DANGER! - Political Thread

[pawpaw]

If you're a small business owner and you have any sense, which admittedly is probably a pretty small percentage, you want higher (progressive) taxes and more government workers.  You want this, because these people will actually buy your shit.  If you're a small business selling t-shirt or ice cream cones, rich people only meed so many shirts and so many cones, once they get theirs, if mo one else has any money, you aren't selling anymore shirts or cones. You want this, because a truly progressive tax system won't hurt you of you're making a couple hundred grand.

How many socialist small business owners have any sense?

This idea might work in a government town like Sacramento, but not most other places. There wouldn't proportionately be enough government workers buying your goods or services to offset the higher taxes being paid, unless your business was across the street from an office where they were working.

Socialism is a nice idea, but it will never work in modern America, at least, not in the form I'm guessing you hope it will.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:

Is a socialist (67%)
Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
Is a Muslim (57%)
Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).

Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:

Resents America's heritage (47%)
Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
Is the "domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of" (45%)
Is a racist (42%)
Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).

Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that "he may be the Anti-Christ" and 22% believe "he wants the terrorists to win."

While few Democrats believe any of these things, the proportions of Independents who do so are close to the national averages.

One big surprise is that many more Republicans (40%) than Democrats (15%) believe the president does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100414124156/http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

[pawpaw]

I hope that wasn't aimed at me, Sticky!

I'm not a registerred Republican, not aligned with any party. I do agree with some big picture ideas of the traditional GOP platform, though I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I also agree with Chode about 3rd party candidates, and that it's never a good time to compromise your vote. The argument to back the lesser to avoid the greater of two evils will be the same every four years - Ryan might be running in 2016. The economy is not going to get that much better by that time and the right will still be campaigning on budget and tax cuts and the fiscal failures of Obama, still using the same fear tactics. 3rd party acceptance will never be gained if potential backers can't get out of the cycle of casting a half-hearted vote in defense every four years.

I've voted 3rd party in most of the presidential elections, and will probably do so this time as well. I won't be voting for Mittens though! 

[pawpaw]

http://www.motherjones.com/

I used to have a subscription. It was a gift from a hippie uncle of mine! 

Thanks for the other recommendations. 

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

so obama blew at those debates.  and mitt lied his balls off.  and jim lerher sucked cock.  such a shame.  how you guys voting this fall?

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

pussies, let's get relevant and up to date with this thread and start talking about daily shit more often.  people should start posting news stories up in this piece.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I don't doubt that 80k figure for CA employees, but again - WHO CARES.

I think my point is still being missed to some extent.  I am in CA right now, and my wife (our breadwinner ) makes a just bit under that 80k figure, and I can tell you that with the cost of living, it doesn't make for a lot of socking money away in the Caymans.  These people, and I don't care if they are literally sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, these 'wasteful' government employees are spending all that money.  They are spending it on food (which provides jobs for supermarket workers, truck drivers, sub-shop owners), on clothes (jobs for retail employees, not manufacturing of course, that has all been sent overseas to increase profit margins for corporations - see earlier post), and on entertainment (like seeing MMJ at the Wiltern - security, ticketing, etc.).  Government workers, regardless of how much they make or what they actually do, spend the money.  This helps the economy and necessitates hiring. 

I am all for tax breaks, people making under 100k shouldn't be paying any taxes at all.  But people making over 5 million should be paying 90% on everything over that amount.  And state taxes should be progressive, just like federal. For fuck sake, how much of a pig do you have to be?  How much shit do you need?

Look, I know all the arguments.  You can't disincentivise people, the rich will move, why should the government get the fruit of their hard work, blah, blah, blah.  All bullshit.  We  should incentivize people, we do, you make more money, you have more money, regardless of your tax rate, period. What, someone is gonna just stop making money over a certain point because they have to pay more taxes on the higher amount?  Bullshit.  They still get more money.  This old canard about people lowering their income, or reducing their productivity, because of taxes is absurd - so you get to keep 10% over 5mil., so you make 10 and you get an extra 500k, what, you don't want it? They're gonna move?  Where, Mexico? Stop them.  Don't let people avoid the taxes, it's not that difficult, it can be done, we just don't have the political will.  So, you're stinking rich and want to live in the great state of California?  Pay up.  Because it is great, but it ain't cheap.  Want to shift your residence to Montana? Nope, not gonna let you, not if you're gonna own property here, not of you're gonna generate income here, we're gonna get it.  Because we're gonna hire more government workers to sit with their thumbs up their asses, because they are going to spend the money, not sock it away in the bank because they already have 4 houses and 7 cars.

If you're a small business owner and you have any sense, which admittedly is probably a pretty small percentage, you want higher (progressive) taxes and more government workers.  You want this, because these people will actually buy your shit.  If you're a small business selling t-shirts or ice cream cones, rich people only need so many shirts and so many cones, once they get theirs, if no one else has any money, you aren't selling anymore shirts or cones. You want this, because a truly progressive tax system won't hurt you of you're making a couple hundred grand.

What is so complicated about this?  Do I live in a country filled with delusional people?  Oh, actually I do, I see them lining up in front of churches every Sunday...

Just thought I'd throw a little religion into the political talk, politics isn't controversial enough.

I like this argument a lot. I tend to explain it in a different manner which is simply if I could earn a dollar but had to give twenty five cents away how many of those dollars would one work for. Obviously that questions answer is different for everyone but at some point in time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and I guess one decides to not work for the additional money. But therein lies the rub with the conservative thinking. If that person does leave parts of their market place unserved or under-served there will be this big hole that will remain unfilled.  You know there will be another person hungry for earnings that will be ready to take their place.

And in a country where incomes are becoming more and more disproportionate maybe letting the smaller, hungrier guy have a greater opportunity would be a better idea.

[exist10z]

Alright Sticky, I'll jump back in, though since each post takes me forever to write, I wasn't sorry to see this thread cool off a bit.  I had extra time for things like eating, sleeping, and setting churches on fire.

So I read a piece on slate.com (where el-chode said he goes to read Dear Prudence, which made me laugh, since that's my favorite part of the site) claiming the Republicans were the party of racism.  It referenced the 'southern strategy' (if you're not familiar, google it) of course, and basically made the case that at its core, the GOP is only really viable because they have locked up the racist vote in the South, assuring a minimum of 100 electoral votes.  If those were even remotely in play, there really wouldn't be a political race at all.  Naturally the piece mentioned word and stereotype usage by both Republican politicians and pundits - racial 'dog whistles'. I figured all of this was already fairly evident - that the racist vote went Republican appears obvious on it's face, and it probably is among those who pay attention to politics, but the fact that it isn't openly acknowledged is interesting for a number of reasons.

I read another article (can't remember where or the source), talking about the unwillingness of the 'media' to tell the truth.  Of course this is a matter of perspective, as a conservative will tell you that the 'main stream media' lies/obfuscates for Democrats, while anyone who isn't a hard line GOP partisan will quickly realize that Fox/Rush/Beck et al. are spinning a view of events that bears no resemblance to reality.  But that was sort of the point of the article, that there is so much equivocation, that almost no media outlet is willing to simply say - 'that's a bullshit lie'.  All opinions have to be given credence, in the name of fairness - truth be damned.

So quickly, on the presidential debate.  To think that Obama was trying to hue as closely to literal truth as possible (when he could be bothered to pay attention or make an effort), is self-deluding.  Of course he wanted to paint a picture favorable to his positions.  While Romney, wanting also to do the same - paint a picture of himself that would be most electable, had to stray further from the truth.  Ok, he had to outright lie.  Why?  Because what he actually wants, what he actually believes, is less like what the people he needs to vote for him want or need.  Unless filtered through the right wing deception machine (where everything is socialism, Muslim, the other, unAmerican, baby-killing, anti-religious), what Obama wants for America is generally what the majority of Americans want, even those that don't know it.  The majority of Americans aren't ultra-wealthy, Mormon (or of any strange or fundamentalist religion), big business backing, environment destroying, oligarchs.  Romney's core beliefs and policies (and those of Ryan for that matter), if explained in a vacuum to the majority of Americans - including a large percentage who will vote for him, are not particularly palatable.  But they aren't explained in a vacuum, they are explained by a right wing propaganda machine, or by friends and pastors at churches, or through 'viral' videos emailed from true believers and created by party operatives. This is money at work, grassroots as astro-turf, top down reality.

Mitt Romney can talk about wanting to create jobs, but everything he has ever done in his life, his creed, is to create wealth not jobs.  For a business-man, a true capitalist, it's about profits and wealth creation, it's their religion, there is no higher good.  This is done by reducing cost wherever possible, period - just crack an economics text, it's all right there (unless maybe it was written by Keynes or Mill, but even then it is acknowledged).  To reduce costs, to increase profits, you don't create jobs, you create efficiency, which more often than not indicates eliminating jobs.  When Romney talks about caring about jobs or creating jobs, he is either lying or abandoning everything he has ever believed.  But no one in the main stream press would dare point this out, because that would be challenging the veracity of his claims, and they don't like to do that, it appears partisan.  Telling the truth is partisan, if one side is lying.

So anyway, back to the racism.  I just read another article (on Huffpo, another favorite of el-chode), as reported here in LA on KTVU, about a guy in Santa Clara who had an anti-Obama display in front of his house.  It included a suggestion to go back to Kenya, a chair with watermelons and a noose on it, and a Romney sign behind hanging on a fence.  What to think of this?  Could the story be a fake?  This is what I suspect will be posited, if it is even mentioned at all by Republicans, but they spoke to the homeowner and he said 'I think it speaks for itself'.  It appears to be a real and sincere display (assuming we don't find out it's Democrat, attempting political sabotage), so what does this say about an institutional Republican racism?  Not everything, but something.  Are all Republicans racist?  Clearly not.  Are a high percentage of Republicans racist?  I would say no, not obviously anyway, but it depends on how far you extend your definition of racism.  Is thinking that whites have earned their place through great business achievement and hard work ('you didn't build this') racist?  If you consider the role of African slaves, Asian laborers, and the theft of the land from Native-Americans, then maybe just that seemingly innocuous position is racist.  I would say so, but that's my position now, it wasn't always.  Failing to acknowledge the contribution of other races and taking all the credit (and lucre) is racist to me, but that is admittedly extending the definition.

Alright, so I have probably brought up enough issues for one post, but I want to try to summarize.  Is the main-stream media, so despised by conservatives, really giving us a full and honest accounting of the world around us?  Republicans would, and do, say 'no!' And I would agree.  But I think they are giving the Republicans much too much credit, not too little.  I think this equivocation, this acceptance of nonsense and non-reality, is the real problem.  Just so I can add a bit more controversy to this post, I want to point out that every time there is a natural disaster or tragedy, I have to see - unchallenged by a rationality I would like from my 'news', people thanking 'god' or relating how they 'prayed' and were saved.  They never, not once, not a single time in my recollection, cut back to the newscast and have the anchor note, 'well, isn't that an absurd reaction, why would this so-called god have saved you and not your neighbors?'.  But we don't do that, because one person's view of reality, whether supported by evidence or not, is just as valid as another persons, no matter how much evidence they have (equivocation).  In relation to our political discourse, and how we receive and assess all information, this is a harmful tendency.  Are some things up for debate, are there legitimate differences of opinion?  Absolutely.  But there are also truths and non-truths, and conflating them does none of us any good.

[pawpaw]

how you guys voting this fall?

Not sure yet, but I've read a little bit about T.J. O'Hara and he sounds pretty solid. I just wish I could find out more about him.

http://ivn.us/2012/09/24/an-interview-with-tj-ohara-the-modern-whig-party-candidate/

[bartel]

voting for obama for sure..

[e_wind]

Well, since Kentucky is not in play whatsoever again this election year (The Republicans have it won no matter what), I don't really know what to do with my vote. I usually vote for the Democrat or some other third party candidate (I don't make enough money to be a REAL Republican and would NEVER vote for those $@!#$ anyway). In all my years of voting for the President, I had never voted for the winner...until 2008 when I did vote for Barack Obama. I just felt it was a little special and wanted to be a part of history in the making. With that said, I probably would have really voted for Cynthia McKinney, but she didn't make the ballot in Kentucky.

Back to next month...I just don't know...Obama or a write in...maybe John Calipari! Yeah! That's The Ticket!

felt like I was writing this myself until the Calipari statement 

But yeah, being in KY makes this a hard vote. Hard to care and hard to decide. I'll probably vote for Obama, but since it doesn't matter regardless, I may go 3rd party.

[exist10z]

Funny, reading these last two posts (e-wind and mr.white), I was thinking about how I argued against voting third party.  Of course my caveat was, 'if you live in a state where it matters', which neither of you do.  Same goes for me, voting in either CA or MD.  I would stick with my position, and argue it until the end, if you live in OH, FL, PA, etc.

But it did get me thinking about the popular vote.  You often hear lamentation about the prospect of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote, and it admittedly bothers me as well - on the surface.  However, if you think about all the Dems who vote in GOP states, and Repubs who vote in Democratic states, and the prospect (likelihood?) that they vote third party if they aren't entirely enthusiastic about one of the major party candidates, or simply want to make a statement about the dominance of the two party system, I am not sure we ever have a true representation of what the popular vote might be otherwise.

This is probably obvious, but I hadn't ever really thought about it in that way before.  Clearly it's irrelevant, as we have an electoral system, the 'fairness' of which could be argued as well, but it is interesting.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

Well, since Kentucky is not in play whatsoever again this election year (The Republicans have it won no matter what), I don't really know what to do with my vote. I usually vote for the Democrat or some other third party candidate (I don't make enough money to be a REAL Republican and would NEVER vote for those $@!#$ anyway). In all my years of voting for the President, I had never voted for the winner...until 2008 when I did vote for Barack Obama. I just felt it was a little special and wanted to be a part of history in the making. With that said, I probably would have really voted for Cynthia McKinney, but she didn't make the ballot in Kentucky.

Back to next month...I just don't know...Obama or a write in...maybe John Calipari! Yeah! That's The Ticket!

felt like I was writing this myself until the Calipari statement 

But yeah, being in KY makes this a hard vote. Hard to care and hard to decide. I'll probably vote for Obama, but since it doesn't matter regardless, I may go 3rd party.

I think it matters this year how you vote for sure.  especially in a state like KY.  if there wasn't a douchebag prosecutor up for re-election here that's a democrat I'd probably just vote straight democrat and be done with it.  Obama has been winning and a third party candidate will not win the presidency so ultimately any vote that isn't for Obama helps Romney.

now the rest of the shit is a completely different story.  judges, sheriffs, ballot initiatives, etc. those are all things that we effect in a huge way by voting.  mostly because there is such a small number of the US public that votes.  when only 50-60percent (being generous) of the electorate votes in you're not going to get any type of consensus or feel what the entire country wants. 

and to your last comment exist, i'm sort of in the boat of getting rid of the electoral college all together.  first we'd need to make voting mandatory and then we could dissolve it.  after that it would be a lot much easier to get the money out of politics.  to end corporate personhood,  the power of lobbyists and special interests, etc.  it's too radical for most of the country and the argument people against it would make is that states like NY would become too powerful.  I'm not convinced that would happen if voting is mandatory and twice as many people are voting or are involved in the process.  if people don't support any of the candidates they should still have to cast a blank vote or something along those lines, imo.

and to your earlier point, the hatred towards Obama is 90percent drive by racism.  there's just no way around it.  "Obama's not christian enough, I'm voting for a mormon".  "Obama apologizes for the US, we never have to apologize".  "Obama wants to weaken our military!", etc etc.  these are all perception/emotional votes based on, well, personal bias.  it's not just the south either.  the biggest pivot I've noticed lately from romney supports is the military aspect of shit even tho Obama killed Bin Laden and like the top 30terrorists who were alive during his first few years. 

Romney doesn't have an argument or a real plan, at least not one that he's presented to we the people.  his numbers are bunk.  his original tax plan was proven to be bunk by economists.  really all it does it give the upper bracket a huge tax break and raise taxes on the rest of us.  the conservatives even had senors convinced Romney would be kinder to them when it comes to medicare and health insurance.  under romney's plan insurance companies are still allowed to deny you for pre-existing conditions, even tho he said in the debates that they weren't.  if you have insurance thru your job for example and you lose your job, you lose your insurance and can be denied.  that doesn't happen with obamacare.  romney brought up the "death panel" palin bullshit, when really it's just a board put in place to make sure premiums do not spike, they have no control over the quality of care.  or romney's lie that 23percent of the country is unemployed.  he included part time workers and senor citizens in that number.  it's lie after fucking lie.   

tomorrow night will be interesting.  hopefully biden lays the smack down on paul ryan, I fucking can't stand that little lying piece of shit.  I've got low expectations tho, Paul Ryan is sure to bs his way thru the entire thing, I just hope ol' Joe calls him on shit.

anybody who votes Romney or Republican, unless you're rich, you are voting against your own personal interest.  that's just how it is this year.  if you don't believe me  and think I'm being a liberal hack just look what Bush/Cheney did with the surplus they were given.  10trillion+ in debt by the end of their 8years and they started with a fairly juicy SURPLUS, people bitch at obama for the 5 or 6trillion he had to drop to invest, bail out, and essentially fix a runaway train that was flying off the tracks taking the entire world with it.  now they want to put fuckers in power who are worse than the bush/cheney style repubs.  the 2010 congress is the most bullshit group of people I've ever seen in my life run this country.  it's sad and embarassing, to think any normal, working day person would want to give those douchebags the keys back is beyond me.  I'll never be able to vote republican again after bush->2010->this years voter suppression tactics.  they are a party of bigotry and racism, that is without a doubt true. 

[exist10z]

You need to stop being so sensible Sticky, and start watching some Fox news...

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

for sure dude, I can see where you're comin' from.  low information voters suck.  racism sucks.  your state is beautiful but you've made me disheartened about the people.   is there a solution to make the state less polarized other than waiting out the old people?

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

KY is a big coal/natural gas state right?  that would make sense as to why it's red as fuck.  then add racists.  michigan is purple we change our minds often. 

[exist10z]

Instead of Red and Blue, maybe we should just go back to Gray and Blue, because that's pretty much how it is anyway.  Only thing is, the North won the far/North West and the South won the Central/North middle.  There could never be another civil war right...

Because that was like a hundred and fifty years ago, which in relation to human history is like forever, and because in this day and age people don't still kill people over these sorts of things do they?  There aren't civil wars in other countries or anything. I jest. I hope.

Seriously though, if you read response posts other places, there's some wild/fanatical/delusional people out there, and they have guns.  Of course we've all mentioned it, but the propoganda machine stirring them up just doesn't care.  Too many examples to mention.  Interestingly, O'Reilly just a couple days ago said something to the effect (pot, meet kettle) that there are those on the right who stir things up and are inflammatory just for the money and ratings.  Clearly we know this is true, but it was interesting coming from him.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

it really is strange how the working folk were brainwashed into thinking unions are bad.  fucking nuts really.  union workers only make up like 7 to 14percent of the workforce, they are no threat to anybody.  unions are fucking bad ass.  I'm a union man myself.  it's the balls.  hopefully, this shift that's happening ripples across the entire country.  there are dense areas of douchebags, sure.  but overall the people in this country are very similar to each other no matter where you're from.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

that was me trying to be an optimist.  can't wait for the debates tomorrow.  paul ryan is going to get dissed on so hard regardless.  best. day. everz.

[exist10z]

You never know with Biden, he's a wild card, he's likely to say anything.

As for unions, they have been undermined since they began.  I assume you've read A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn, and the documentary The Corporation is also great.

Bottom line, Capitalism, the corporate structure, is based on deriving the most profits possible, at any cost - which indicates less cost.  No company or CEO ever wanted unions, no stockholders ever wanted unions, no wealthy people ever wanted unions.  The whole system is set up to funnel money upwards.  The rise of unions only briefly slowed that down, but then they were able to use the Red Scare - and FEAR, of the Soviets, to demonize anything that could be tied to 'socialism' even tangentially.  Essentially anything that didn't benefit the bottom line was a socialist plot.

It's been a brilliantly devious concoction of fear and propaganda, psychology and theology (the socialist are atheists remember), with a dash of racism and xenophobia.