The People

repman · Nov 8, 2010

WASHINGTON -- What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

The people have spoken!!! this is what makes our country great we give someone a chance but reign them in when they go to far one way or the other.

Its amazing that the politicians dont get it America is right about in the middle.
To go to far right or left is begging for trouble!

I hope that both sides have gotten the message and we get back on course.

Rich · Nov 8, 2010

repman said:
WASHINGTON -- What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

Obama's approval rating is at 46%. At the same time during Reagan's first term, his approval rating was at 42%. Yet, he was elected to a second term two years later. Carter's was at 49% and Bush 1 was at 59%, yet both were one term presidents. So how much does this really mean? Not much. It means that almost half the country thinks he is doing a fine job, and those on the fence can change their opinion in a very short time.

I find it very telling that those who gave the president the highest approval ratings were those with a college or post-graduate education, and those who gave him the lowest ratings were those with only a high school education or less. This tells me that the conservatives do a very good job of pushing their messages of fear and hate to the uneducated.

What went wrong, you ask? The american public has a short memory and no patience. It took eight years for Bush and the republicans to ruin our economy, yet people expect Obama to magically fix it in two. Ain't gonna happen. So they turn around and elect back into office the folks who destroyed it to begin with. Brilliant!

repman said:
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

Methinks you read too much into these tea leaves. Since you bring up Carville, I think one of his quotes from past years is quite relevant: "It's the economy, _ _ _ _ _ _." (as an aside, let me make clear I am not aiming the last part of that quote at you, repman. It was just a common refrain in Clinton's campaign against Bush 1, and I think it holds validity to the issues you raise. I don't want you to think I am personally attacking you by using that quote, because that is not my intention. That is why I decided to edit out the last word of the quote.). The point is that this election was nothing more than a show of dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and the inability of the current administration to "make it all better" in two years. In comparison, it took almost a decade to recover from the Great Depression, but people don't remember history.

repman said:
The people have spoken!!! this is what makes our country great we give someone a chance but reign them in when they go to far one way or the other.

Yes, and they will speak differently in another two or four years. Our country constantly swings back and forth because we are half conservative and half liberal. Again, I wouldn't read any big mandate into this election.

repman said:
Its amazing that the politicians dont get it America is right about in the middle.
To go to far right or left is begging for trouble!

The problem is that, while a good majority of folks are close to the middle, there are large portions that are extremely conservative and extremely liberal and they tend to be much more vocal and pushy than those who really are in the middle. But it is those who are in the middle who decide the elections. So, we vacillate back and forth depending on who presents a better story in the media and what the prevailing conditions are.

repman · Nov 8, 2010

[/QUOTE]

Rich said:
Obama's approval rating is at 46%. At the same time during Reagan's first term, his approval rating was at 42%. Yet, he was elected to a second term two years later. Carter's was at 49% and Bush 1 was at 59%, yet both were one term presidents. So how much does this really mean? Not much. It means that almost half the country thinks he is doing a fine job, and those on the fence can change their opinion in a very short time.

I find it very telling that those who gave the president the highest approval ratings were those with a college or post-graduate education, and those who gave him the lowest ratings were those with only a high school education or less. This tells me that the conservatives do a very good job of pushing their messages of fear and hate to the uneducated.

What went wrong, you ask? The american public has a short memory and no patience. It took eight years for Bush and the republicans to ruin our economy, yet people expect Obama to magically fix it in two. Ain't gonna happen. So they turn around and elect back into office the folks who destroyed it to begin with. Brilliant!

Methinks you read too much into these tea leaves. Since you bring up Carville, I think one of his quotes from past years is quite relevant: "It's the economy, _ _ _ _ _ _." (as an aside, let me make clear I am not aiming the last part of that quote at you, repman. It was just a common refrain in Clinton's campaign against Bush 1, and I think it holds validity to the issues you raise. I don't want you to think I am personally attacking you by using that quote, because that is not my intention. That is why I decided to edit out the last word of the quote.). The point is that this election was nothing more than a show of dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and the inability of the current administration to "make it all better" in two years. In comparison, it took almost a decade to recover from the Great Depression, but people don't remember history.

Yes, and they will speak differently in another two or four years. Our country constantly swings back and forth because we are half conservative and half liberal. Again, I wouldn't read any big mandate into this election.

The problem is that, while a good majority of folks are close to the middle, there are large portions that are extremely conservative and extremely liberal and they tend to be much more vocal and pushy than those who really are in the middle. But it is those who are in the middle who decide the elections. So, we vacillate back and forth depending on who presents a better story in the media and what the prevailing conditions are.

Rich, I think the reason he has the worst DISAPPROVAL ( not approval as you mentioned) rating of any president starting his second term is because instead of focusing his attention on The Economy _ _ _ _ _ _ he decided to pursue his social agenda ( healthcare, cap and trade, ect) had he directed his energy on the economy he might be in a far different position than he finds himself in now. When this happened to Clinton he moved to the middle and saved himself , I hope president Obama is smart enough to follow suit.
You mention his approval rating is highest with those with a college or higher education and lowest with those with up to HS and below.I am not sure where you are going with that but I guess it shows that a higher education does not infer common sense.
You say there is no mandate to these elections and you may be right ( I really couldnt say left there

lets see how it plays out, my guess is that independent voters as a whole are more to the middle /right and want him focused on the economy and not his social agenda.
It will be an interesting 2 years for our economy and country

Rich · Nov 8, 2010

repman said:
Rich, I think the reason he has the worst DISAPPROVAL ( not approval as you mentioned) rating of any president starting his second term is because instead of focusing his attention on The Economy _ _ _ _ _ _ he decided to pursue his social agenda ( healthcare, cap and trade, ect) had he directed his energy on the economy he might be in a far different position than he finds himself in now.

I am curious, repman. What exactly would you like to see him or his administration do in regards to the economy that they are not doing or have not already been doing? Seriously. What are some concrete steps they could take to quickly change the direction of our economy that they are not taking? You say he is ignoring the economy to pursue his social agenda. Well, what exactly would you have him be doing? What solutions have republicans put forth?

repman said:
You mention his approval rating is highest with those with a college or higher education and lowest with those with up to HS and below.I am not sure where you are going with that but I guess it shows that a higher education does not infer common sense.

I interpret it to show that those with a higher education are just more likely to think for themselves than to get their political perspectives from T.V. pundits and talk radio. As such, they are less likely to fall for the republican fear and smear propaganda tactics.

Kevin · Nov 9, 2010

Rich said:
I interpret it to show that those with a higher education are just more likely to think for themselves than to get their political perspectives from T.V. pundits and talk radio. As such, they are less likely to fall for the republican fear and smear propaganda tactics.

You don't think that close to 80% of college professors admittedly labeling themselves as liberal has anything to do with the numbers? In the latest Harris poll, 48% of those being college or post graduate gave him approval, so it's not like even a majority of those with a college or post graduate education give him approval.

What I find telling is looking at a list of the states which are most in debt and seeing how the vast majority lean heavily democratic.

The reason for Obama's approval rating decline is as simple as he has overpromised and underdelivered. TV and radio were around when he had a very high approval rating. There were no "shovel ready jobs", as he has now admitted. There isn't a chance in the world that the health care bill is going to decrease the cost of health care. Farmers, plumbers, electricians and such may not be able to quote Shakespear, but they are smart enough to read the writing on the wall.

Len44 · Nov 9, 2010

If I may, it seems the Democrats were not so good at "marketing" their accomplishments. But look at the situation:

-Rich is right on target when he points out the terrible, terrible Bush regime and how his administration's focus on taking care of the wealthiest citizens and allowing the banks and big business to do whatever they wanted resulted in the train wreck the our economy became. I pointed out prior to the 2008 election that this would known in the history books as the "Bush Depression", but ALL the politicians have feared to use the "D" word -- preferring to call it a recession (and who can blame them?).

-The Republicans (the party of the rich) and their many, many unaccountable splinter groups with fancy-sounding names greatly outspent the Democrats in this election. I suppose we can thank John Roberts (appointed by Bush) for deciding that it is OK for special interest groups -- without identifying themselves, mind you -- to buy elections through contributing as many $$$$$$$$$$$ as they wish. Another train wreck, with which the newly-elected Congress will see no problem whatsoever.

-Again, no specifics from these dudes -- just blithering generalities about "cutting spending" (OK, but where, exactly? Are they really opposed to the new health care reform law that no longer allows insurance companies to drop a person from coverage when they become ill and need the coverage the most? Are they really going to impeach President Obama if he fails to produce a birth certificate that is satisfactory to the new Republican majority? Are they really as nutty as they seem?

-Finally, are they really going to insist that the wealthiest 1% of American Citizens MUST keep their tax cut advantage -- worth far more to them than to average wage-earners (you know, those soon to be forgotten Americans who actually produce something) -- thereby proving that the Republicans are indeed the "Party of the Rich" "By the Rich, For the Rich"? Now I have no quarrel with folks making money, even a lot of money, and I am not going to suggest a return to the tax schedule of the Eisenhower years (what was his party? Oh, right, a Republican) when the highest marginal tax rate was somewhere north of 70%. But doesn't it seem just a little bit odd that the Bush tax cut for the wealthy was worth over 10 times that of the average wage-earner?

-At the start of the economic crisis, Bush and the Republicans had been in charge for nearly eight years. And then, the "Chickens came home to roost." And what was the first and foremost concern of Bush and his minions? Why, protect the Wealthy Bankers, of course! "i know, I know! Let's find a way to bail them out, protect them from their losses. And, we'll do it with taxpayer money! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

BTW, where was the bailout for the hard-working men and women of the Country? For (far too many) all they got was laid off from their jobs...

repman · Nov 9, 2010

I knew I could get a little action going around here , it has been to quiet lately

Its always amazing to me that whenever liberals lose an election its because people are scared or uneducated.

It never occurs to them that people might just not agree with what they say or think

Rich · Nov 9, 2010

Len44 said:
-Again, no specifics from these dudes -- just blithering generalities about "cutting spending" (OK, but where, exactly?

Certainly not their coveted earmarks:

Mitch McConnell fights GOP earmark ban

Len44 said:
BTW, where was the bailout for the hard-working men and women of the Country? For (far too many) all they got was laid off from their jobs...

Are you kidding? Bailout for the working poor? Hardly:

It's Unanimous! GOP Says No To Unemployment Benefits, Yes To Tax Cuts For The Rich

Beakman · Nov 9, 2010

A college educated professor or Project manager has options. He can dig a ditch or drive a truck if their current job goes south, and therefore sees the political landscape as he sees his personal situation. The ditch digger or truck driver has less options and also has a similar world view of the political situation. Unfortunately the political reality is much different, that all the arguing over the American political party's positions is just a subterfuge promoted by these parties. The truth is that as long as there are only two major parties in contention, year after year, we really have no choice, no options. The merry go round will continue to turn, with its suckers reaching for a brass ring placed on an unaccessible mount. Before Barrack going nowhere fast, there was Bush II behaving like the third reicht in the middle east and at home. Before him, there was Clinton, who would send out the cruise missiles out every time his d**k made headlines.
And so on and so on. Who are the winners here? Not the professor, not the ditch digger.
Until we get off the Merry-Go-Round, we simply have no more options. Give life to a third, fourth, and fifth party, however many it takes to return to some semblance of choice. Choose another party no matter how wacky they may seem. You won't be throwing you votes away, they were taken from you a long, long time ago.

mapmustang · Nov 9, 2010

Rich said:
Certainly not their coveted earmarks:

Mitch McConnell fights GOP earmark ban
QUOTE]

Things like this make me glad to be a conservative and not a Republican. The majority of the guys in Washington are crooks looking to get rich, pay off the people that got them there, and stay there for as long as possible. The Republicans definitely had a fair share of the mess that we have to deal with. As a conservative, I think getting rid of earmarks would be a great way to cut down the deficit since most earmarks have nothing to do with the purpose of the original bill. If McConnell wants to keep earmarks, I would vote him out if he were my Senator.

For some other ideas on how to help the economy:
- Fix the hemmorhaging border. Stop illegal aliens from coming in and deport the ones that are here. We are spending billions on education, welfare, and prisons for people who are illegally in our country.
- Stop creating new taxes on businesses. If business owners are paying more taxes, they have less money to hire new employees.
- Quit bailing out companies. If a company makes bad business decisions, let them go out of belly up. Companies can take stupid risks if the government is there to save them.
- Give up on cap and trade. Its a get rich scam for Al Gore and his buddies. The average citizen can't afford it and it will cripple the industry America has left.
- Quit taking on more power for the federal government. The 10th amendment grants rights not strictly given to the federal government to the states. If some states want Obamacare, gay marriage, etc. let them have it. The entire country doesn't need it.
- Quit giving money to countries that hate us. Buying them off won't make them like us.
- Close the Federal Reserve. Congress was supposed to be the only entity able to print money. Fix the mistake they made almost 100 years ago.
- Quit taking trips to Asia costing 200 million a day.
- Quit making new government jobs. Public sector employees only increase the amount of taxes needing to be collected. As they are paid by the wages of the private sector, they aren't helping the economy.
- Get rid of labor unions. They are more for political positioning these days as equal rights and safety laws have drastically changed since the early 20th century. Labor unions drive up cost and hold back performance and competitive business.

Kevin · Nov 9, 2010

mapmustang said:
Things like this make me glad to be a conservative and not a Republican. The majority of the guys in Washington are crooks looking to get rich, pay off the people that got them there, and stay there for as long as possible. The Republicans definitely had a fair share of the mess that we have to deal with. As a conservative, I think getting rid of earmarks would be a great way to cut down the deficit since most earmarks have nothing to do with the purpose of the original bill. If McConnell wants to keep earmarks, I would vote him out if he were my Senator.

For some other ideas on how to help the economy:
- Fix the hemmorhaging border. Stop illegal aliens from coming in and deport the ones that are here. We are spending billions on education, welfare, and prisons for people who are illegally in our country.
- Stop creating new taxes on businesses. If business owners are paying more taxes, they have less money to hire new employees.
- Quit bailing out companies. If a company makes bad business decisions, let them go out of belly up. Companies can take stupid risks if the government is there to save them.
- Give up on cap and trade. Its a get rich scam for Al Gore and his buddies. The average citizen can't afford it and it will cripple the industry America has left.
- Quit taking on more power for the federal government. The 10th amendment grants rights not strictly given to the federal government to the states. If some states want Obamacare, gay marriage, etc. let them have it. The entire country doesn't need it.
- Quit giving money to countries that hate us. Buying them off won't make them like us.
- Close the Federal Reserve. Congress was supposed to be the only entity able to print money. Fix the mistake they made almost 100 years ago.
- Quit taking trips to Asia costing 200 million a day.
- Quit making new government jobs. Public sector employees only increase the amount of taxes needing to be collected. As they are paid by the wages of the private sector, they aren't helping the economy.
- Get rid of labor unions. They are more for political positioning these days as equal rights and safety laws have drastically changed since the early 20th century. Labor unions drive up cost and hold back performance and competitive business.

Ditto- except I might add stopping the 'over' regulation of business. Notice that I didn't say regulation, but there is a difference between being a watch dog and being a burden. Besides, the government hires industry insiders to oversee what they are regulating. Kind of like hiring the foxes to guard the henhouse.

Any true conservative wasn't proud of the Bush administration.

GaryG · Nov 9, 2010

I am a small businessman. I have done business worldwide. Never in my life did I think that I would be saying I get a better shake in "Red" China than I do in the USA, but I do. Never in my life did I think that I would be saying that Thailand is more business friendly than the USA, but it is. Never did I think that I would be able to keep more of my money in almost every other country in the world than I can in the USA, but I can.

AND IT IS MY MONEY.

Two years ago I was traveling on China Airlines to Bangkok on business. When I travel even long distances, I generally fly coach. The extra $3000 to fly business class seems like a high price to pay to avoid a day of mild discomfort. After all

IT IS MY MONEY.

While I was between flights I was relaxing in the Business Class lounge. As a frequent flier they allow me in the lounge between flights. Sitting next to me were two government employee's. They unpacked their new international iPhones to see if they worked. Never mind that their destination was Bangkok and it didn't matter if they worked in Taipei or not. Dial away they did. Talk they did. Never mind the $2 per minute roaming they were not paying.

IT WAS MY MONEY.

We chatted briefly and it was quite apparent that they were very liberal. They worked for the Department of Education and they were on their way to a mental heath conference in Bangkok. Later as we boarded the Boeing 747, they turned "left" into Business Class and I turned "right" into coach. And as I took my seat I shook my head saying to myself "Wow they are sitting in Business Class on MY MONEY.

GaryG

Len44 · Nov 9, 2010

GaryG said:
We chatted briefly and it was quite apparent that they were very liberal. They worked for the Department of Education and they were on their way to a mental heath conference in Bangkok. Later as we boarded the Boeing 747, they turned "left" into Business Class and I turned "right" into coach. And as I took my seat I shook my head saying to myself "Wow they are sitting in Business Class on MY MONEY.
GaryG

I quite agree. As a taxpayer, this is quite inappropriate, and if I had their names I would turn them into their IG in a heartbeat, as I am confident they violated a number of rules regarding travel and use (abuse) of government equipment. I detest this type of behavior that "takes advantage" of their positions.

But please do not think that all, or even most, government employees harbor that arrogant attitude and/or are wasteful of taxpayer money in such a cavalier manner.

Len44 · Nov 9, 2010

Kevin said:
Any true conservative wasn't proud of the Bush administration.

As a Goldwater / Reagan conservative, Bush, Rove, Cheney, McConnell make me want to puke.

Somewhere, somehow, members of Congress seem to have lost their way. Where are the statesmen like Tip O'Neill, Everett Dirkson, and many others who don't come to mind right now. True leaders who actually put the United States of America ABOVE petty politics and cheap political gain.

And I must say -- while not necessarily defending Congressional Democratic leaders, I must say that this current gang of McConnell, Bohner, Jim Dement ("I hope he fails"), and others whose only goal seems to oppose anything and everything the President proposes (even if it was originally their idea and they originally supported it), and whose primary goal for the next two years is NOT a focus on jobs or the economy or lower taxes or better lives for Americans -- but rather to ensure "Obama is a one-term President" really puts me off.

Come to think of it, this is what has been going on all along. Remember how the newly-elected President Obama actively reached out to Republicans, only to be solidly rebuffed? Their obvious strategy was simply to oppose the President on everything. Not much room for statesmanship in this approach, is there?

McConnell in particularly seems like such a priggish toad. Interesting that Kentucky now has McConnell and Rand Paul to represent them in the Senate.

repman · Nov 10, 2010

the final election results are in!!!

Rich · Nov 10, 2010

mapmustang said:
As a conservative, I think getting rid of earmarks would be a great way to cut down the deficit since most earmarks have nothing to do with the purpose of the original bill. If McConnell wants to keep earmarks, I would vote him out if he were my Senator.

Would you really? I mean, if no one ran against him in the primary, and your only choice was between McConnell and a democrat, would you really vote against him? I doubt it. And do you really think banning earmarks is a "great way" to cut down the deficit? They make up about 1% to 2% of federal spending, a trickle compared to the deficit. The defense budget alone accounts for a whopping 24% of our budget! Corporate tax receipts account for a mere 7% of our government's income. Don't you think there are other, more realistic, ways of dealing with the deficit. The truth is that McConnell is right, in a way. Earmarks are a red herring. They don't account for that much spending, and when used properly (emphasis on properly), they can provide great infrastructure projects and boost economic activity in States that otherwise wouldn't get those things.

mapmustang said:
For some other ideas on how to help the economy:
- Fix the hemmorhaging border. Stop illegal aliens from coming in and deport the ones that are here. We are spending billions on education, welfare, and prisons for people who are illegally in our country.

And how would you propose we do that? And how would you propose we pay for that. On one hand you are screaming for smaller government and no taxes, and on the other you are asking the federal government to set up fences and patrol posts over a thousand miles of desert and wilderness.

mapmustang said:
- Stop creating new taxes on businesses. If business owners are paying more taxes, they have less money to hire new employees.

I agree that small businesses need some help, but I think it is clear that most corporations pay too little in taxes. They hire and fire based on economic cycles, and not on the tax structure, as you imply. And it is pretty clear with the Bush experiment this past decade that lower taxes do not, in fact, spur economic growth. The Bush tax cuts were sold on the idea of economic growth, and all we have had since they passed are two back-to-back recessions, the last of which is really closer to a depression.

mapmustang said:
- Quit bailing out companies. If a company makes bad business decisions, let them go out of belly up. Companies can take stupid risks if the government is there to save them.

This sounds good in theory. But when your entire economic system is tied up in some of those companies, particularly banks, investment firms and insurance companies (which hold the retirement savings of most of your population), the ripple effects of letting them fail could very well mean the end of your country as you know it. I think this would be a catastrophic risk to take. But I guess you don't really know what it was like during the Great Depression. History shows us how bad it truly can be.

mapmustang said:
- Give up on cap and trade. Its a get rich scam for Al Gore and his buddies. The average citizen can't afford it and it will cripple the industry America has left.

It is just another method to try to get corporations to do what we should be making them do anyway . . . operate in a cleaner and more environmentally-friendly manner. It is actually a market-based approach to reducing emissions. I would have thought conservatives would be all over that. But, I guess since they didn't think of it first . . .

mapmustang said:
- Quit taking on more power for the federal government. The 10th amendment grants rights not strictly given to the federal government to the states. If some states want Obamacare, gay marriage, etc. let them have it.

We no longer live in 1776. The world has changed. Our country has changed. And a strong federal government is a natural part of that evolution. I think we learned from the Civil War that too much State autonomy wasn't necessarily a good thing. But I do agree that some things should be decided at the State and local level. Of course, there is just as much, if not more, political corruption at the state level.

mapmustang said:
- Quit giving money to countries that hate us. Buying them off won't make them like us.

Can't much argue with that. It baffles me how much money we spend on foreign aid.

mapmustang said:
- Close the Federal Reserve. Congress was supposed to be the only entity able to print money. Fix the mistake they made almost 100 years ago.

I guess if you hadn't lived through the financial panic of 1907, and the runs on the banks that occurred, not being able to get to your own hard-earned money, and the entire banking system of the country and the stock markets near total collapse, you may think the fed is useless. I think they have done a pretty good job of controlling our monetary policy in an effective manner or almost a century. Are they perfect? No. But they are a lot better than having nothing, as you want.

mapmustang said:
- Quit taking trips to Asia costing 200 million a day.

Quit making unsubstantiated claims. Back up your numbers with some facts.

mapmustang said:
- Quit making new government jobs. Public sector employees only increase the amount of taxes needing to be collected. As they are paid by the wages of the private sector, they aren't helping the economy.

This is a little more complicated than that. But I do agree with you that we should be trying to shrink the size of the federal workforce rather than expand it.

mapmustang said:
- Get rid of labor unions. They are more for political positioning these days as equal rights and safety laws have drastically changed since the early 20th century. Labor unions drive up cost and hold back performance and competitive business.

Agree here. Labor unions are completely useless these days and should be abolished. There is no way that we can do so, Constitutionally, without some sort of Amendment. And that probably won't happen.

Kevin · Nov 10, 2010

Anyone see the news today on how much Federal government salaries have increased in the last 5 years? Not only are govt. workers getting paid more, but their numbers are increasing at a rate much faster than in private industry as well. So when congress passes these thousand page bills with more regulations, they need to hire more bureaucrats to oversee and manage the new laws and regulations. The public sector- on a local, state and federal level is killing the private sector. We may not live in 1776 anymore, but if we continue allowing the government to increase the way it has, we'll be back to living as if we were.

mapmustang · Nov 10, 2010

In Mitch McConnell's case, I would vote for someone else in the primary.

The estimated cost to the American taxpayer is 100 billion per year for illegal immigration. I would much rather spend the money building a fence and paying to guard it than encouraging breaking the law. I'm sure they could work out a plan for less than 100 billion per year.

With the Bush tax cuts we had low unemployment and low deficit before we got involved in 2 wars that we can't completely win. I disagree with people getting money back for taxes without ever putting anything in. If you want to vote you should pay taxes, not get paid. Even if its just $1 paid, it would be much better. People are going to keep voting for the entitlements that are paying them.

Bailing out big business is an endorsement for socialism. We have always been capitalist and that has made our economy the best in the world.

If the purpose of cap and trade is to save the planet, why are you going to make companies pay more money if they still want to kill it? That shows their real goal is to make money, not to save the planet. If that were the goal, there would be no buying of more carbon credits. I'm quite glad their Chicago exchange is closing this week.

Our constitution and the 10th amendment have not changed. The founding fathers wrote the constitution that way for a reason. Just cause some people don't like it doesn't mean its time to change it. If they want to change the constitution, write an amendment and do it legally instead of dragging it through the mud.

Obama uses Air Force One far more than any other president in history and he takes his entire presidential motorcade with him everywhere he goes. He can cut down on the trips and the people he brings with him.

Rich · Nov 10, 2010

Kevin said:
The public sector- on a local, state and federal level is killing the private sector. We may not live in 1776 anymore, but if we continue allowing the government to increase the way it has, we'll be back to living as if we were.

How so, exactly? According to BLS stats, the public sector accounts for a grand total of about 8% of the jobs in the United States. That includes ALL public sector employees at the Federal, State, and Local levels, including all military personnel. Only about 4% of our population, in total, works for a government entity. So please explain to me how the public sector is "killing the private sector." The truth is it is just the opposite. The government dollars spur lots of private investment.

If it weren't for public sector jobs like Nasa and the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Army's Redstone Arsenal base, my hometown would be a ghost town. There are tons of high tech private companies here that are either government contractors, or that just feed off the extra dollars floating around because of all the government jobs. Exactly the opposite of what you say. No, sorry, but the sky is not falling and government jobs are not destroying the private sector.

Rich · Nov 10, 2010

mapmustang said:
The estimated cost to the American taxpayer is 100 billion per year for illegal immigration. I would much rather spend the money building a fence and paying to guard it than encouraging breaking the law. I'm sure they could work out a plan for less than 100 billion per year.

Estimated by a conservative anti-immigration group who went to great pains to avoid measuring any potential positive economic impact of immigrants. Not exactly a plausible number. Come back with a realistic, unbiased estimate and we can have a debate on this issue. I also think you vastly under-estimate the true costs of serious border enforcement.

mapmustang said:
With the Bush tax cuts we had low unemployment and low deficit before we got involved in 2 wars that we can't completely win.

No, we had low unemployment and low deficits before the Bush tax cuts. At the end of Clinton's term, unemployment was hovering at about 4% and the budget was balanced. I do agree, though, that the unnecessary wars, along with the unnecessary tax cuts, are what propelled us into the budget mess in which we now find ourselves.

mapmustang said:
I disagree with people getting money back for taxes without ever putting anything in. If you want to vote you should pay taxes, not get paid. Even if its just $1 paid, it would be much better. People are going to keep voting for the entitlements that are paying them.

I agree that the tax system and certain entitlement systems need to be revamped. Some form of flat tax, along with real, unavoidable taxes on large corporations, should be instituted, albeit in as fair a manner as possible.

mapmustang said:
Bailing out big business is an endorsement for socialism. We have always been capitalist and that has made our economy the best in the world.

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the Constitution that says our economy must be based solely in capitalism and have no socialistic tendencies. Which Article was that in? Perhaps one of the Amendments that I missed?

Anyway, you are completely wrong and apparently have little knowledge of history:

Many of America's first banks were owned partly by either state governments or the national government. These included the first Bank of the United States, established in 1791, in which the federal government held 20 percent of all shares. Among the states, Pennsylvania in particular owned stock in numerous banks, beginning in 1793 with a third of the Bank of Pennsylvania. How much of a stake our current government will buy in individual banks remains to be seen, but it will probably not be more than a quarter of any given bank.

from here: The Bailout: A Far Cry from Socialism

mapmustang said:
If the purpose of cap and trade is to save the planet, why are you going to make companies pay more money if they still want to kill it? That shows their real goal is to make money, not to save the planet. If that were the goal, there would be no buying of more carbon credits. I'm quite glad their Chicago exchange is closing this week.

The purpose of Cap and Trade is to encourage companies to pollute less. Not force them to do so. Encourage them to do so through market incentives. I suppose you would prefer to just let them do what they want, regardless of the harm to our environment and our health. At least the private sector economy would be growing.

mapmustang said:
Our constitution and the 10th amendment have not changed. The founding fathers wrote the constitution that way for a reason. Just cause some people don't like it doesn't mean its time to change it. If they want to change the constitution, write an amendment and do it legally instead of dragging it through the mud.

Actually, wrong again. Our Constitution has changed quite a bit over the last two hundred years. And with each change, there have been people like you screaming that the world was going to fall apart and our country would never be the same again if we let women vote, or blacks have freedoms, etc. etc. And yet, we somehow carry on.

mapmustang said:
Obama uses Air Force One far more than any other president in history and he takes his entire presidential motorcade with him everywhere he goes. He can cut down on the trips and the people he brings with him.

I think all presidents take their motorcade when they travel. Any reason you are picking on Obama specifically for something that has been common practice for decades? Any source for your statement that he uses Air Force One more than any previous president? I highly doubt it is factual.

The People

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!