Jump to content
Jambands.ca

US Election


Jay Funk Dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

mitt-obama-2012.jpg

Who's following this? Hard to say how things are going to play out. It really looks like Obama has the lead, but I am also seeing polls and talk that Romeny is poised to take the presidency.

New York is most certainly going Democrat, but the Republicans have a ton of advantages, deeper seated base, more money and history of vote manipulation as seen in G W Bush win.

Either way it's going to be a tight, intense election. I'm on the edge of my seat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big part of this election will be Republican and Tea Party anger over the health care reform. The right is VERY angry about this and the wealthy are not afraid to be very vocal and put their support / money where their mouth is. I spent a lot of time last year in a very right-wing area and the anger and vitriol directed at Obama is pretty shocking - given that these elections come down to money I won't be surprised if it's a much closer result than we think. Helps Obama that the GOP picked a moron for their candidate, but still...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>the wealthy are not afraid to be very vocal and put their support / money where their mouth is

not all the wealthy - the power hungry selfish wealthy - like the kochs, and the adelsons. folks like buffet and gates actually care about others and realize that they have enough for many lifetimes. it is the others though - from the ayn rand school of selfish objectivism. those who believe that altruism is evil. and that includes the VP candidate paul ryan. these people believe in social darwinsim. that they are better than everybody else.

this will be a very close one. and obama (actually the citizens of the united states) will be very lucky to win. the majority of the country are red states. there are a few swing states, and it will depend upon who gets their people to come out and vote. and that is why mittens chose paul - to excite the base and get them out on voting day. Obama's team is going to have to work damn hard to get their supporters out there on election day. they will not be coming out in the #s that they did last time around. he has screwed things up too badly by giving in too much to the repugs. the man is not the great left hope. he is a right of centre politician (fuck - he is pobably to the right of nixon). but still much better than mittens and the repugs, who if elected will send that country down a scary path of ever-increasing inequalities and such. and never mind another scalia type on the supreme court, which has already lost all sense of objectivity and non-partisanship.

the U.S. is a country of uneducated ignorant morons, in general. that's the only way to explain the fact that romney even has a chance. how else can you explain people being against being given health insurance. it is just absurd that poor uninsured folks think that this is a bad thing.

I lived in nebraska for a few years. and that is the real america. and it is a scary place. AD is correct in his assessment. and the scary thing is that he is describing most of the country.

this election will be about sound bites and lies. and that's where the repugs have the advantage.

this is going to be a very close one. and i'm not at all convinced that Obama will win it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great cite, very cool people, political thought from people at cite (???)

I knew I should'nt hve read this thread.

I disliked GWB (son) a whole lot, Obama is even worse.

#1 problem: You can tax the 1% all you want it is not going to do a single thing to help with our debt. The 1% thing is a polical strategy used to get votes that has only deeply divided our country.

Shame on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hooked on this stuff! Might even volunteer for Obama for this one - as I know it's going to be a intense race. Word is that GOP has close to $300 million dollars more to spend on this campaign and Obama has been spending like mad already to frame the election that Mitt is for the Rich. Mitt is trying to frame it that Obama can't run on his record. with only 3 months to go - it's going to be a hard fought battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

social security is in fine shape. debt is not inherently bad. and there are times when it is a very good thing. like when you are in a recession. the time to cut back on spending is when you are in a period of growth. the countries in europe that are continuing to do badly are the ones like ireland that made big spending cuts. and don't be fooled to think that there was a proper stimulus in the U.S. it was mostly offset by cuts at the state and municipal levels. it's not that stimulus didn't work - the problems is that there wasn't any significant stimulus spending.

that all being said, both parties are to the right of centre. both work for wall street. but there is still a significant difference between the two. there is no doubt of that. Obama has been a huge disappointment, but if you think dubya was bad, the tea party GOP will make you look back fondly on those days.

unless you are a libertarian ayn rand follower. but these guys are not true libertarians either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the sentiment is that Obama didn't do enough... was it his fault or was it the situation he inherited? Was more progress possible if he didn't lose the house 1/2 through his term? Maybe health care ended up taking up too much of his time? Any thoughts to why they are so disappointed in Obama?

There definitely is a sentiment that Obama is the lesser of two evils, I'd say he's actually done a lot in terms of reshaping how the world sees the USA. Not since Ronald Regan has their been a president that's not only a politician but a celebrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

losing the house had a lot to do with it. but in many negotiations he starts at the midway point, rather than taking a strong stance starting from what he wants. he has been too conciliatory a times.

health care is a good example. he tried to appease the right when he didn't have to. it's not like he was ever going to get their buy in and he didn't need it anyway. not going for the single payer option was a mistake. it would have saved a lot of $s and would have been more efficient. and it would have prevented all the problems associated with the the individual mandate and it almost being almost deemed unconstitutional. but he wanted to leave things to the free market and all that. that was just plain dumb. (as a health economist i was playing very close to attention to that one.)

and i think part of the issue is that people (myself included) thought the he was more to the left than he has been. and i'm not talking socialist left. i'm talking centre left. The U.S. centre is closer to the European right. the U.S. right isn't even on the spectrum in europe.

there have been more federal drug busts re medical marijuana under his watch than there were under dubya. what's up with that?

clinton was also quite respected globally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BWM

You are a good read. Not that I agree with you. I have heard the deficit spending thing before but I am not buying it. I could not disagree with you more about SS. I am not sure where our government is going to 'find' the money to pay it back.

I give Obama an A for effort in getting the 'Affordable Health Care'law passed but like most things the government does a D for the result.

Left or Right the less the government gets involved in the better. By their nature the left believes in more government.

No Thanks

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Left or Right the less the government gets involved in the better.

that's a question of ideology, no right or wrong.

BUT, I will say that many of the arguments for a laissez faire system are based on a drastic misunderstanding of economic theory, and the mis-use of Adam Smith's work who never wrote that the invisible hand would always work. We now know very well that the assumptions of standard neoclassical economic model are rarely of ever met (this is a fact, not an ideology). this is why we need intervention and regulations. The market for health care is one such an example, where interventions are required to reach efficient solutions. And the free market itself cannot take into properly take into account externalities (i.e. pollution and environmental degradation) and thus we need regulations. (on the latter point, we can actually use property rights arguments - the idea that externalities infringe on our property.)

gov't intervention (via income redistribution, for example) can also be used to reduce inequalities. reducing inequalities ends up making everybody as a whole better off. you can find much written on the subject, including empirical research.

and some of this is a question of social justice. if you don't believe that is imprtant that is fine. if you think thos with $s are innately better than those without, that's fine. that's what ryan believes. and somehow they have convinced millions of those without, of that as well. and that they will somehow one day miraculously move up the economic ladder without the gov't aid and handouts that those who are currently at the top so much depended upon.

>>By their nature the left believes in more government

this is true, based on ideology, and founded, often, on theories of social justice.

>>I have heard the deficit spending thing before but I am not buying.

there's nothing to buy there. the argument is based on empirical facts. facts that are, arguably, better founded than the theory of evolution. but many don't buy that one either.

and once again, the SS thing - these are facts.

it is solvent for the time being. could use some tweaking for sure, but privatization will just harm it greatly. read more about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure 'bouche' is getting soft in letting this thread go.

BMW I respect your thoughts a lot but I am find myself a bit 'put off' by them.

*gov't intervention (via income redistribution, for example) can also be used to reduce inequalities. reducing inequalities ends up making everybody as a whole better off. you can find much written on the subject, including empirical research.

For every dollar the federal government gets in taxes it is only able to give 25 cents (on that $) to whatever. Do the math. This being only one of the major problems with 'income redistribution'. People need support but government assistance is not the answer.

We are spend thrifts in the USA. Please hold off on the 'social justice' thing until we get that part of our house in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude - it's just a friendly discussion.

your house needs some fixing up, but it is more/less in order. the budget of a country is not like a household budget. someone's debt is somebody else's asset. most U.S. debt is domestically owed.

>>For every dollar the federal government gets in taxes it is only able to give 25 cents

i'm really not sure what that number means...

either way, i'm getting out of this one. let's agree to disagree....

back to the original question - i still say this is gonna be a close one. and it's gonna get very ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...