The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Sweden's a much more secular country than we are, but it's still a lot more religious than you are. And they don't have a lot of atheists. A lot of "life force/spirtuality/love each other" kind of people. And a lot of religious tradition still. (i.e. enough that I think your skin would still crawl).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, state governments are even more corrupt and dysfunctional in most of the nation than the federal government. I realize in your wonderful state where there are more cows than people the state government is wonderful, but for most of the people in this country, the only thing worse than giving any power to Congress is giving any more power to their state and local governments.

But, I take it you're for public financing of elections, right?

My state does work well. If it didn't, it'd be a lot easier to fix than a corrupt federal government. You just have NO chance with a bad federal government. They can ruin things for everyone. States can at least offer choice. A good, honest, public servant can gain power in a state. (Obviously, there's many things the federal government can handle more effectively, let me just say that before someone goes on a rant about how great the FDA is as if that defeats my entire argument about the role of states)

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I mean, unless you're counting the Muslim immigrants that live there.

The lack of tolerance the people of northern European countries show those muslims would be considered "crazy right wing" here.

The U.S. is FAR to the left of those countries at least on that social issue. (or really, maybe I should just say the moderate base here is "more tolerant" than those countries - it's not really a left/right issue..)

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually no, states are harder to fix because it's much harder to get any public spotlight on the problems within the state because the vast majority of people have no idea what's going on in any state government.

Maybe if every state was 500,000 people and was 80% prairie and with lots of that being taken care of by the federal government, they could be well run too.

I love the compassion of this angle that's so popular. You claim to want to reduce poverty, but you're resentful of anyone different than you getting any help.

When it comes to states though, it's not a liberal/conservative thing to me. Liberal states can be run well. It's about self-determination, really. Sweden is a small country of like-minded people. The U.S. is not. States could be the best of both worlds. Self-determination against a background of strong national security and a guarantee of fundamental personal rights.

If Sweden, Mexico, Italy, Kuwait, and Russia were all merged into one country and tried to manage everything solely with a strong central government - it wouldn't work all that well.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I have no problem with the federal government taking care of massive tracts of land in the Great Plains. I just have a problem of people ignoring that fact when they talk about how great their state is when people from "horribly run" states are subsidizing your state.

But, I'd point out that Germany and France are both large countries with strong central governments that are run pretty well. No, they're not as ethnically diverse as the US, but that's sort of a silly argument. Because, no nation is diverse as the US, then your point becomes the US can never be well run because it's big.

Vermont seems like a well-run state, at least from a distance. New Hampshire has a real independent streak, but they're also very liberal and tax the living shit out of property. A lot of other states seem at least average/ok. Conservative states don't have a monopoly on effective state government, because effective state government isn't defined by liberal/conservative views but on whether it's delivering what it's people want. Though I do wonder if you have the same compassion for a poor person that doesn't vote the way you feel he's supposed to. A lot of the far left does seem to mock and look down on the rural conservative poor.

Germany is a model country. And they actually don't have the racism/nationalism as the rest of Europe, I think because they're so gun-shy about expressing nationalism (that was the theory of a German guy I talked to last year). France isn't too bad if you don't mind 25% unemployment for people under 30 and real social intolerance. I don't think either country is particularly relevant to anything we do here.

Why is it that you're so sure we can learn so much from smaller governments across an ocean, but smaller governments right in this country are useless? Haven't a lot of progressive/liberal ideas really taken hold in states first? Isn't there a potential for that to happen even more? How long would we have to wait for gay marriage to be legal anywhere if it had to be legal across the U.S. all at once first? How about legal marijuana?

[JPhillips]

Holy shit the GOP is crazier than I imagined. This is from presumptive Utah Sen Mike Lee.

"Our current debt is a little shy of $14 trillion. And I don't want it to increase 1 cent above the current debt limit and I will vote against that," he says.

Even if it leads to government default and shutdown?

"It's an inconvenience, it would be frustrating to many, many people and it's not a great thing, and yet at the same time, it's not something that we can't rule out," he says. "It may be absolutely necessary."

So there are GOP senators willing to risk default when the deficit is over a trillion dollars? What cuts do they propose that will eliminate the need for raising the debt ceiling?

Time to buy Glen Beck's apocalypse seed pack.

[molson]

Islam believes that there is one code of law that all of humanity are connected by and must obey. That's one of the reasons "nation building" in an islamic country is pretty stupid. They're not going to accept your laws.

Islam sounds ridgid when you put it like that, but aren't we all that way? Doesn't almost everyone think all of humanity ought to obey the type of government/rule of law they personally feel is best? Are far left/right political views no different than religious Islam political views in that way?

That's how I look at the state/federal thing. We like federal-level if we feel like we can use it to impose our own political/economic views on a great number of people. We like state-level if we feel like we want something that isn't going to fly on a national level (whether that be a liberal or conservative thing), but we feel that it works for us.

I think generally, I'm going to be in favor of self-determination for the smaller group (state or country level) unless there's a really good reason not to be that way for any particular issue. There is no one right way to run a state, or country. There is no all-enlightened correct political/economic view that everyone in the world is morally bound to follow. When you start thinking there is - that's dangerous thinking, as history has proven over and over again.

[molson]

And people just kind of sound like bullies when they say, "ya, that's cute state that you have your own opinions, but as long as you take our money, you're going to do things OUR way, and you're going to SHUT UP ABOUT IT." The reality is, a mega-strong central government imposes financial obligations on states. The states can makeup for that by cutting teachers, unless the fed wants to provide help for that too (which they're all too willing to do, and since they own the printing presses, is easy for them to do). Before long, you have a Sopranos situation where the mob has given loans that can't be paid back so now they own the joint. (a scenerio which the U.S. also loves to use to exploit other countries, of course).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Islam believes that there is one code of law that all of humanity are connected by and must obey.

No. There are different strains of Islam and different governments with different laws. That's as false as saying Christians believe there is one code of law...

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'm not going to get into the silliness of comparing Islam to political ideology which is one of the silliest arguments on this thread I've seen.

Your faith in your political views is the same as someone's faith in a structured religion. You're RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG (and worse yet, needs to be saved from themselves by you).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, that's the entire point of a _federal_ government. So that you can go from one state to another without going from decent roads to pothole-o-rama or there are minimum standards for federal programs like Medicaid.

No, it's not the mob, it's shared society.

It's all just a question of boundaries and practicality. Montana has a strong central government. So does Vermont. So does Massachusetts. So does France and Germany. Nothing inherently wrong with strong central governments. They just get problematic in a hurry when the population gets too big and too diverse. Self-determination is gone at some point.

Would a world central government be a good thing? It would kind of suck if we was a bad world central government. I think George Lucas warned us against that.

As our country gets bigger and more diverse, the governance is actually getting more centralized. Which seems backwards.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

So why not break up the US if the population is too big and diverse?

Plenty of reasons. Start with the stuff that was specifically delegated to a central government in the constitution. Europe is slowly turning into what the original vision for the U.S. was then.

A country, like may of the the countries in Europe, can come up with great ideas, be progressive, especially when they're not burdened by national defense concerns, and when there's a low level of basic human rights they all agree to recognize no matter what.

Germany's done great and progressive things, but what if they eventually are just an extension of an ineffectual France-based EU? As liberals always tell me - Europe seems to have a pretty good setup now.

[molson]

To put it another way, the U.S. has a centralized government that rules over 300 million people. The EU has a de-centralized government with about 500 million people spread over largely independent states.

Why is state experimentation and self-governance such a terrible concept here, but such a great thing in Europe? Or do you think Europe would better if the EU was like the U.S. and ran the show for everyone on the continent? If the EU did have that power - do you think Sweden would still be Sweden? I bet they'd be a lot worse. Sweden would be overburdened and bitter about supporting whiney and backwards Romania (and they'd be hugely annoyed by Romania's religiousness, and they'd even feel bad for them for "voting against their interests" - which are of course, supposed to be exactly the same as Sweden's, even if those dumb Romanians aren't smart enough to realize it yet).

Edit: And the EU and the US obviously isn't a perfect comparison either (yet), but it's a lot more relevant than trying to compare U.S. and Sweden (which has a smaller population than North Carolina).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, Germany as a country under the EU is a lot different than Montana or Washington under the US and if you don't understand that, we really can't have any further discussion on this.

State governance and experimentation is fine in Europe because those countries are actual countries, not arbitrary political divisions like states in the US are.

True, let's get back to a meaningful comparison we can actually take something from, like the U.S. v. Sweden. (I was 100% sure you'd respond like this - shooting down any EU/US comparison while clinging to even more ridiculous ones).

And who do I vote for to implement "the Sweden system" in the U.S? And how long would that transition take? I think you would have some of the right on your side in that transition, because we'd certainly have to get rid of all the illegal Mexicans.

You ignored my hypothetical though. If 300 million people under a centralized government is a good thing in the U.S., wouldn't 500 million people under a centralized government be an even better thing in Europe? Should they move towards that? Or would that make Sweden and Germany actually suck (as I suspect).

[stevew]

I can't believe we're going to send Pat fuckin Toomey to Washington.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

how long would we have had to wait to have interracial marriage legal everywhere if we had waited for every state to legalize it?

You can actually just answered this:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'm not going to get into the silliness of comparing wackos to political ideology which is one of the silliest arguments on this thread I've seen.

And yes, you are right, you are silly

[stevew]

heh, a democratic house canidate in Virginia 1 is named Krystal Ball. Surely someone has mentioned this before, but if not, it's hilarious.

[stevew]

if 31% of South Carolinians would vote for Alvin Greene, we can probably say that 31% of South Carolinians are whacko.

[stevew]

We could also say the same thing about 40% of Delaware voters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Unfortunately, there aren't enough politicians running on party systems. But committed liberals/progressives/social democrats need to do the same thing the right-wing did when they took the GOP.

But, it's about policy. Policy for the most part isn't about the size of a country with few exceptions. We could easily make the tax system much more progressive. Hell, we had said progressive tax policy until the Reagan years. Health care? There's plenty of plans to either expand Medicare to All or set up a new public health care plan. That's just a few examples. It actually wouldn't be that hard if you had the political will to do so.

"Spread the wealth, consolidate the power" is kind of a catchy slogan, but not very inspiring.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by stevew

if 31% of South Carolinians would vote for Alvin Greene, we can probably say that 31% of South Carolinians are whacko.

I'd vote for Alvin Greene just for the entertainment value.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

As inspiring as "work for less so CEO's can earn more." Which is the results of the economics of the past two generations.

That's the (accurate) slogan of the Democratic/Republican/Corporate party

And we have the federal government to thank for that party, and centralization to ensure it stays in power.

[Greyroofoo]

I blame the voters personally, they don't seem to mind corporate backed candidates.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Eh, they're just sheeple.

[stevew]

Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm not a witch.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by stevew

Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm not a witch.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Not really. There are states that would be far more corporate-owned if not for evil federal government regulations.

But, the corporate ownership of both parties has more to do with how elections are funded than a large central government. After all, much more centralized countries like say most of Europe has far less corporate control over even their conservative parties.

I guess at the end of the day - you have what you want, we have a strong central government in the U.S. that gets more centralized every year. It's your burden then to reconcile any fault then that this country has v. say, European countires (who all have free and progressive neighbors, which I still maintain is useful, and something that facilitates positive things for everyone.)

So, we really have your IDEAL government structure here then, don't we? So what's the problem? Why are there so many problems and corruption? Why are we still (by your perception) so far behind Europe? Why haven't we been able to "snuff out all the whackos" (I guess that's the goal) like they apparently have done there?

Or do we need to get more centralized? 1 300 million-people country ruled by a tiny elite government with corporate backing seems problematic to me, but if that's the idea, should we take it further or is this the limit?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, my ideal government structure would be public financing, the castration or the elimination of the Senate, heavy regulation of the influence of lobbyists (in other words, no politician or who worked for a politician should be allowed to get money from a lobbying group for about oh, ten years) and treating states like the administrative units they are instead of mini-nations.

A brand new country with new ideas certainly has merit, but I'm not why you'd start such a country with 300 million people who largely don't want anything like that. Or why one would think that was even a desirable idea to rule hundreds of millions against their will. At a smaller country/state level though, I can see people getting behind all kinds of real reform.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Oh, and racism. But, I know, we aren't a racist country anymore because we elected Obama.

And this is responding to what? Something someone said on FoxNews two weeks ago? (We've apparently reached the point where you start lecturing nobody in particular. It's pretty easy to score points that way. I can play that game though. Well, SteveBollea, unlike you, I'm AGAINST child molestation. Good time to bow out.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Public financing is largely popular, regulating lobbyists is heavily popular, most people don't know how the Senate works, and I'll admit people are protective of their states. So, I think saying people "largely don't want anything like that" is sort of silly.

And you're back to the "real reform can only be done at the state level" talking point.

But why are you so obsessed with bringing in people to your vision of government, who clearly don't want to be part of you perfect government (like southern whackjobs). I can kind of understand it if we're talking America, and you want to keep American borders the same, but if you're talking BRAND NEW country, new constitution, abolishment of Senate, abolishment of states as political entitites, etc, why, in this hypothetical, fictional government, do you STILL want all the people who you see as whackjobs to be a part of it?

And isn't it more likely we could create your vision in a more-independent Vermont, than say, the entire 300 million person U.S?

Your vision of government, (not just the popular parts, but also your far left social and economic views), is not shared by 300 million people. It's not even shared by a majority of them. Why is it so desirable and important to subject 300 million people to it? I'd ask the same thing to the Bush administration about Iraq. And I think both of your answers would be the same. "They don't know any better." Maybe that's true in both instances, I don't know. But don't expect people here to react more positively to that idea than Iraqis did.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

But why are you so obsessed with bringing in people to your vision of government, who clearly don't want to be part of you perfect government (like southern whackjobs). I can kind of understand it if we're talking America, and you want to keep American borders the same, but if you're talking BRAND NEW country, new constitution, abolishment of Senate, abolishment of states as political entitites, etc, why, in this hypothetical, fictional government, do you STILL want all the people who you see as whackjobs to be a part of it?

And isn't it more likely we could create your vision in a more-independent Vermont, than say, the entire 300 million person U.S?

Your vision of government, (not just the popular parts, but also your far left social and economic views), is not shared by 300 million people. It's not even shared by a majority of them. Why is it so desirable and important to subject 300 million people to it? I'd ask the same thing to the Bush administration about Iraq. And I think both of your answers would be the same. "They don't know any better." Maybe that's true in both instances, I don't know. But don't expect people here to react more positively to that idea than Iraqis did.

No vision is shared by 300 million Americans.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because I want a better life for even the people who think I'm a commie.
Also, I'm an American first, not a Washingtonian or a Pennsylvanian or a Floridian.

So your caring goes to the border and but not a mile further? We shouldn't try to say, change how Iraqis llives, they're stuck with their ignorant fate, but inside of THIS border, we have a responsibility to save people from their ignorant ideas about lifestyle and politics?

[JPhillips]

Americans want Euro spending and Tea Party taxation delivered by a more rabidly conservative, moderate Democratic government.

Maybe that's why we're fucked. From Andrew Sullivan:

What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.

So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No vision is shared by 300 million Americans.

Some are more broadly shared than others though. And Sweden's "vision" is certainly shared by a good dunk of its 9 million people. Sweden is further left because the people are further left. A Swede bringing that government and culture and society to the U.S. will have as much success as our country does "rebuilding" the government and culture and society of a Muslim country.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Public financing is largely popular,blah, blah, blah.

Dancing with the starts is popular, facebook is popular. You seem to be mistaking apathy for discontent. Your probem is you think you know what is best for me, but you don't even know me

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

No, I want a better world in general. But, since I'm not an imperialist, I'll fix my country first and use humanitarian NGO's/etc. to help with the rest of the planet.

OK, pm me when you've fixed the country (I think the tipping point will be Barbara Boxer getting another term. Certainly, everyone seems to think these elections are huge and will change everything.)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Some are more broadly shared than others though. And Sweden's "vision" is certainly shared by a good dunk of its 9 million people. Sweden is further left because the people are further left. A Swede bringing that government and culture and society to the U.S. will have as much success as our country does "rebuilding" the government and culture and society of a Muslim country.

Sure. However, when you argue that we can't or shouldn't have a particular type of government because some percentage of the populace would like something else you need to keep in mind that the form of government you like also is opposed by a lot of people. In my lifetime we've always been relatively closely split. The problem with every policy is that at best you're looking at a 60/40 split and likely closer to 50/50. That's why things tend to move a little in one direction or the other for a while, but achieving a libertarian utopia or a Sweden style government won't happen.

That doesn't, though, mean that arguing for a set of political beliefs that likely won't happen means you're naive or crazy. The little changes are often a compromise achieved by people who are pushing much bigger changes.

[JPhillips]

Lovely ad for Sharron Angle.

It's Us versus Them. Big government versus a big belief in faith and freedom. Sharron Angle versus Harry Reid.

Reid is a "them," like Obama, like Pelosi. He voted for their stimulus plan that only wasted our money, civilian trials for foreign terrorists, and government-run health care.

Angle is one of us. She says it is faith in God and the freedom to become all we want that made America great.

We must choose an "us." Someone who gets it, will protect our freedom, and defend our faith.

Please, vote faith, vote freedom, vote Angle.

It's Us versus Them.

[DaddyTorgo]

A Tea Party founder:

It began as a movement to take back the United States from corrupt politicians. The Tea Party movement has been hijacked by Republicans and is now all about guns, gods and gays. Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker was one of the original founders of the Tea Party and calls the direction of the group an absolute joke.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

We're not heading towards a socialist state but I don't think that it's irrelevant, for discussion's sake, that many posters here (and it's safe to assume, many democrats in power), believe such a system is not only desirable, but practical for America. Their poltiical views are based on whatever would take us in that general direction, just like some extreme conservatives' views are are based on whatever would take us in the general direction of a theocracy. It doesn't mean we'll actually get to either (I hope), but it's not irrelevant to recognize who WOULD take us to either place if they could.

We sort of are a socialist country in many respects. Military, police, fire, roads, health care for seniors, etc. So when people on one side claim to be the capitalists rooting out the socialists, it's a tad head scratching. Everyone is for socialism is some forms.

Republicans are against socialized health care for people under 65, but are for socialized agriculture and expanding our socialized military. I'm sure there are some people who are completely against any form of socialization at all, but I wouldn't even know where to put them on the political scale (anarchists?).

It's really a battle between two sides who want varying forms of pseudo-socialism mixed with capitalism. I just hate the "socialist" or "communist" or "capitalist" rhetoric when none of those accurately depict anyone in our government or the public in general.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And people just kind of sound like bullies when they say, "ya, that's cute state that you have your own opinions, but as long as you take our money, you're going to do things OUR way, and you're going to SHUT UP ABOUT IT." The reality is, a mega-strong central government imposes financial obligations on states. The states can makeup for that by cutting teachers, unless the fed wants to provide help for that too (which they're all too willing to do, and since they own the printing presses, is easy for them to do). Before long, you have a Sopranos situation where the mob has given loans that can't be paid back so now they own the joint. (a scenerio which the U.S. also loves to use to exploit other countries, of course).

No one is saying shut up here. But it's sort of like having your brother come up to you and lecture you for a couple hours on how you should do better with your career and manage your money better, then ask to borrow a few bucks. It's more about the hypocrisy.

[sabotai]

I definitely think we should move towards a European like society. Step 1: Let's show some boobies on TV!

(Disclaimer: No other steps should even be attempted until Step 1 is completed)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I definitely think we should move towards a European like society. Step 1: Let's show some boobies on TV!

(Disclaimer: No other steps should even be attempted until Step 1 is completed)

Agreed.

And more topless beaches.

[RainMaker]

Didn't USA used to show boobies late at night many years ago?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I definitely think we should move towards a European like society. Step 1: Let's show some boobies on TV!

(Disclaimer: No other steps should even be attempted until Step 1 is completed)

I'd vote for that!

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Agreed.

And more topless beaches.

See...we're making progress. I will vote "Topless Party" with you guys.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Didn't USA used to show boobies late at night many years ago?

Yep. On those sweet movies hosted by Gilbert Godfried.

Man...I still remember the one "Private School." I practically wore out that VHS tape.

[Neon_Chaos]

I wonder if the rent is too damn high in Europe as well?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Americans want Euro spending and Tea Party taxation delivered by a more rabidly conservative, moderate Democratic government.

Maybe that's why we're fucked. From Andrew Sullivan:

Shocker- the GOP has done a much better job of selling their message, as is always the case. On top of that, we want more services for less taxes. Again, shocked, positively shocked.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yep. On those sweet movies hosted by Gilbert Godfried.

That's "Up all Night", you twits. Not "that show on USA"

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I wonder if the rent is too damn high in Europe as well?

It's quite expensive in Western Europe. Has a lot to do with less land and more people.

(They get taxed more but don't have to save for health care or college)

SI