Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 9th Sep 2012, 12:47
  #7701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,461
"Useless" in what way????

I'd suggest the man is pretty darned successful assuming you take success as achieving something rather than the Obama version that says it's only about helping others. It's kind of hard to help others until you can help yourself.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 12:55
  #7702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,461
BNT:

You're joking right??? The Democrats here are European utopians being kept on a short, (yet recently lengthening), leash or the US would be the cluster fk the EU is.

Furthermore, if you paid a bit more attention, the accusation that 50% of the country is labelled one way and 50% the other is quite wrong. The people see the two parties bases as extremely liberal or conservative, (which isn't an unfair statement though I may be biased in saying that there seem to be far more Libs that seem a seem a lot further left than there are cons so far right), and if you lean strongly either way you are considered to be of those extreme groups.

There are many in this country that vote X or Y because their father and mother did and they always have. The gratifying thing I am seeing is many who voted for Obama last time are saying they won't vote this time. That's good, it's a vote for Romney...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 13:01
  #7703 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 4
A member of one of the dirtier liberal families once became so confused by European politics that he called Germans who lived in Berlin do'nuts when he should have called them bagels.
SALOMON BAGELS -- The Berlin Bagel
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 13:04
  #7704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surreal
Age: 51
Posts: 69
Just asking.

Wouldn't want barry in.
Mike X is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 13:28
  #7705 (permalink)  
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 721
I wasn't making an argument about which is right or wrong, I was merely commenting on how it appears. I'm not in the USA, so I don't claim to really know about what it's like on the ground there. You can leave me out of your artificial left/right worldview, thanks.

What I am doing is trying to take the long view, looking at the problems that will not be solved in the next election cycle, regardless of who is elected or not. I'm concerned about short-term thinking because it goes a long way towards explaining what has gone wrong in recent decades.

Corporations in the world today, particularly the USA, operate in terms of Quarters (3 months). It's all about the next Quarter; what will the results be like? What can we do to boost the next quarter's results? I saw this with my former employer, HP, who screwed up the whole Palm WebOS acquisition by trying to rush out a product to complete with the Apple iPad (at iPad prices), then just dropped it because it didn't do well in that quarter. Then, a quarter later, they're re-considering that. This is how the world would be run if it was run by corporations: the "window" might extend to a year, sometimes, but that's it, because that's all that shareholders care about.

Members of the House of Representatives in the USA are elected to 2-year terms, and Presidents have 4-year terms. Both spend much of that time working towards re-election. So, while there is some talk about the "2nd term" from Obama, that would only start in January if elected, and when it comes to policy, it would be his first, since he currently can't see past November.

The original idea of a Senate, as formulated in ancient Rome, was that of a body of wise elders to stabilise and advise the government. They were not elected, but appointed, and so they were not subject to the whims of the electorate. The members of the US Senate were originally elected by State legislatures, with no term expiration, but that process had problems of its own, and so that was changed to direct election by the 17th Amendment in 1912-13. So now Senators have 6-year terms, and have to run for re-election like all the others.

So, my long-standing question: who, in business or government, is concerned with the long-term problems facing the world, and thinking about long-term solutions to them?
bnt is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 13:33
  #7706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,336
bnt

So much for your knowledge of the Constitution, Senators were always elected for 6 year terms. The 17th Amendment just changed the method of selection, wrongly IMHO, to direct election. Further proof, that change is not always for the better.

Liberal, in its traditional meaning, meant a politician that believed in more liberty, that is, a conservative in today's meaning. Liberals today mean people who believe government should have an ever-increasing role in its citizens lives---directing the economy, providing retirement, health care, regulatory state, socializing risk.

I'd like to hear how you think America is more "right" than most of the world.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 9th Sep 2012 at 13:42.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 13:55
  #7707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
Stop Me When You Hear Something You Like...

The latest from Romney:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who promised early in his campaign to repeal President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, says he would keep several important parts of the overhaul.

"Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."

Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents' health-insurance.

In the interview, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, also said he would offset his proposed tax cuts by closing loopholes for high income taxpayers.

"We're not going to have high-income people pay less of the tax burden than they pay today. That's not what's going to happen," he said.

When pressed, however, Romney declined to provide an example of a loophole he would close.
Oops, maybe I should change the title to read read: "Stop me when you hear something you don't like....
Turbine D is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 14:28
  #7708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Not sure why you are confused, TurbineD.

Romney/Ryan are in line with the majority of Americans who oppose Obamacare.

Consider poor Ben Nelson, who traded his Obamacare vote for a Cornhusker Kickback. The writing was on the wall and he decided not to run for reelection.

Now the Democrats have enlisted Bob Kerrey to run in Nelson's spot for Senate. Guess what his position is on Obamacare?

Sen. Kerrey is right when he says ObamaCare will "accelerate an already breaking-down employer-based system" and almost every American will be thrust unwillingly into a government system that will, without doubt, produce lousy health care for all.
Matari is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 14:53
  #7709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 52
Posts: 794
So Romney says that parts of Obamacare are ok, but the package as a whole is a joke. And that is an issue because?
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 15:21
  #7710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
D=R

The two major parties have at their core mission the maintenance of the status quo. Obamacare was a squeaker, and passed only due unusual deal making and bribes. The people were not in favor of it.

As to shortsighted short term pols, consider that if the US was a democracy the state of the process. Plebiscites would be accomplished on the internet, and laws would pass, revoke, and pass in destructive repetition.

We are a Republic. Less and less of what accomplishes in Congress has to do with anything even two months down the road.

The people, those who care, have little say in their government, what is not squashed in the Press, is marginalized on the Hill.

When we have such as Barry Obama and Mitt Romney running for leader, where are we? We have no access, no redress, and Third Parties are squashed at the Media checkpoint.

Either one of these gentlemen is a crapshoot for what is going to happen to America, and the World. As to leadership, Romney is far and away the better choice.

Organising neighborhoods into storefronts to distribute Federal money is not sufficient prep for the oval.
Lyman is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 15:31
  #7711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
HB,
So Romney says that parts of Obamacare are ok, but the package as a whole is a joke. And that is an issue because?
Hey, I am only pointing out how his positions are tending to be liquid, rather than solid. A week ago, he said he wanted to repeal Obamacare, entirely.
He and Ryan proposed reducing the income tax for the wealthy to 25%, everyone applauded. But now he is offsetting that advantage with elimination of undefined loopholes. So, can you explain to me what his positions really are? If I vote for him, what am I really voting for, besides of course, kicking Obama out of office? I would be interested in knowing.... Do you know?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 15:39
  #7712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
Lyman,
The two major parties have at their core mission the maintenance of the status quo.
Exactly!!!
TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 15:44
  #7713 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 4
I do believe that Romney is the third from the right, third row in, right hand side of the organ.
The United States Air Force. 1947.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 15:51
  #7714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where databases don't crash
Age: 44
Posts: 30
The problem is

That the question "what, specifically, are we voting for" cannot be answered. No matter what is said on the campaign trail will evolve or morphe into something else by the time it hits the floor of the Senate or Congress.

The proper question to ask is "who are we voting for". You need look at the man's character, achievements, history, past conduct and the people he surrounds himself with. Once you are comfortable with the person, then the mechanics of what are going to work themselves out.

I know who I want to be at the helm regardless of some fabricated and inflated shortcomings. Putting a dog crate on the roof of a station wagon is not a campaign issue. Mounting a major effort to conceal every detail of one's life prior to entering politics is.

WS...
WingSlinger is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 17:23
  #7715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 52
Posts: 794
Hey, I am only pointing out how his positions are tending to be liquid, rather than solid. A week ago, he said he wanted to repeal Obamacare, entirely.
He and Ryan proposed reducing the income tax for the wealthy to 25%, everyone applauded. But now he is offsetting that advantage with elimination of undefined loopholes. So, can you explain to me what his positions really are? If I vote for him, what am I really voting for, besides of course, kicking Obama out of office? I would be interested in knowing.... Do you know?
I thought it was quite obvious, Obamacare is the whole package that will cost the country a fortune even IF (and that's a rather big "IF") it's remotely administered properly. So you repeal the whole mess created by Obama and make sure the things that actually matter are implemented. That's called common sense.

Now, taxation. It has been shown in various countries that lowering the the top rate of tax, and even lowering taxes on earnings "across the board", results in lower tax avoidance by the rich via the various schemes used nowadays. I know it's been said before, in other threads, but the example of the UK after Thatcher took over in 1979 is still valid, taxes were cut across the board but tax revenue INCREASED. Basically, everyone will pay an "acceptable" percentage to the treasury and then use scams to hide the rest, so when the treasury "take" on that money drops, you find that they spend less time hiding money overseas, etc, as the costs vs the amount paid in taxes even out so it isn't actually worth the trouble in using so many scams to avoid the taxes on that money. That, alone, increases actual revenue AND keeps the whiners quiet as the "rich" aren't using the same level of avoidance.

Now, we all know that there are loopholes in the tax system that get abused. Even Obama knows that, and maybe uses some himself. So by closing some of them it means that you satisfy the jealous, hysterical left who scream about "the rich" not paying enough tax (despite the top 20% of earners actually paying 65% of the tax revenue of the Treasury), AND more money goes into the Treasury due to the increase in revenue. That's a win-win to me, can't be accused of somehow favouring the "rich" by closing some loopholes and can't be accused of "favouring" anyone when the tax paid by that top 5% actually increases. The Dems can't go down that line, however, and that leads me to my next part.....

Of course, it's always easy to "attack the rich". I would love to see the estimates of how much money disappears in the "black economy", when "working class" people work cash-in-hand and don't declare their earnings, or those on welfare who work as well without declaring that. Bet ya that figure would make people think twice about who is actually dodging their "fiscal responsibilities", but since Joe the Plumber drives a pickup instead of a Bentley, or Mario the Unemployed Immigrant has a beat up Buick instead of a Lexus, they ain't the target of the hysterical left, their own tax avoidance scams are ignored, because, well, they ain't them rich bastards.

When the Government starts making sure EVERYONE pays their proper share of taxes the "left" can scream about "the rich". But since that would be a vote loser, the "left" will never do that. Tell ya what though, bet ya that the "revenue gap" would be a hell of a lot lower if people looked closer at their "working class" voters and how much they actually earn...........
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 19:01
  #7716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,336
Hellsbrink

Can we make you a citizen? Are you really a Euro citizen? It seems you must be the ONLY right thinking Euro.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 19:10
  #7717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 52
Posts: 794
Plenty more of us, I can assure you
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 20:34
  #7718 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,395
Bartenders, taxi drivers, waiters, and all the others among us working in the cash economy are not paying their fair share, though one never hears a railing politician crusade against that.
In the restaurant we had a short term interest in, the wait staff including the bartenders had to declare some of their tips, even in cash, as the IRS will come up with a figure out of the blue that they consider taxable income if they do not. Of course when a tip is left on a credit card, there is a paper trail the IRS can and have followed.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 20:47
  #7719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
HB,
Now, taxation. It has been shown in various countries that lowering the the top rate of tax, and even lowering taxes on earnings "across the board", results in lower tax avoidance by the rich via the various schemes used nowadays. I know it's been said before, in other threads, but the example of the UK after Thatcher took over in 1979 is still valid, taxes were cut across the board but tax revenue INCREASED.
Two questions:
First, what was the top tax rate before and after, in the UK, when Thatcher reduced taxes?

Then,
The citizens of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

Second question, do you believe the above paragraph?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2012, 20:49
  #7720 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,395
Movie 2016.

A review of the movie from the CBS Station in Chicago.

’2016: Obama’s America’ Movie Is Disturbingly Necessary « CBS Chicago

To watch this movie and realize – or simply be reminded of – all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romney’s taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current president’s past?
I just might have to watch this moive.
con-pilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.