KIRKRIDER

The huge corps are a product of broken capitalism. The capitalism Romney, Bush, Cheney and Co live and vote for. The capitalism with no rules, no minimal wage, no constrains about "legalized" torture, military and economic warfare. The capitalism of private prison system, Private water system, Private army. Private islands private air...of no bid projects in Iraq. The capitalism of rewarded outsourcing, the capitalism of suppression of press, and dissent. All key parts of the Republican Neo Cons agenda.

in a word Fascism. S it was in Italy with the connection between state and industry, but not for the good of the people...just the good of the owners and their country club.

Why anyone working class would vote R is beyond me.

__________________
2012/13 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06

jdang307

That's fine not to like them. I can't stand Democrat policies, and I'm socially liberal. Fiscal policies is where I draw the line and as bad as Republicans are with money Democrats are just plain terrible.

Democrats run California, and have done so for the past 6 decades or so. We were the 5th largest economy in the world (now down to 8, or even lower than that). Yet we're perennially in trouble money wise, we run a deficit each year (even though our constitution says not to), our roads look like shit compared to a place like the Metro areas of Phoenix or Texas, and we spend Shit on education.

Whenever we have a fiscal crisis what's first on the chopping block? Education. It's always education.

Meanwhile employer salaries and pensions take up half the budget. We chase businesses out of the state, and then complain about declining revenues. Our unemployment is higher than the national average, in a state that should be #1 every single time. Other states are poaching our best companies (tech, biotech).

That is false. Nobody swore to oppose him. You're talking about Mitch McConnell who famously said he was going to try to make Obama a One-Term president. That was in late 2010 close to the mid-term elections. That was after more than a year of Obama and the rest of the Democrats stonewalling the GOP.

He said if Obama continued down his path, he was going to make sure Obama was a one term President. But if Obama turned around, and worked with the GOP, he would not do that, and would work with the President. Your version of the story is the version that is passed around liberal media circles, but it is patently false.

NationalJournal.com - Access Denied

October 2010. Here is the full quote. I've bolded the relevant parts.
The reason why he brings up Clinton is because Clinton started his term exactly how Obama started his. They both tried to shove liberal agenda down our throats as fast as they could. That led to Republicans winning the mid-term elections in 1994, and Republicans winning re-election in 2010. The facts were similar.

However, Clinton, noting his defeat, pivoted, and moved back to the center and worked with Republicans the rest of the way. Obama hasn't. McConnell is saying, if Obama did what Clinton did, they can work together. If he doesn't, then they're going to try and get a Republican President elected.

It's not quite as sensational as the media wants to paint it.

People also forget that It wasn't just Clinton who balanced our budget. It was the GOP Congress who forced it.

Do you remember that Govt. actually shut down? Yes, Newt Gingrich shut down Congress because of a fight with Clinton. The reason? Both wanted a balanced budget, but Gingrich wanted it sooner, and Clinton refused. Gingrich shut govt. down for a few weeks (spread over two periods). They finally agreed to a compromise, balance the budget in 7 years. But Clinton wanted it to be later, Gingrich wanted it sooner. It actually happened sooner than 7 years. Clinton gets credit, but you have to remember who forced Clinton's hands.

After that, Clinton moved all of his policies to the right. Remember, Obama loves him some Obama, and Clinton loves him some Clinton. But Obama is so rigid in his ideology, he will not violate it, even for ego. Clinton? Clinton doesn't give a shit. He's all about Clinton. So he moved to the right/center. He needed to protect his legacy. There is no better self-preserver than Clinton. He will do anything, in the name of self-preservation.

In 1996 he even declared, in the State of the Union, "the era of big government is over." That's how they worked together. That's how Obama can work with the GOP, but he's not budging an inch so we are at an impasse for now.

davidj

Dude, you have class

jdang307

OH, and as for racism, the democrat party is rife with racism. No need to try and say the right has a monopoly on that.

And racism isn't exclusive to whites either. Blacks are just as racists, and almost all of the black community is in the Democrat Party.

There are racists in both parties. Here is an excellent article from the Economist:

The politics and philosophy of racism: Grand Racist Party? | The Economist

They conclude, after extensive study, that at most, on the whole slightly more Republicans have views that may be considered racist, but not by much, and it is pretty evenly divided between the two parties.

On top of that, there is a new form of racism, which is minority on minority racism (non-latino blacks, latinos, latino blacks, Asians, etc.). And guess which party a lot of them reside in.

But like I said, I'm not here to change anyone's minds. I side with Democrats on social issues, but fiscally I side with the GOP. But I can see why people stick with Democrats.

The real answer is in the middle. Let's be honest, if either party had full control we'd be fucked. Look at California, and imagine the whole US being like that.

backstop13

I would argue that a president's policy has an indirect influence on the market. And to elaborate about take home pay not increasing, these were things touted by a candidate who platformed on all the positive changes he was going to make, which would lead to things like growth in the middle class. Unfortunately, a lot of the promises made never happened. Granted, this isn't all Obama's fault and I don't mean to sound like it is. Obviously, the republicans in the house and senate who fought Obama over policy every step of the way made it hard to institute change.

My point was simply to say that in 4 years, life for the middle class has not gotten better, and in most fronts, it's stayed stagnant or gotten worse. This isn't a knock on solely Obama, but in my opinion, the leader of the country has to take some blame. Just because it wasn't his problem to begin with does not mean it's not his responsibility to clean it up. I'm sorry, but that's the gig you sign up for when you become president.


Those are fair points, and I don't blame Obama for putting us in the situation. But from my point of view, the economy has not gotten any better. Sure, every month there's a new job report that gives us a little hope, but from my point of view, looking off my porch, I'm in the same situation financially that I was when he took office. I would have hoped for something a little better over the last four years. Perhaps those are unfair expectations considering how deep of a hole we were in, but look at it this way: If you hired a contractor to fix something on your house, and he fucked it up royally. So you hired a new contractor who made all sorts of promises about how great he was and all the great new things he was going to do with your house...then four years later, your house was still in shitty repair. I know that's a gross exaggeration of our economy, but you should get my gist.

I think this is what most people are clueless about. Sure, Romney might fix our country short term, just as he has done with a lot of these small businesses. But what scares me is the long term effect of outsourcing even more jobs overseas. I need to do more research, but I can't imagine many of the companies he had his hands in during his Bain capital days are thriving today.


not sure if you were going to respond to this or if you forgot to delete it, but to elaborate further, I'm not just speaking financially. I think no matter who gets elected, life for the average Joe will just get worse. From finances, to further erosion of constitutional freedoms, to a larger police-state, etc., I think we're all in for rough days ahead. Pardon my pessimism...

KIRKRIDER

That is the whole point.

__________________
2012/13 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06

jdang307

The actual book does not report it so egregiously.

They did not make a pact to obstruct everything Obama tried. They made a pact to obstruct his economic policies. Essentially at that time, stimulus, which was already in the works before his inauguration. This article tries to say any and all legislation. According to Draper, this is patently false.

Note, that the actual GOP leaders, weren't at the meeting. And stimulus passed with GOP votes.

The other 3 things they agreed to were to attack Geithner, Charlie Rangel, win the Midterms, and replace Obama in 2012.

Sounds like a normal strategy meeting.

Obama had ZERO problems passing what he wanted for 2 years. He got stimulus passed, cash for clunkers, cash for dishwashers, HIRE act, everything, all with Republican votes. Where was the obstructionism the first two years? Cash for clunkers passed through the Senate 95-1, attached to a larger bill.

The HIRE Act passed through the House in 2009 with a vote of 259-157.

That's 259-157. where was this pact? 24 Republicans voted for it. This secret oath? It passed the Senate 70-28. 11 Republicans voted for it.

I'm not seeing any conspiracy. It was a strategy meeting, and yes that one pact to oppose Obama's economic policies (and only, his economic policies) looks bad. But it sure wasn't effective.

I don't doubt the meeting happened. It was reported last November, and nobody noticed it.

‘Telling revelation’ about Obama inauguration night actually old news | The Daily Caller

The actual book states it much differently than the sensationalism by that article you linked.

These are the four strategies listed in Draper's book.

So yes I agree with you guys. In light of the past two years, that meeting doesn't look good. But it was a strategy meeting, and so far they've come close to their goal

But remember, the first two years Obama was not obstructed. He got almost every single bill passed, and he passed Obamacare. Republicans didn't obstruct his agenda until America voted him in to obstruct them. They were powerless before that.

jdang307

Rahm Emanuel, no friend to Republicans, on GOP participation in the first months of Obama's term

Obama did not change Washington. For each side, it’s clear who’s to blame. - The Washington Post

Further evidence, there was no pact to obstruct everything Obama proposed. Just his economic policies, which makes sense. Republicans don't agree with Democrat economic policies, and vice versa! It's like a group of Yankee fans getting together and agree, that they will not root for the Red Sox

From the same article, this is what the Democrats did.

BoardWalk

This is the problem with this country, people are so blinded with party lines they will vote for anybody. The good thing is those in the middle make up the majority, but for how long?

biocmp

War criminal is ridiculous rhetoric.

Nearly all of my family has served in the military. I can't trust a president who wants to sterilize our country.