The General American Politics Thread

[Tornado]

If they win the election and gain seats in the House and Senate, well, we no longer need to worry about that polarizing piece of legislation prospect. If they win the presidential election but lose seats in the house, they could easily summarize that it was because of this platform and never touch it again.

And yes. There is so much precedent for this. The shit that could be rattled off by either me or turbojet (him probably more than me) where the same thing happened with other lightning rod issues would take pages to go through.

I would have far more faith in this apparent new Democratic Party position if it was not happening immediately before Presidential election season starts proper.

I've always wondered why people honestly give a shit about other people's sexual preference/orientation. WHY do people care? What difference does it make in their lives if homosexuals are granted the right of marriage? Homosexual marriage should not be a hot topic issue, especially not in this country.

Because religious institutions like to give non-religious words (no one says "this coffee table is the perfect marriage of antique and modern" and means that they are wed) religious overtones to justify having an opinion about them, and they have been so engrained in this country (in particular, but it isn't the only one) as being religious concepts in practice (since most people get married in a church) that even people who do think that homosexuals should be able to marry still believe that organized religion has a case for not wanting it to exist (which, again, they don't; because the concept of marriage is one that has been co-opted by religion rather than started by religion).

Edited July 31, 2012 by Gilda

[turbojet]

I'll try to be a bit more optimistic because it is a good thing that this is happening even if it is under dubious circumstances. Statistically speaking, the President will at least try ​to fulfill most of his party platform.

[Patticus]

Mitt Romney, yet again proving that his loyalties lie solely with the super-rich:

Following on from the, erm, resounding success of his foreign tour, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has revealed his plans for the US tax code — and surprise surprise the top 5% of Americans would see their taxes slashed by some $135k (£87k).

An independent study into the plans damningly concluded that:

Which, in practice, means whilst millionaires enjoyed their tax cuts, the average tax bills of the remaining 95% of Americans would go up by $500 per year. Not exactly good news for a man who is already gaining a reputation for outsourcing jobs abroad.

Mittens will be disappointed if he expected a warm welcome back to US soil.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/mitt-romney-tax-cuts-millionaires-increases-poor/

Why anybody who isn't a member of the wealthy 'elite' of this country would vote for this person is beyond me. He very, very clearly doesn't have the best interests of the people at large, or the nation, at heart.

[Tornado]

The problem with Romney's plan is that it is so stupidly inconsistent (shocker, I know. Romney has so far stuck to his guns and everything!) rather than how it almost imperceptibly shifts the tax burden.

For example, he chops out the estate tax (which, cool beans. It's a stupid tax anyway), but then (because that money still has to come from somewhere) he turns around and gets rid of mortgage interest and local tax income adjustments. It makes it seem like he has no rhyme or reason for setting it up the way he has, and that's probably not too far from the truth.

[Nepenthe]

I'm incompetent in economics. Aside from general disinterest in the subject, it sometimes angers me the way it works which increases that disinterest. I also realize taxation is a fairly complex subject depending upon the type of taxes and economic climate you're talking about, but I'm still trying to figure out the whole Reagonomics approach to economic theory in which slashing taxes for the rich automatically increases middle and lower class well-being makes sense without affecting the actual spending to compensate for the decreased revenue.

We spend a lot on Medicare/Medicaid and defense, and no one who cares for their political career is going to tackle those sectors anytime soon, so how does decreasing taxes for the rich mean the middle and lower classes aren't going to be picking up the slack at the risk of increasing our debt at an even faster rate? Let's not ignore the fact that the wealthy have habitually proven to write expenditures off or exploit loopholes to pay well below their actual taxation rate anyway (Trust me, Romney is not paying 30% or above on his income above that particular threshold. He just isn't; don't need a tax return to know this), or the fact that middle and lower class income has remained relatively flat since Reagonomic policies have taken effect, or the fact that the wealthiest people are hoarding an estimated $21 trillion off shores. So can someone here more knowledgeable than me explain how the very idea itself is supposed to work, much less be beneficial to me?

Because aside from their draconian social positions, even voting for any current GOP candidate on an economic front does not sit well in my soul. I couldn't do it in good faith.

[Tornado]

We spend a lot on Medicare/Medicaid and defense, and no one who cares for their political career is going to tackle those sectors anytime soon, so how does decreasing taxes for the rich mean the middle and lower classes aren't going to be picking up the slack at the risk of increasing our debt at an even faster rate?

Because most of the time when trickle down concepts are proposed (I say most because Romney is at least smart enough to know that he can't just slash taxes and leave it at that with things being the way that they are right now), the candidate trying them doesn't bother trying to make them revenue neutral. They just cut taxes.

Reagan himself didn't even bother, since the economic base was good enough at the time that the massive debt accumulation of his administration (both from cutting taxes and from the massive defense buildup that occurred concurrently with it) wasn't really a problem in and of itself (well... it was in the sense that massive debt accumulation is always bad and it arguably established a dangerous precedent, but no one really cared at the time because it was benign then).

Edited August 1, 2012 by Gilda

[Nepenthe]

Exactly; that's my issue. Real world application has shown that the effects of the cuts usually aren't neutralized, meaning the difference is going to have to be passed on to someone else and the debt will then increase as a natural consequence. I don't see how in the world this is helpful to most people in any capacity, which further makes the current GOP's lockstep denial of raising taxes on the basis of it hurts the "job creators" all the more frustrating to me.

[Tornado]

Just saw my first attack ad today. Obama basically just said that Romney was this guy:

And as such was unfit to lead the country. Seemed kind of lazy, but I suppose we'll see better in the coming months.

IT'S OFFICIALLY ELECTION SEASON, YO!

Edited August 8, 2012 by Gilda

[turbojet]

Oh, shit.

This is better than the Super Bowl.

[Mono]

Just saw my first attack ad today. Obama basically just said that Romney was this guy:

And as such was unfit to lead the country. Seemed kind of lazy, but I suppose we'll see better in the coming months.

IT'S OFFICIALLY ELECTION SEASON, YO!

Well he is RICH, comes from the EAST COAST, and has a HORSE IN THE OLYMPICS. What an ELITIST!

Oh wait I thought that attack was for the other guy.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Mono

[Patticus]

Why exactly won't Mitt release all of his tax returns for the last ten years, like all presidential candidates for the past few decades have? Why is he so cagey about something that didn't concern other candidates?

Is Harry Reid's assertion that he in fact hasn't paid taxes at all (which John McCain, who has allegedly seen them, didn't deny after being asked by Anderson Cooper) true??

[Tornado]

Harry Reid would lie about the Holocaust if it would further his political career. The man is one of the slimiest, greasiest pieces of shit in American politics today and is almost laughably corrupt (Ever seen the movie Casino with Robert DeNiro? That bad guy Senator from that movie was basically a direct pastiche of the things Reid was thought to have done during the 70's and 80's). Remember when turbojet talked about how the Gay rights issue would easily be something Democrats would distance themselves from once they were elected or if they failed to be elected? Reid is one of the people that gave that statement the precedent turbojet alluded to.

I wouldn't believe a single word that he says, and while it isn't really anyone's business how much money Romney made (which is likely the specific reason he won't release it), the commercial I saw that Obama made claimed that he paid 14% or somesuch; and I am more apt to believe an attack ad by Obama than a sincere statement by Reid.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Gilda

[The Kid]

Just saw my first attack ad today. Obama basically just said that Romney was this guy:

And as such was unfit to lead the country. Seemed kind of lazy, but I suppose we'll see better in the coming months.

IT'S OFFICIALLY ELECTION SEASON, YO!

I don't think I've ever really seen a "great" attack ad by Obama. That's about as much as I expect honestly.

[turbojet]

Harry Reid would lie about the Holocaust if it would further his political career. The man is one of the slimiest, greasiest pieces of shit in American politics today and is almost laughably corrupt (Ever seen the movie Casino with Robert DeNiro? That bad guy Senator from that movie was basically a direct pastiche of the things Reid was thought to have done during the 70's and 80's). Remember when turbojet talked about how the Gay rights issue would easily be something Democrats would distance themselves from once they were elected or if they failed to be elected? Reid is one of the people that gave that statement the precedent turbojet alluded to.

I wouldn't believe a single word that he says, and while it isn't really anyone's business how much money Romney made (which is likely the specific reason he won't release it), the commercial I saw that Obama made claimed that he paid 14% or somesuch; and I am more apt to believe an attack ad by Obama than a sincere statement by Reid.

As a hardcore Liberal, all I can say is a-mother fucking-men. He makes Joe Lieberman look like a saint. Fuck Harry Reid. The guy is the textbook asshole who the Republicans point to and I wonder just what is his agenda. The rat fucking asshole is the one piece of shit that is stopping up the flow in the toilet that is Congress. He, unlike most Democrats, don't compromise nor try to seek it, but when the tables are turned, he kisses so much ass that it might as well have reservations to pucker up. Not only that, he is really fucking corrupt. While Obama is mostly squeaky clean and has one hell of strategist when it comes to amicable politics, Reid has probably been involved with multiple scandals directly or indirectly. While he criticizes Romney for not releasing his tax returns, Harry Reid won't release his either. Why? The asshole is probably lining up money from lobbyists.

Reid's alliance is not with any party, but with whom lines his pockets.

[Mono]

Harry Reid is normally to me as a boring centrist, pro-life DINO, but he's been quite effective lately.

[Patticus]

I wouldn't believe a single word that he says, and while it isn't really anyone's business how much money Romney made (which is likely the specific reason he won't release it), the commercial I saw that Obama made claimed that he paid 14% or somesuch; and I am more apt to believe an attack ad by Obama than a sincere statement by Reid.

His tax returns are the American people's business if they prove that he has been corrupt or otherwise played the system (paying far less than a man of his worth should be paying), because nobody wants a corrupt president leading them. Such information getting out would of course damage him greatly, which would explain why he is so reluctant to show it, but there's a reason presidential candidates release that information, and it's not just for shits and giggles.

The longer he hides those tax returns, the more it looks like he has something nasty to hide, the more suspicious he looks. If Obama had to release his long form birth certificate to please a bunch of moronic far-right retards like Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who is still kicking up a fuss for some reason), then Romney must surely have to release his tax returns to clear up the much more reasonable concerns and doubts about his finances?

[Tornado]

There are other reasons to want to avoid releasing your financial records besides hiding political corruption or that your money is tied up in a tax shelter. You're assuming that he has done something wrong because he hasn't released them and then because of that the American people deserve to see them immediately; all on the blind accusation of someone who is pretty much an outright criminal. For all we know, the reason he hasn't released them is because he made more money than god last decade and he needs to find a way to downplay that fact before telling everyone about it.

I'm not saying that it isn't suspect, but Romney is going to release them sooner or later (and if there is something bad in them he will release them sooner) and people like Harry Reid stating outright that it's because Romney is guilty of income tax evasion isn't any better than Obama not releasing his birth certificate and people using that to claim that he was Kenyan or whatever.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Gilda

[Patticus]

There are other reasons to want to avoid releasing your financial records besides hiding political corruption or that your money is tied up in a tax shelter. You're assuming that he has done something wrong because he hasn't released them and then because of that the American people deserve to see them immediately; all on the blind accusation of someone who is pretty much an outright criminal. For all we know, the reason he hasn't released them is because he made more money than god last decade and he needs to find a way to downplay that fact before telling everyone about it.

I'm assuming he may have done something wrong not based on Harry Reid's assertion (although that did prompt my post; but I had no idea that he was such an awful person), I'm assuming it because he's an extremely shifty person in general. I've come to just expect wrongdoing from people like him.

[Tornado]

That's fair enough.

[TheGerkuman]

Can we have an explanation for 'people like him' please, Pat. It's not that I do or don't agree with what you said, more that it helps to understand your perspective. Because there's a lot of people I could compare to Mitt, but for different reasons and even in different political parties or careers.

[Tornado]

I'm guessing the blatantly opportunist way he carries himself (in particular the "hold any opinion so long as it isn't damaging" bit that causes him to change his stance on issues every time he is asked about them, including mid-sentence that one time).

[Patticus]

There's the lack of principles which Gilda has just mentioned, and there's also the whole Bain Capital kerfuffle he has just gone through (which doesn't cast him in a very good light no matter what the truth of it is), there's his Vietnam draft evasion with four deferments via that French Mormon missionary stint, and there's the fact that he is an elitist businessman who quite clearly has no concern for anybody other than himself, his family, his rich friends or those influential right-wing talking heads who so often dictate his every opinion (tl;dr - many of the richest people of this country).

He comes off as being distinctly untrustworthy and really quite shady. He is not the sort of man anybody should want to govern this (or any other) country.

[-Robin-]

Romney spokesperson went on FOX yesterday to respond to Obama's attack ad. Her rebuttal? "To that point, you know, if people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care."

Conservatives - Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh in particular - are going absolutely nuts over this.

[Patticus]

Way to shoot yourself in the foot; endorsing a plan you want to repeal. Except she wasn't really endorsing it, she seemed too stupid frankly; she was just rambling on about absolutely nothing and happened upon a sequence of words that made it look like they were (or she was) endorsing "Romneycare." You'd think that, given his vast fortune, Mitt would at least hire competent campaign staff...

[PSI Wind]

I can't believe the choice came down to pseudo-socialist creep Mitt Romney. He's still better than Obama the Destroyer, but not by much.

Oh god. I'm not staying for this upcoming shitstorm.