took him seven years to get into the 30s.

Obama (and his teleprompter), supposedly the most literary and brilliant pres we have ever had, is now at over 30 speeches where he thrills a fawning "progressive" crowd with a line about how the car (apparently the economy is 'a car') got stuck in a ditch, and the Dems, uh, they got shirt sleeves rolled up, uh, and they are trying to get it out of the ditch, but the Republicans, well, (here it is - marvel at the sophistication of such a trenchant blow ) they are just sitting by the side of the road, "slipping on their slurpees."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We'll when you elect a President with a resume as thin as a postage stamp for the top job,and a media that do not its job in vetting the guy you get what you get.

The American people are correcting that now with their ballots and not bullets and we will be on the right track soon enough. Americans are a pretty smart and resilient tolerant folk. They will get this President and his arrogant party back under control soon enough and send a real message to him and those like minded followers of his as to who they really work for......The American people who pay his and their salary and right now we want a refund.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm a moderate independant and have voted Republican as often as Democrat. My problem with many of the candidates we are going to see swept to power is that they are from the far right fringe. I don't see anyone with an answer to our economic problems. People have a short memory, they threw the Republicans out for vague notions of "change" and now they're inviting them back just 2 years later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People have a short memory, they threw the Republicans out for vague notions of "change" and now they're inviting them back just 2 years later.

With many, it's much different than a short memory. In the way that all the deluded want to believe things, the story is that the problem was all Bush -- who, for 8 solid years, "strayed" from conservative principles. (Yes, will the full support of his Republican Party.)

These same deluded people want to imagine that an economy on the brink of collapse can be brought back in just 18 months. (Having given the "renegade" conservative George Bush 8 whole years to mess things up.)

They have a lot invested in the current American president's failure -- no matter how many signs exist that the economy is on the mend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfortunately there are a lot of issues where Obama could have made a difference - gitmo, don't ask don't tell, etc. where his supporters see him as not delivering. So a lot of them might stay home. As far as taxes are concerned I don't have much faith in either party. The only "change" is whom gets the money they take from the public; it seems. But as they say, it's not over until the fat lady sings. Now, is the fat lady Hillary or Palin? Time will tell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 keeps identifying me with a tea party supporter. Despite my hesitance to really say that I fully support them in totality – I do support the fundamental meaning behind the formation of the party, and perhaps in exploring this it might bring to light the thinking of those that lean further to the right. Keep in mind these are just my opinions and observations; I make no claim to omniscience or even great intelligence.

If you think about the origins of the Tea Party moniker, then one thinks of the age-old protest of ‘no taxation without representation’. Being forced to pay taxes to an English monarch for products produced through hard labor in the colonies - without any proper voice in the political policies and machinations became intolerable, led to acts of sedition and eventually the formation of a new government, and new nation (recall ‘for the people; by the people’). So our country was formed by a strong and eventually quite violent reaction against unfair and overbearing governmental control, and subsequently the taking (deemed unfair and unwarranted) of excessive taxes by the government (King) for work done by the people. Liberals are fond these days of labeling the members of the current ‘tea party’ as radicals and even anarchists or traitors (I’ve seen it in several postings), but I would conclude by definition that the opposite is true. Since traditionally the left is for larger governmental control, against privatization of industry and services, and ultimately (whether you want to admit it or not) higher taxes through policies, typically the left in the US is against the very reasons this country was founded upon.

So look at today’s administration. Government spending more, taking over industry, taking more from the working man’s pocket (in the guise of giving to the ‘working class’ who have not – which in reality is more the ‘will nots’. Free health care? Mine just went up by $47 a month. Stimulus package jobs? Haven’t seen any around here. And guess what, higher taxes are coming to pay for said free healthcare and stimulus package.

You question ‘where is the GOP or Tea Party solution to the problem?’ It’s a good question, and I’m not sure myself if they have definable and set solutions that could lead us quickly and efficiently out of this mess. But, the converse to that is even though the President might have a plan, it’s not one that very many have faith will work, and it’s not the direction that the majority of the American people want their country heading.

One feature that liberals have failed to ever grasp is that America was founded not only on freedom as a general principle, but on economic freedom. It’s called Capitalism. Liberals interpret freedom as the right for all to have an equal share of the pie. That’s not capitalism and it’s not in the definition of what the Founding Fathers meant. You have the right to earn things through hard work and fair treatment, not the right to be given things simply because you become part of the American experience. Charity and human compassion should be expected of individuals and societies, but it’s not what defines their political/governmental structure, but rather their social and moral responsibilities. They are a separate being – or at least should be. Part of the human experience involves choice and responsibility. We all make them; because some cannot or will not choose properly should not govern our political structure.

So the tea party and the current dissatisfaction with Democrats in power is a natural reaction. If you’re on the left, you see it as utter insanity, because you believe essentially in a different political and social reality than what America really is. That sounds incredibly far-fetched and extreme, but fundamentally is true. People call Obama a Socialist because his ideas fall closer to the thinking of political socialism. Rather than think of it as a ‘dirty’ word think of it as nothing more than a reality based fact. And that isn’t a knock on Socialism. A thinking person will freely admit that there are tenants of Socialism and Communism that are very appealing and could lead to a new world order where we share a common goal and experience. But the problems are numerous and have been illustrated in various failed attempts (although most likely through human greed and abuse of power that fully corrupts the whole idea).

The point to all of these rambling is simply an attempt at explanation. While there might not be a firm and grounded idea (in my view – and obviously this goes for you on the left) put forth by the GOP or TP that is a quick solution to the current situation we find ourselves in, there is are no good ideas being enacted by the present administration to do any better, and in fact many believe the current moves to fix the economy will only make it worse in the long run, and in the process move us away from the fundamentals of what this country was founded upon. Spending isn’t a good answer, making the common man pay for all isn’t a good answer, blaming the wealthy – a state that in a capitalist society is in fact the dream of many – isn’t a good answer. Add to that the fact that this President, despite promising a transparent administration marked by truly bi-partisan overtures had done everything in his power to provide just the opposite, and with a venom and outright nasty contempt for any who don’t follow his will that I find, if not truly frightening than at the very least disgusting. FDR was a raging liberal on many aspects but faced with a similar situation brought the nation together (even before the war began) and started programs that seemed to legitimately be getting people back to work. It can be done – just not by this president. Again, my opinion so take it for what it is (and if you say ‘a load of rubbish’ then okay – that’s why we’re Americans and dissent isn’t anarchy).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you think about the origins of the Tea Party moniker, then one thinks of the age-old protest of ‘no taxation without representation’. Being forced to pay taxes to an English monarch for products produced through hard labor in the colonies - without any proper voice in the political policies and machinations became intolerable, led to acts of sedition and eventually the formation of a new government...

This is certainly the popular mythology.

The formation of the USA can best be understood by using the Mafia as a model: The head godfather (King of England) sends out some of the boys to develop a new territory. As they gain more power and wealth, they want it all for themselves and try to cut the godfather out. The founders didn't want equal liberty for all people -- far from it! -- otherwise they would have endorsed forming a direct democracy with everyone getting a vote, over a republic where voting was granted mainly to landowners, and senators were chosen by the elite.

This is why Republicans wax so fondly over those "good old days," as far from reality as they relate them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - the Republican Party 's first ever candidate was who ?

Abraham Lincoln.

You look like a fool trying to go with yet another variation on the 'they are all racists' schtick.

And this

The formation of the USA can best be understood by using the Mafia as a model

is why ordinary Americans want the New left howie Zinn Ward Churchill Kool aid swillers out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Republican Party 's first ever candidate was who ?

LOL!! Was a person who didn't appear during the founding of the country.

is why ordinary Americans...

I have more faith in the ordinary American who can't be satisfied for long with fairy tales.

yet another variation on the 'they are all racists' schtick

yet another example of a serious reading comprehension problem

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm a moderate independant and have voted Republican as often as Democrat. My problem with many of the candidates we are going to see swept to power is that they are from the far right fringe. I don't see anyone with an answer to our economic problems. People have a short memory, they threw the Republicans out for vague notions of "change" and now they're inviting them back just 2 years later.

Couple things here. Whats happening in this election, is that quite a few far left fringers are getting voted out of office, as well as the very few remaining conservative Dems. They are being replaced by generally conservative Republicans. There are of course exceptions. In Nevada for example, voters have to choose between ultra left wing liberal Harry Reid, or right wing Tea Party backed Sharon Angle. So its not like people are voting out your average joe. They're voting out the left wing nuts who voted for socialism. Something Americans are strongly against.

Another thing you made a mistake in, was saying Republicans lost power 2 years ago. In point of fact, it was 4 years ago. 2 years ago they took complete control, but Dems have been in control of congress for the past 4 years. Thats thats at least part of the reason why the deficit exploded the final 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

tigermoth - I love reading your posts. You said a lot of really great stuff, which I mostly agree with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People call Obama a Socialist because his ideas fall closer to the thinking of political socialism.

Nope, they call him a socialist because that is what they have been told to call him by the shills in the neo-liberal corporate media. Obama is in fact just another neo-liberal corporate hack frontman. Every decision and policy, from health care, financial reform, and military policy on down has been in service of the neo-liberal corporate mafias. There has been no socialism at all, but to know that you would actually have to pay attention instead of just swallow what you have been told.

So now, two more years for the mafias to continue their business in peace without any trouble makers messing things up for them. Time to start getting ready for 2012, but no doubt they already have their plans in place. It is so difficult to predict a mysterious "comeback" for the Democrats isn't it. Got to to keep the peasants evenly divided, divide and conquer works every time.

Anyways, enjoy your big "victory" next week repubs and TP'ers. But the cement shoes are already ready, and the Tea Party gets dumped in the river next week. Purpose served and mission accomplished.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"far left fringers"

What is the right's definition of left? From the posts here it seems to be anyone who isn't on the right. Come on, let's be reasonable. Are there really any communist, hard line socialists in office? No. Most people in office on both sides of the aisle are moderates. A few fall slightly to the left or right of that middle ground.

You want real left wing demons to worry about? They don't exist in the American political mainstream. Never did and are unlikely to ever exist in such a conservative system. From an external point of view, the entirety of American politics is on the right. Even by European standards we are largely right and not left in policy and practice. DEMs included.

I know this because I am the real thing for far left friends. I am not a communist, not a socialist and do not adhere to any party. I am however a strong believer in social and economic equity and fairness, in corporate accountability, in government accountability and first and foremost I am an advocate of the working people of America. Those who do all the hard work day to day to make everything in our country possible and who are the last ones to really benefit from their work.

The T-party is just another moderate right wing attempt at power. Power that will quickly dissappear into the mainstream middle of the GOP once these people are in office. They do not have plans for the future of America. They will not have adequate power to implement any plans they do have. And the only thing they will really be able to achieve is the ancient art of obstruction to anyone else trying to get something done.

In the end, it will come home as blame against the GOP when things fail to improve instantly as the fattened fast food mentality of America swings back against them. In that, at least, there is a ray of sunshine for rational thinking voters.

As for the next election cycle. It is doubtful that Palin or any of her other reactinary friends will be able to do anything more than divide the GOP into a rational and irrational partition. This bodes well for the moderate DEMs who can unify support and win again.

But as an American who cares more about the welfare of the people than which party is providing that welfare, I am saddened by the whole charade. American people need jobs and a sense of economic security. They need to be able to work to have a better future. They need to be able to send their kids to school so the next generation can have a better chance. They need to keep their young people at home and not off in foolish endless wars. They need to prepare for a future where oil and energy realities are changing rapidly. They need America to be competitive and able to move forward. And they need honest sincere leadership who are not in the pockets of the wealthy and the corporations.

Neither party. Let me say it again clearly. NEITHER PARTY, can deliver these things. And the T-party movement cannot deliver anything.

When will Americans start to see that they are being taken for a ride by all these parties and start to demand direct, accountable representation. It is time for true democracy and not more party partisan nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You want real left wing demons to worry about? They don't exist in the American political mainstream. Never did and are unlikely to ever exist in such a conservative system."

Boy. That is the truth. Gus Hall and Angela Davis. They are real communists. They were full on jokes, and everyone knew it, but they were real live communists. I don't know if they are dead or what, but every time Obama gets called a communist, their blood pressure probably pops their head off like a champagne cork. Calling Obama a communist is like calling Vanilla Ice a rapper. Obama is a little to the left of Mr. Rogers, and far to the right of people like Studs Terkel or Gore Vidal, whom nobody would ever call communists. The communist/socialist epithets of the right are really silly stuff. Whenever someone uses that tactic, it is like a red light flashing "IDIOT ALERT".

"Neither party. Let me say it again clearly. NEITHER PARTY, can deliver these things. "

But only one is even trying. Keynesianism is not perfect, but as far as I know, bankruptcy, starvation and "classical medicine" are the only things that have historically moved the business cycle along quickly, so Keynesian remedies work as well as "capitalism" and "democracy" in my book, viewed conceptually. If I could give the keys to the US economy to Paul Krugman, I would do it.

I am not going to excuse the far right for standing on people's heads at rallies just because Obama has not been 100% successful. Rand Paul is supposed to be a libertarian. The Tea Party is supposed to be about freedom. But they are just a bunch of thugs backed by a bunch of plutocrats. (Look at the Rand Paul guy who stomped on the lady's head. He is a skinhead who looks like a pro-wrestler, and he is not a bodyguard, he is a campaign OFFICIAL.) I hope they lose and chew through the GOP in a fit of Thermidor. It is time that GOP moderates learned who really cracks the whip in the Republican party. McCain chose Palin because he thought she was harmless and that he could win with her without giving control of the GOP to the Christian faction. It was probably a misstep, but it saved the GOP to fight another day. Well now it's going to be the Taliban vs. the Stormtroopers vs. Wall Street duking it out for control of the GOP. McCain, Powell and any other respectable Republican became irrelevant a long time ago.

That is a good enough reason to vote Democrat. These days, you are a Roman or a barbarian at the gate. Rome ain't what it used to be, but it is worth saving.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Rome ain't what it used to be, but it is worth saving."

Sad and very true statement. We do have to save America. But like a renewed word file, we need to "save as" something better than what we have today.

Let's think about it. Do we really care what party offers a solution that puts people to work, offers stability for families, sends kids to college, protects everyone's rights and sorts out problems we face for the future? I think the honest answer should be No.

What we really should care about is finding solutions that work. Not dreams about imaginary small governments, not Utopia, not right wing anarchy or left wing state capitalism. What we need are people focused solutions that work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"they call him [Obama] a socialist because that is what they have been told to call him by the shills in the neo-liberal corporate media. Obama is in fact just another neo-liberal corporate hack frontman."

GJD - I usually give what you post a read but this is just silly.Socialism, like any any big idea brought to America, will not be the beast it was when first imported.Unlike smithinjapan or Klein2 (I am not lumping you in w/them) you know a thing or two about economics, and in terms of the ratio of gov spending to overall GDP Obama and the new Left Dems are essentially socialists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not going to excuse the far right for standing on people's heads at rallies just because Obama has not been 100% successful. Rand Paul is supposed to be a libertarian. The Tea Party is supposed to be about freedom. But they are just a bunch of thugs backed by a bunch of plutocrats. (Look at the Rand Paul guy who stomped on the lady's head. He is a skinhead who looks like a pro-wrestler, and he is not a bodyguard, he is a campaign OFFICIAL.)

I am skeptical. The woman disappeared, to apparently treat herself? THis stinks of MoveOndotMorons type astroturfing and dirty tricks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 lives in Japan, now in its second "lost decade" but remains convinced Keynes is still the answer. Funny were it not so sad. Like I say, "Liberals" just don't get economics. The majority still believe the pie is finite and the majority actually believe rent control works, and with no unintended consequences worth examining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funding social programs does not define a political leader or a government as socialist. Nor does the political system in the US under any valid interpretation qualify as socialist or even social democracy.

The presence of social programs can be found in nearly every imaginable form of government. To argue that such small elements of the entire political picture somehow warrant definition as "socialism" shows considerable lack of understanding of just what a socialist or even social democracy is or what it would look like in practical terms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim, I am fully aware of what Keynes suggested. But it is not the entirety of what I recommend.

The pie is indeed finite as the world is indeed finite as are resources. If you don't understand these facts, then it does indeed explain a lot about your political and economic views.

There is no infinite economy out there. It is absurd to even think one is possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII at 07:57 PM JST - 26th October Thank you Obama for reminding us all of the importance of The Constitution ! A 'historical' presidency indeed Well put, WT. Best post of the day. And welcome to JT. RR I shall not oppose your praise. I just don't have it in me to object to it! So my sincere thanks, RR....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dark clouds, long faces, wild desperation, and gone is the hopey and the changey.

Obama has been a most unlikely boon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ridiculous TV talk show The View features some of the most prominent "Liberal" women in America (though only a Lib could tell you why they regard these flakes as serious pundits) . Joy Behar is one of them. On nat'l TV yesterday, when asked about Sharon Angle, Harry Reid's opponent in Nevada, Behar was seen and heard to bray furiously:

“She’s going to hell, this b_tch !”

Nope, no bias on any of our 3 major networks!

I won't even speculate what the reaction would be if someone on a cable news network said this of a "progressive."

Behar proves my point that partisan Dems are going bonkers in the face of the repeal of hopey and changey.

The country has weighed in on this latest outrage from the elites in the media.

It was a banner day, but not for old Harry Reid. No, Americans donated 137 , 000 dollars to Angle's campaign today.

Boo-yah.

All that egg you got on your silly face, Ms Behar? May as well just keep it there and try and tell viewers it's part of your Halloween get-up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, the liberal shriekfest continues. Obviously a side effect of drinking the Obama flavored bong water.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

though only a Lib could tell you why they regard these flakes as serious pundits

The only person putting the "serious pundit" label on the women on The View is you.

Unfortunately, a lot of idiots have made Sharron Angle a "serious candidate." On the brains and class scale, she's really not that far from Behar.

Americans donated 137 , 000 dollars to Angle's campaign today

LOL!! Suckers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dark clouds, long faces, wild desperation

No real liberal has to wear a long face or feel desperation.

Ultimately we know that, despite occasional setbacks like this coming Tuesday perhaps, good will triumph over evil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as a non-American, i'm so glad that their problems are not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama refusing to endorse the Democrat Caprio because Caprio's rival, the Republican-turned-independent Chafee endorsed Obama in 2008, is ridiculous.

onewrldoneppl: "as a non-American, i'm so glad that their problems are not mine."

That's rich.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The formation of the USA can best be understood by using the Mafia as a model: The head godfather (King of England) sends out some of the boys to develop a new territory. As they gain more power and wealth, they want it all for themselves and try to cut the godfather out. The founders didn't want equal liberty for all people -- far from it! -- otherwise they would have endorsed forming a direct democracy with everyone getting a vote, over a republic where voting was granted mainly to landowners, and senators were chosen by the elite.

This is why Republicans wax so fondly over those "good old days," as far from reality as they relate them.

Just more crap from the America-hating left who thinks their form of socialism is much better, and the reason they are on the skids. You are right that the original experiment was designed for the landowners and gentry to lead - you cannot expect to go from a monarchy to full-fledged democracy in one fell swoop. But actually you more illustrate my point - the design was far from 'everyone gets/deserves a share' but rather based on capitalism.

Nope, they call him a socialist because that is what they have been told to call him by the shills in the neo-liberal corporate media. Obama is in fact just another neo-liberal corporate hack frontman. Every decision and policy, from health care, financial reform, and military policy on down has been in service of the neo-liberal corporate mafias. There has been no socialism at all, but to know that you would actually have to pay attention instead of just swallow what you have been told.

And I would counter that you obviously don't know the definition and tenants of Socialism - no matter how brilliant you might believe yourself to be. If that seems aggressive I can only say that if you call me an automaton that is only intelligent enough to parrot party line or what I see or read from political pundits, I have the right to counter. Believe it or not, despite being somewhat conservative in political leanings, I am relatively well read, have a degree in Journalism and do not believe everything that I read or hear. I don't affiliate myself really with either party as I prefer to think for myself. And before anyone jumps on the 'wishy-washy Independents' bandwagon, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting smaller government and fewer taxes, but at the same time having no problem with folks who might be gay getting married or joining up with no shame in who and what they are, and a woman's right to choose whether she has an abortion. Anyone who is totally party line in my thinking are the ones with issues.

I know this because I am the real thing for far left friends. I am not a communist, not a socialist and do not adhere to any party. I am however a strong believer in social and economic equity and fairness, in corporate accountability, in government accountability and first and foremost I am an advocate of the working people of America. Those who do all the hard work day to day to make everything in our country possible and who are the last ones to really benefit from their work.

Which is, well - sort of along the veins of Communism and Socialism. Everyone here - well, particularly those on the left who are so angered and excitable about being called Socialist or Communist seem to think that to be considered either you have to be a card carrying member and follow exacting 'rules'. A more anti-capitalism and pro working class is by definition a form of more modern Socialism which some consider a prerequisite for Communism. You don't have to be a raging Marxist to fit the bill. But political leanings by the left are typically more in-line with the true tenants of Socialism and Communism. I'm unsure how you can really deny it, and I think that the only reason that you do is because of the post-Stalinist/McCarthyism repercussions of being labeled as such.

Funding social programs does not define a political leader or a government as socialist. Nor does the political system in the US under any valid interpretation qualify as socialist or even social democracy.

The presence of social programs can be found in nearly every imaginable form of government. To argue that such small elements of the entire political picture somehow warrant definition as "socialism" shows considerable lack of understanding of just what a socialist or even social democracy is or what it would look like in practical terms.

Again you're over-generalizing. It isn't simply the funding of social programs that causes the cry of 'Socialism' but rather the aggregate of agenda and policies. Liberals always try to portray anyone on the right as evil uncaring monsters rather than admit that the issue is far more complex and reliant on the fundamental beliefs of our political system.

And I believe that you might very well be correct in saying that the Tea Party will simply go away once its purpose has been fulfilled. Sort of like white blood cells attacking a bad infection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry, the quote thing seems to not fully envelope what is supposed to be in quotes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, that's certainly what the current crop of clueless, loony, right-wing radicals has in store for America as a whole.

Have you ever considered - just for the sake of argument - that just because someone doesn't agree with your liberal agenda that perhaps they are not 'clueless, loony, right-wing radicals'? Or is anyone that shows dissent so categorized? It seems that in the current administration, and the minions that follow said administration this is the belief. 'You don't believe as I do, so you must be stupid and loony'. It's funny how we were formed on a system of certain freedoms but if you try to invoke these freedoms - and a certain group doesn't agree with your agenda - then you are suddenly 'loony radicals'. 'Loony Radicals' enacted such changes as women's rights, civil rights, etc. I should think that attempting to form a party to go through the political process of enacting change is the way it should be, as opposed to some of the radical militant groups of the 1960's, etc. I'm quite certain that had such a party been formed by liberals opposing the Bush administration you would decried their greatness rather than their loony radicalism. Sour grapes I should think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Have you ever considered - just for the sake of argument - that just because someone doesn't agree with your liberal agenda that perhaps they are not 'clueless, loony, right-wing radicals'?

The criterion for whether someone is a clueless, loony, right-wing radical is much more exacting than "not agreeing with a liberal agenda." There are still quite a few conservatives who can disagree with liberal positions and yet still work together at reasonable compromises.

The radical loonies reject all compromising with their political opponents. That is why any Republican who has an 80% conservative voting record is considered a "rino" and being driven out of the party by the loonies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmm. Okay, then by fair comparison any Dem who chooses not to work together at reasonable compromises with their Republican counterparts are by definition then radical loonies. So most of the administration and party are therefore radical loonies. And that's a loaded response anyway - when legislation put forth by your party is so out of whack and filled with nonsense (reason most of the dems didn't bother reading the health care bill) it's difficult to reach compromise, particularly when the libs seems so against any such compromise. It's like a narcissistic egomaniac saying 'you never see my side of things'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, then by fair comparison any Dem who chooses not to work together at reasonable compromises with their Republican counterparts are by definition then radical loonies.

Radical, yes. Actively working to displace good Democrats with certifible nutcases like Christine O'Donnell, Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle, etc., etc. would make them "loony." I don't see that ultimately self-destructive behavior from the Democratic side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's difficult to see the clowns when you're part of the circus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the contrary, I believe everyone associated with the circus knows exactly who the clowns are.

It's the clowns who claim it's difficult to tell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, then by fair comparison any Dem who chooses not to work together at reasonable compromises with their Republican counterparts...

Going back to this statement, it's abundantly clear that much of the Democratic leadership has sought out support from the other side. I can't think of any who have refused to seek out compromises to gain some Republican support.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, let's quit clowning around. Oh they seek it - they all do. They just don't usually get it, and that goes for both sides. By the time they end up sticking on all the provisions and add-ons then the bills become unpassable. But that's another issue. The record shows that this administration has been not prone to play dates with the other kids. Sorry - too much talk about clowns; I hate clowns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More loony, nuthouse behavior: The Rand Paul supporter who stomped on a young female activist at a rally the other day has expressed the opinion that the woman should apologize to him.

From Alaska, it has now been revealed that teabag candidate and Sarah Palin "pet of the month" Joe Miller is now a proven liar -- attempting to cover up the fact that he misused the resources of his government office and was disciplined for it. This is why his goons unlawfully detained a reported who attempted to ask him about the issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ultimately we know that, despite occasional setbacks like this coming Tuesday perhaps, good will triumph over evil.

Glad to see you admit that conservatives will eventually triumph despite all the libs can do to destroy them.

The radical loonies reject all compromising with their political opponents. That is why any Republican who has an 80% conservative voting record is considered a "rino" and being driven out of the party by the loonies.

It really depends on what the 20% is. They may vote conservative 80% of the time, but if 20% of the time, they betray what most conservatives view as core values, ie smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes etc, then they are failing the basic principles of conservatism. Think about a Democrat, do they support homosexuals, lower taxes, smaller government, abortion on demand? Which one of these issues would make them fail your test? Or does all that matter, is that they have a D by their name and agree to vote for Princess Pelosi?

Joe Miller is now a proven liar -- attempting to cover up the fact that he misused the resources of his government office and was disciplined for it. This is why his goons unlawfully detained a reported who attempted to ask him about the issue.

Please note the desperation in this latest spin. I can just hear them saying... Please, oh please believe us this time. We're not blowing things out of proportion or making stuff up to discredit a good man. Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reality check time!!

T-pary candidate, GOP candidate, DEM candidate. No matter what minor bend from the American political middle a candidate represents, he/she will be soon blended into that very middle once in office. And if they do not, they will be an infective force outnumbered by their peers who do conform to the status quo.

This is reality people. T-party candidates will change nothing. They don't have the numbers, they don't have the power, they refuse to compromise and they will be just as on the take as everyone else in the end. Making deals with lobbyists, big business and others to help make sure they get votes and funding next time around.

This is real politics and if you don't see this you are blinded by your own illusions.

I am sorry to lay it out like this, but anyone expecting miracle changes from any mainstream party is kidding themselves or suffering from very serious denial.

If you want change, it takes more. America needs a broader political spectrum that forces cooperative government that can truly represent the people. This two party and one nut gallery system is not going to sort anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama can sit back in a few days, watch his majority in the House and possibly the Senate disappear, and realize that he won't be able to accomplish much more of his far-left agenda the second half of what should be a one-term presidency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is real politics and if you don't see this you are blinded by your own illusions.

Sorry, but its hard to take you seriously when you say this...

If you want change, it takes more. America needs a broader political spectrum that forces cooperative government that can truly represent the people. This two party and one nut gallery system is not going to sort anything.

Thinking you can change things by going for a 3rd party, is naive. It simply isn't reality in the US which features a 2 party system, not a parliamentary system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir.

I am very clearly saying that the current system doesn't work. It does not work any more. Two parties, polar in definition alone fighting back and forth and failing to accomplish what the people need.

Change is inevitable. Just because it has always been a two party system, does not mean it always will be. If you remember your history, other parties have come and gone. Change does and will happen.

I don't really care if you take me seriously or not. The facts are clear, the T-party will not have adequate power or mandate to make substantial changes. Thinking they will is unrealistic. It is an illusion that will evaporate as soon as they are elected. Mark my words. Serious consideration will be unavoidable.

As for a third party. The US was not designed to be only a two party system. It can and should evolve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Change is inevitable. Just because it has always been a two party system, does not mean it always will be.

Your argument would be more persuasive if you could give an example of a country that offers the model you envision but can't quite describe here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tim, I disagree. Could our founding fathers point to a system that reflected their values when the revolution was begun? No. So why would a modern American shift in how we allow ourselves to be governed need to point to other systems? Especially when we are actually talking about improvements to our own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The us election system isn't set up to accommodate a third party, so we'll not going to see one...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Junnama. You and Tim really do need to think outside the box now and then. Does the word "change" have any meaning for you? The American system is and has been subject to change. It was once unthinkable for the federal government to override certain state's rights. The Civil War imposed substantial change in this regard.

It was unthinkable for African Americans to vote. And yet today we have an African American president.

It was unthinkable for something like Habeus Corpus to be suspended to allow unwarranted wire taps.

Things change for the better and for the worst, but they do indeed change. It is built into our system to amend and change how it works. And if America is to maintain her role on the world stage, she has a lot of change coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You'd have to change the first to the post system and of course sell the people that that's a good idea. I want change doesn't mean "any change" is ok :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't say any change is ok. But it is clear that a two party system is no longer serving the needs of the American people. It has to either sort out that problem and become more representative of the needs of the people. Or it must be amended to a form that does. Otherwise, we no longer have democracy or representative government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is it clear that it isn't serving the needs of the people?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but the last time we were in this type of economic mess these type of talks led to Mussolini's march on Rome. I would caution against making too much of "effective" vs "system safeguards"....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Junnama - Well, we've got lingering near-record unemployment which looks like it's going to be the norm for the forseeable future, we've got a record national debt, we've got the government running the nation's biggest auto maker, we've got the government poised to take over the health care industry...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, in some ways we agree. We both are worried about unemployment, bail outs and debt. This is a start I think.

The problems are not easily solved and any party promising quick fixes are lying through their teeth.

Government should meet the needs of the people. People need jobs, education and access to affordable health care. Private industry is not going to solve any of these problems. It is counter to their bottom lines so it just isn't reasonable to expect the private sector to resolve these problems. So government has to do so for the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problems are not easily solved and any party promising quick fixes are lying through their teeth.

And your response to these problems, is to smash the current system we have, and implement a multiparty setup to encourage more voices and pull in different directions? Essentially, a parlimentary setup.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh you naive people make me laugh.

Obama did not have to actually DO anything, he just had to APPEAR to try... he wasted two years in which his party had a clear majority... as smart as he is, can this be an accident?

If, as predicted,his party losses more seats, well, great! He will be able to blame his opponents for his lack of progress.

The key here is that NOTHING WILL CHANGE (for the better, at least), and the next two years will be a power struggle, but little will change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kevin, why do you think he is smart? I don't see it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2,

Didn't say any change is ok. But it is clear that a two party system is no longer serving the needs of the American people

The two part system is fine, both sides need a "tea party" to keep them in line. One liberal and one like we see today, the conservative type.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphawolf. Interesting idea. But I really do believe that a two party system is not capable of representing the US people any more. I mean how many people do you know who neatly fit into either party's model member?

Having to tool together coaltions to get things done is a good motivator to generate broader involvement and thus representation by various groups. It also could help keep the larger parties honest and out of the pockets of the powerful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir. Multi-part systems work in many countries around the world and provide more representation for diverse populations.

But this is just one step. I have other ideas.

Direct elections. One person, one vote. Accountability measures: for congress people increase the capacity of the people to generate recalls for representatives and congress people. Pass laws to limit corporate intervention in politics. Restrict the influence of lobby groups.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - some of your proposals sound like they are straight out of a Utah tea party. What an 'extremist' you are !

Direct elections. One person, one vote.

Stop Dems from stealing elections? Couldnt agree more.

Accountability measures: for congress people increase the capacity of the people to generate recalls for representatives and congress people.

A number of tea party proposals include something akin to a pledge from the candidate before assuming office. Also - - which party wants term limits more? Repubs. Everybody knows this.

Pass laws to limit corporate intervention in politics.

But leave the door open for "non-profits" ?

Restrict the influence of lobby groups.

Why not solve both of the above by instituting a flat tax?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But leave the door open for "non-profits" ?

And unions of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To clean up politics in the US, they would need to:

1- Limit donations to parties or candidates, from corporations AND from individuals. Banning corporate (or union or whatever organization) donations altogether would be ideal.

2- Limiting the ability of non-candidates to spend money on a political campaign (ads taken against a candidate for instance).

3- To counter the loss of money, give money to parties depending on votes received, for example 2$ a year per vote received in the last election. (This already exists in Canada)

4- Lower the requirements to allow people to run for political office, right now they are really high, which hurts third parties and independents.

5- Mandate some standards on the counting of the vote, force every county to have a paper trail of the vote so that they may be recounted and to prevent fraud by those who own the counting machines.

6- A fair media is vital to a fair democratic process, reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives who only hear from Conservatives and Liberals who only hear from Liberals is a recipe for polarization and the death of debate, with each side living in their own world.

Term limits I find useless as a policy. It's good if you want politicians to never be experienced, but I don't see why a politician that does a good job should be forced out and replaced by possibly inferior ones. Maybe some people would like weaker politicians who don't know how government works as well as they should, but I find this unlikable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

3- To counter the loss of money, give money to parties depending on votes received, for example 2$ a year per vote received in the last election. (This already exists in Canada)

This is a terrible idea. Why should my tax dollars go to support a party I disagree with? That is essentially what you are advocating.

4- Lower the requirements to allow people to run for political office, right now they are really high, which hurts third parties and independents.

This is nonsense. It proves that when it comes to the US, you really have no clue what you're talking about. To put it simply, states control their elections, not the federal government. And each state has different requirements in order to run. In my home state of Arizona for example, you need to collect a certain number of signatures from registered voters, in order to get your name on the ballot. The office you are running for, also determines how many are required. While there are similarities with other states, the threshold needed to run, is different wherever you go.

5- Mandate some standards on the counting of the vote, force every county to have a paper trail of the vote so that they may be recounted and to prevent fraud by those who own the counting machines.

I agree with that, and in fact I'd go much farther. Mandate, that everyone who votes, must prove their ID, and the fact that they are in fact citizens, and legally entitled to vote.

6- A fair media is vital to a fair democratic process, reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives who only hear from Conservatives and Liberals who only hear from Liberals is a recipe for polarization and the death of debate, with each side living in their own world.

The Fairness doctrine is a contradiction in terms. It is not fair in the slightest. Not only that, but it imposes harsh penalties on corporations, forcing them to act against their own interests to promote ideas that hurt them. It was scrapped for a reason. The only reason to try to bring it back, is to force failed ideas onto people. Talk radio is a good example. Almost without exception the people on talk radio are conservative. You have a lot of local stuff that isn't, but the national networks are conservative. That irritates a lot of Dems. But the truth is, their liberal radio network failed. It didn't attract enough of an audience, and so couldn't sustain itself. You are trying to do an end run around the market, and force these same ideas onto people. Essentially killing talk radio. Which is in fact the real point behind this.

Term limits I find useless as a policy. It's good if you want politicians to never be experienced, but I don't see why a politician that does a good job should be forced out and replaced by possibly inferior ones. Maybe some people would like weaker politicians who don't know how government works as well as they should, but I find this unlikable.

Not a matter of good versus bad. It has to do with power and corruption. You stay in Washington long enough, almost everyone becomes corrupted by it. Term limits is a good idea. And with most places having the idea of 2 6 year terms in the Senate, and 6 2 year terms in the house. Your total of 24 years in congress, is more then enough for anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Almost without exception the people on talk radio are conservative. You have a lot of local stuff that isn't, but the national networks are conservative. That irritates a lot of Dems. But the truth is, their liberal radio network failed. It didn't attract enough of an audience, and so couldn't sustain itself. You are trying to do an end run around the market, and force these same ideas onto people. Essentially killing talk radio. Which is in fact the real point behind this.

And why is that? Most Americans by far consider themselves by definition traditional and or conservative all the polls show that. On liberal talk radio most libs engage in personal attacks and use their air time ranting to bash non-stop conservatives. Usually, the average age for liberal talk radio listeners is around 18 to 35 years. Most Americans by definition don't want to hear insults and slandering the opposition, whereas "most" Conservative talk radio engages in a more meaningful dialogue and while you do have a few over the top conservative pundits, compared to the far left talk radio pundits out there 3 to 1 people will turn off listening the liberal rhetoric. Look at Air America for example what happened to them? The liberals are mostly in control of the big TV networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, I think in that sense to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is MOST DEFINITELY a contradiction and therefore but be ludicrous if it were enacted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The liberals are mostly in control of the big TV networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, I think in that sense to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is MOST DEFINITELY a contradiction and therefore but be ludicrous if it were enacted.

Yeh, I SAW that liberal outlook on CNN in its "debates" in which Wolf Blitzer cut off Kuznich, again and again. Mostly right-wing outlook on these stations. And all liberal commentators like Mike Malloy have been run off by the last radio stations. Hey, Bass4funk, have your right-wing hellhole, see if I care. But as times get tough, and they will, they will have to ratch up the hate, again and again and again to keep the cavemen around. Pretty soon, it is going to get really ugly, especially when there is a serious attack on the U.S. Round up those Muslims. Camps, camps, camps, but I am sure you are just find with this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And guys, get RID of those child labor laws, social security, medicare, and any kind of program for the poor, and foreign aid, and mine the border, all of them, and have shoot to kill orders there, and have everyone carry papers with them to prove who they are. Geez, haven"t we seen this show somewhere before?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And guys, get RID of those child labor laws,

LOL. The hoary old canard and truly "Liberal" logic that because everyone but the Democrats is pro-free markets it must therefore be the Democrats who protect your children from da eeevil capitalists who want your kids in the factory instead of school.

mine the border, all of them, and have shoot to kill orders there,

The world's longest non-militarized border is between the US and Canada. But we can't talk about the reason for that because championing Anglo-Saxon achievements (like English Common Law) is racist, as our "progressive" betters like to lecture us.

and have everyone carry papers with them to prove who they are.

The only political party that put American citizens in concentration camps was the Democrats. You would think someone posting on JapanToday would be vaguely familiar with that rather shameful period in our history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only political party that put American citizens in concentration camps was the Democrats. You would think someone posting on JapanToday would be vaguely familiar with that rather shameful period in our history.

Yeh, at the urging of the republicans. Afraid to think of what would have happened to them if Hoover was still in charge.

But we can't talk about the reason for that because championing Anglo-Saxon achievements (like English Common Law) is racist, as our "progressive" betters like to lecture us.

You better talk to the crazy lady Angle, of Arizona who wants THAT border mined too. Too open, she complained. Mines would be best.

it must therefore be the Democrats who protect your children from da eeevil capitalists who want your kids in the factory instead of school.

Hey, just repeating some of the ideas that some of YOUR own T-party candidates were saying. Child labor laws! Don't need em.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afraid to think of what would have happened to them if Hoover was still in charge.

Hoover saved the lives of literally millions after WW1. Try a search of Hoover humanitarian relief efforts ARA Belgium Poland. Might be surprised.

You better talk to the crazy lady Angle, of Arizona who wants THAT border mined too.

Angle is running for the senate seat to represent Nevada.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know why people even bother voting. All politicians are useless. Nothing ever changes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The American people are STARTING to wake up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I predict we see from President Obama even more erratic, angry and bizarre behavior after The Blowout.

Like so many Liberals his ego is incapable of dealing with opposition to his politics, which have basically become a substitute for religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know why people even bother voting. All politicians are useless. Nothing ever changes.

That is not true. Read the following article from the Japan Times, and you can see that a lot of changes are coming down the pike. And I don't see how the Demos or Republicans can deal with it. So, yeh, change will happen. BAD CHANGE.

U.S. voters set to jump from frying pan to the fire

By KEVIN RAFFERTY Special to The Japan Times

Basically, from one Wall STreet Journal article I read, the plan is to inflate their way out of this mess, which will lead to skyrocketing interest rates. Geez, just like the 1970s! Seems like yesterday.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir

This is a terrible idea. Why should my tax dollars go to support a party I disagree with? That is essentially what you are advocating.

For one thing, democracy means that every point of view must have a chance to be heard. For another, it's not really your tax money, it's everyone's tax money and people decide who will receive that money by voting for them. In other words, by voting, you would accept that the government gives, in your name, a small amount of money every year to the party you're voting for. If you want to be sure that it's not "your" money, then invent a scheme where every registered voter pays 2 $ a year to a fund from which the money is given, if they don't vote, then that money flows into the general treasury to lower the deficit or debt. But that's a ridiculous scheme that has the same effects and is harder to implement only to correct the issue of perception some may have.

This is nonsense. It proves that when it comes to the US, you really have no clue what you're talking about. To put it simply, states control their elections, not the federal government. And each state has different requirements in order to run. In my home state of Arizona for example, you need to collect a certain number of signatures from registered voters, in order to get your name on the ballot. The office you are running for, also determines how many are required. While there are similarities with other states, the threshold needed to run, is different wherever you go.

I know that States have their own rules, which IMO is a bad idea that leads to ridiculous situations and may be unconstitutional (Equal Protection Clause that some have interpreted successfully as meaning every vote must be treated the same way, but with different standards the same vote could be accepted in a State and refused in another). Anyway, that doesn't matter, my point remains true, the thresholds in the US have been built by the two main parties to prevent the emergence of third parties, they should be globally lowered.

The Fairness doctrine is a contradiction in terms. It is not fair in the slightest. Not only that, but it imposes harsh penalties on corporations, forcing them to act against their own interests to promote ideas that hurt them. It was scrapped for a reason. The only reason to try to bring it back, is to force failed ideas onto people. Talk radio is a good example. Almost without exception the people on talk radio are conservative. You have a lot of local stuff that isn't, but the national networks are conservative. That irritates a lot of Dems. But the truth is, their liberal radio network failed. It didn't attract enough of an audience, and so couldn't sustain itself. You are trying to do an end run around the market, and force these same ideas onto people. Essentially killing talk radio. Which is in fact the real point behind this.

If talk radio are so conservative-biased that they can't survive with a Fairness Doctrine, then they deserve to die because they are then nothing but brainwashing tools of propaganda. And, quite frankly, you made my point for me when you said that the Doctrine forced corporations to give voice to opinions that were against their own interests. I want that, because the alternative, letting corporations CHOOSE which point of view they want to push because it's in their own interest is a way to kill democracy and hand it to those very corporations. I personally think other interests beyond media corporation's interests matter, I am a bit surprised that some seem to disagree with that.

Not a matter of good versus bad. It has to do with power and corruption. You stay in Washington long enough, almost everyone becomes corrupted by it. Term limits is a good idea. And with most places having the idea of 2 6 year terms in the Senate, and 6 2 year terms in the house. Your total of 24 years in congress, is more then enough for anyone.

If you're worried about corruption, then fight lobbying, which is the problem. Forcing term limits do not insure that individual members are more resistant to corruption. Some candidates are corrupt before they even are elected, being beholden to their donors before they even set foot in the House/Senate/White House/Governor's Office. Term limits will not help with that. There is also the problem that, when you start at ANY new job, you have a period where you're learning the ropes and you are not as effective as you could be. Then it's necessary to have senior colleagues who can help you. Imposing term limits means that this will be even more true, the number of these noobies will be at least half of every chamber, which actually makes them even more vulnerable to outside influence in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk

Conservative talk radio, constructive? What a joke!

The problem with liberals is that, generally speaking, they are much more fair and even-handed than their right-wing opponents. For example, when Olbermann blasted the Republican candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat with sometimes pretty personal attack, the entire left-wing blogosphere and other left-wing hosts said that Olbermann went too far and, as a result, he apologized for his outburst. That said, this outburst was pretty mild compared to the daily ramblings of the right-wing media, where Obama (a pretty moderate politician by any objective account, his health care plan is basically a toned down version from the REPUBLICAN plan in the 1990s) is depicted as a marxist from a century-old conspiracy to destroy America and who is not even American. Whenever a right-wing commentator or politician does something beyond the bonds of decency, other right-wing commentators rally behind him instead of denouncing him the way often left-wing commentators will do for their own. Accusations of treason abound in the right-wing, from pundit to politician ("pro-America areas" of America, anyone?). Nobody was even called on it.

This is in the end natural, the liberal mind accepts that it may be wrong and is more open to other opinions. Even the Conservatives accept this fact when they denounce Liberals' "moral relativism" (which is an exaggerated accusation). On the other hand, Conservatives are more closed-minded, they believe that they have the truth and are in the right. Conservatives and Liberals may be defined in terms of Faith. Conservatives have Faith much more than Liberals do, and what is Faith? It is the conviction that what you believe is true regardless of, or even despite, the actual facts. Knowledge denies Faith. If you know something is true based on evidence, you do not need Faith. You don't have Faith that you exist or that fire burns, you just know it from experience.

They see the world in black and white, not the shades of grey of the liberal viewpoint, therefore they tend to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their own (even when in the wrong) and to strike hard at people whom they see as against them (even when they're in the right).

It is a great irony that the Conservative mind, that proclaims to love individualism, is so susceptible to herd mentality, resulting from the "black or white" point of view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a great irony that the Conservative mind, that proclaims to love individualism, is so susceptible to herd mentality, resulting from the "black or white" point of view.

Bingo

his health care plan is basically a toned down version from the REPUBLICAN plan in the 1990s) is depicted as a marxist from a century-old conspiracy to destroy America and who is not even American.

LOL. Didn't know that ONE, but yeh, it was a major giveaway to the corporations who wrote it, and who are still bitching about it, even though it expands their customer base.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites