10
   

How many can we toss out in 2012?

 
 
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:28 pm
Our government is broken, and it's time for us to get some new reps in Washington DC who are willing to negotiate and not play chicken with our future.

How many can we toss out, and how many can we recall? We need a clean sweep, or the same dysfunctional government will destroy this country with their politics.

We must save ourselves, because our government doesn't care.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 2,416 • Replies: 29

 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 12:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
Your right, the government is broken. And its the fault of the unthinking electroate who dont pay attention to the **** their representatives are pulling in Washington. Everyone thinks their rep is great and its the other guys reps who are crooked. No one pays attention to the fact that the rich and business control our government with their money. They have bought most of our reps plus the fact most of our reps are at least millionares who wont vote to hurt themselves.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 04:55 am
@cicerone imposter,
You are completely wrong. In fact this is the exact attitude that broke government in the first place. The current impasse is being caused by the new freshmen members of congress. They were elected by a reactionary electorate who wanted to "throw the bums out".

We need people in Congress with maturity and experience. There are many people in Congress who are acting responsibly and sincerely looking to solve problems with compromise. How would a knee-jerk overreaction by an angry electorate make things any better.

Congress reflects the electorate. The reason Congress is so reactionary and immature is because the electorate is reactionary and immature.

Cicerone, it seems to me that your suggestion is just more of the same.

sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 06:43 am
@maxdancona,
YES.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 07:07 am
@maxdancona,
Except...

It's the way the two-party system is currently structured, imo, that is at the root of the problem. I agree that the primary process reflects the electorate of the party's bases, but it's the swing voter who is pushing the pendulum. They aren't well represented by either party and don't have enough umph within the primary system to see the moderate candidates prevail.

The blue dog dems got nailed in the last election by an independent swing vote that went over to a far right faction of the conservatives. That was a mistake, imo, because it wasn't the blue dog dems who needed to be replaced. They lost because those who cross-vote wanted to replace the dem majority in the house with a fiscal conservative majority and they ended up voting out the very people who were taking a sane approach. It's almost as if the indie voters said, ok moderate dems, we gave you a majority and it didn't work. Now we're going to swing the other way and give the reps a majority. Well, that's not working either.

As an indie voter, I've never been enamored with the two-party system. I think the centrists from both parties and the indies at large need a caucus of their own and perhaps a third party altogether.
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 07:32 am
@JPB,
I'd agree with this (and do on several points) except that we are no longer truly a two party system. With the House Majority Leader unable to lead his own gaggle of people thanks to the Tea Party being utterly unwilling to cede anything to a democratic President, we really are more of a three party now it seems.

As maxdancona said, this new batch of freshmen congressmen are more interested in trying to maintain the views of their new spin-off party than in actually taking part in government in any bipartisan way at all. It's unfortunate that we will all wind up paying for it.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 08:38 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The reason Congress is so reactionary and immature is because the electorate is reactionary and immature.


The over 65 years of age group will be extremely reactionary if Obama's proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security go through. Remember there are many over 65 years of age Seniors who were involved with marches and sit-ins during the 1960s. Nothing will frighten them and they won't stand for cuts in their entitlement programs. They'll fight to remove Obama from office, if he follows through on many of his proposals.

If Obama wants reactionary, the Seniors of the USA will give it to him...

H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 08:47 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

They'll fight to remove Obama from office, if he follows through on many of his proposals.

They are already fighting to remove this clown from office because of the proposals he
has followed through on thus far, the fight will only grow stronger as time goes on.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:37 am
@H2O MAN,
Recent Zogbie has found that most AMericans fit in the CENTER, DUHHHH. and that a more aggressive center is waking up to possibly recapture the GOP from the idiot tea baggers.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:42 am
@RABEL222,
What is also true is that last year, CEOs gained some 23% in their income while the middle class and poor lost buying power - because of increased fuel and food costs. And yet, the tea partiers want the rich to get more tax breaks.

They are idiots who are advocating for people, the wealthiest Americans, who say they are willing to pay more taxes.

There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:43 am
@maxdancona,
Do you mean "maturity" like Boehner? ROTF
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:46 am
@Questioner,
That's the basic problem as I view it today; they are not willing to negotiate, and have become the No Party. That's the reason Washington DC is broken.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:49 am
@JPB,
Let's not kid ourselves about 2010, either; it had a lot less to do with fiscal issues than it did social ones. The Republicans did a great job stirring up latent hate and anger at the liberal, black president, and it paid off at the polls.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Your post another thread deserves repeating here.

Quote:
Quote:

July 25, 2011 10:00 AM
Refusing to take ‘yes’ for an answer

On Friday afternoon, after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) abandoned debt-reduction talks with the White House, President Obama held a press conference and raised a compelling point:

“I think that one of the questions that the Republican Party is going to have to ask itself is, can they say yes to anything? Can they say yes to anything?”

The answer may very well be, “No, they can’t.”

I’m trying to remember all of the various offers Republicans have turned down over the last several months. They started from the sensible position that the debt ceiling must be raised, and then proceeded to turn down every viable alternative.

* Democrats asked Republicans to pass a clean bill, just as GOP leaders had supported many times in the past. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats invited Republicans to Biden-led bipartisan talks. Republicans quit.

* Democrats offered a $2.4 trillion debt-reduction package, 83% of which would come from spending cuts. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats sought a Grand Bargain, with more than $4 trillion in savings. Republicans said, “No.”

* Several Democrats offered some preliminary support for the “Gang of Six” blueprint. Republicans said, “No.”

* Many more Democrats signaled support for the McConnell/Reid “Plan B.” Republicans said, “No.”

Is it me, or is there a pattern to all of this?

Late yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced his support for a yet another approach that would meet all of the GOP demands: it would (1) include about $2.7 trillion in debt reduction; (2) bring in nothing in the way of new revenue; and (3) require only one debt-ceiling increase this Congress, just as GOP leaders requested.

By all indications, Republicans will reject Reid’s latest offer, too.

Which brings us back to the president’s question: “Can they say yes to anything?”
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 09:52 am
@Miller,
WHY DO YOU CALL SOCIAL SECURITY AN "ENTITLEMENT" IT IS NOT.
I have paid in , and as an company owner I also pay in for my employees. This goes into a TRUST FUND that has been robbed by both parties.
Ive done the math and have found that, if I retire at 65 (not 66), I will have paid into the system for about 43 yewrs(I was a research fellow at the ront end and got a "apycheck that was all deducted up even though I made like 12K a year)
ANyway, my math showed me at a 3% per annum interest, Id have enough paid in for a max benefit with a COLA of 2% and this would last me till I was 91.

If I got an annuity from a private insurance fund, that isnt called an entitlement.
Will the politicians even mention that they owe us a myriad of paybacks on IOU;s rom which theyve absconded with cash from the fund when it seemed like an endless reservoir. The use of "Entitlemet" makes it sound like Social Swcurity recipients are freeloading bums and they are NOT.

The word "Entitlement" comes fdrom the same GOP phrase generator as
"Death Panels"
"Enhanced RAdiation"
"Death TAx"
"Shock andAWWW"
"AMericas economic fundamentals are sound"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 10:02 am
@farmerman,
How times have changed. I retired in 1998, at age 63, and have collected more than what I have paid into both social security and Medicare. I kept financial records since our marriage in 1963, and both my wife and I paid $131,000, and collected through December of last year in social security benefits alone almost $341,000. I couldn't begin to figure out our Medicare benefits, but in 2008, I received radiation treatment for prostate cancer that would have cost about $45,000. We can safely say our social security and Medicare benefits now exceed $400,000 for our contribution of $131,000. Not a bad return for our money.

The point of this example is that social security and Medicare must be adjusted for it to survive in the future, because of the longer lifespans and higher cost of medical care. If nothing is done, future beneficiaries will not get any benefit, because it will simply go broke.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2011 06:32 am
@farmerman,
I hope so.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Gargamel
 
  11  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2011 08:53 am
@H2O MAN,
October 29, 2008
H2O MAN wrote:

My personal thoughts and observations:

Obama is so close to losing this election. The polls reflect this change.

Chances are real good that McCain can and will pull off a come from behind victory.

http://able2know.org/topic/124677-1#post-3454140

September 14, 2008
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama was once called "The Chosen One", but he is now "The Forgotten One".

It was a nice run while it lasted, better luck in 2012.

http://able2know.org/topic/122489-1#post-3402046

And my personal favorite...

September 10, 2008
H2O MAN wrote:

This is amazing...
Sarah Palin is suddenly the conservative female Messiah.
She has knocked Obama from his mountain and he is sliding down hill.

http://able2know.org/topic/122276-1#post-3396775



Etc., Etc. I could do this all day, but I have water softeners to repair.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How many can we toss out in 2012?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2020 at 02:30:24