Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
"I WONDER how many have SWITCHED "sides" as a result???..."
In each party, there seems to be a clear voting 'base' that is unlikely to change party, if ever. My SWAG (scientific wild-assed guess) guess would be maybe 30% of total voters are part of that base, with some portion of that remaining 40% generally trending one way or another. Some declare themselves as one party or another, but still can vary in their leanings. Some portion of that 40% are true 'Independents', who can also go either way, though my experience is that many of them tend to have leanings one way or the other.
I'm sure there are some very good statistics out there that would clearly illustrate votership and their party affiliation over the years. In any case, it is this ~40% of voters that swing elections one way or the other, and they are the ones that are pursued mightily by political strategists.
"I have ALWAYS disliked the two party system..."
Me, too, especially right now. Despite all of the ranting, media hype, and obvious schisms demonstrated here in ST polititard threads, the two parties are so intrinsically linked and controlled by special interests (esp. corporate ones) that any kind of real change in administrations is increasingly rare, and moves at a glacial pace. And though I tend to vote Dem most of the time, and have a very strong dislike for Shrubco, I would also admit that even the Shrubco policies of the last 8 years have not resulted in truly earthshaking, life changing conditions for myself or my family. (We are all very fortunate enough to not have had any current connections with the military during that period. I have ultimate respect, empathy and sadness for those who do.)
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Hey Locker, It is pretty crazy out there. Most people don't know the facts. They listen to people like Rush limbaugh all day and believe whatever he says. For instance, one thing that has been said a lot lately is that Obama is trying to take away medicare. Plus, republicans say over and over how government can't do anything right. So what do you get? You get republicans screaming in the streets, "don't let the government run my medicare". Yet medicare is a government run program and it is the republican leadership that wants to do away with it. They just don't get it.
You have republicans yelling about Obama creating things like "drug Czars" and they say things like "this ain't russia, we don't need no Czars", then when you point them to the facts, that Czars don't have any power, they are only advisers, plus they were created originally by the so called greatest republican ever, Ronald Reagan, and they think you are lying to them. They don't bother to look up the facts, they just listen to people like Bill Oliely, or Rush limbaugh, and believe whatever they say.
It is nuts. So no matter what the facts are, if obama doesn't fix every mess Bush and company created, then he will be blamed for the mess and likely not get reelected.
Another funny example is how Bush gets credit for there not being any terrorist attacks in America after 9/11. Yet if you look at the history of terrorist attacks, you don't see that many attacks in America anyways, whether a republican is in office or a democrat.
Here is a list of terrorist attacks against America. There aren't that many and most are overseas.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
According to republicans, Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks, even though the biggest attack on US soil happened on his watch.
My last funny example.
The war in Iraq.
According to Republicans, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, plus if you asked many republican, Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Yet our own weapons inspectors said Saddam destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction after the first time we invaded them. This is info from republican appointed weapons inspectors. Experts in the field, yet the republican leadership kept saying that they had weapons of mass destruction. Plus that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Finally after 2 years of saying this, they admit that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, yet many still believed it. It took us 2 years of showing LEB that her own leadership was finally saying that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 before she would finally believe.
And people wonder why we are so frustrated. haha..
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Couldn't surf???? on the intercoastal waterway? Uhh.. Is there even surf?
Danged Democrats, destroying the surf by building an intercoastal waterway. haha. You know. It was democrats who invented trad climbing and sport climbing. Without them, we wouldn't be having these arguments and we would all just be climbers. But noooooooo, the danged democrats had to go and mess things up.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"...but I do think I have reconsidered some issues in light of what people have discussed here."
Small victories, glacial progress. Whatever it takes...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
I dunno sis, you attach a lot more relevance to those two parties than most of us....
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Man, I gotta hand it to you, Lois. 500 posts in less than a week...you really are the queen of the trolls.
True, the 'Repugs are Wrong' thread seems to have finally run it's course, so maybe us polititards are willing to follow any politi-thread that pops up. And to be sure, there are very few topics that generate as strong a response as healthcare. That said, nobody can consistently start a thread and generate the kind of response that you do.
|
|
Roughster
Sport climber
Vacaville, CA
|
|
The typical Republican philosophy is that if they personally don't need to use a government function then it should not exist. Only when the possibility exists that they may need to use it will they say it is needed. It's all about hording as much possible personal wealth regardless of anyone else or the sustainability of their lifestyle beyond their own personal lifespan.
I make far beyond where the economical "Republican" line exists but can see beyond my own self interest to see that sometimes it isn't about the all mighty dollar. Sometimes it is about what is the right thing to do.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
I remember the Medicare debates of 1964-1965.
My father told me the exact same language stoking fear was employed by
the Republicans during the creation of Social Security.
The Republicans then used the same tactics as they are using now in their opposition.
Their full intent and unified focus was to scare the American public into
thinking that Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare Reform should
be greatly feared because they are "big government" initiatives, and would
result in a big brother type intrusion into private lives.
Even back in 1935 when SS was passed, the Republican used words such as
"Socialism", and "government takeover".
They said SS and Medicare would drive the country into outright bankruptcy
That interest rates would go through the roof and that our children's
children's children would be forever burdened and live horrible lives
paying off such fiscal nonsense, that the US deficit would destroy America.
Then, and now, in spite of such fierce opposition, the Democrats passed
Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare Reform.
And tens of millions of Americans since then could well have starved to death
in their old age and died from lack of any healthcare, instead spend their
retirement years in comparative financial security and much better health.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
The word "Socialism" is particularly effective in scaring people.
It sounds much like Communism.
It invokes the fear of people living on communal farms in eastern Europe,
when the government owned the means of production, and capitalism was
seen as evil and benefiting only the rich land barons.
Fatty here really loves to use the word Socialism to scare people.
Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]
Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[5]
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"We tend to like to do that which benefits ourselves versus the common good of society."
Boy, that strikes me as a particularly self-oriented statement. I would say it is true that people tend to think first how a given event or issue would impact them, but most of us also realize that we are not the only people who live in this world, or this country, or this state, or this town, or this neighborhood, or this house. At some point, we all realize that we live in a Society of one kind or another, and that our choices impact others. Likewise, we come to realize that there are some functions that we cannot provide as individuals, and that when approached as a group, are achievable.
Obviously, the dance is in balancing the two: individualism, personal liberty & the accompanying responsibility with the benefits of a maintaining a society. The healthcare debate is so strongly polarized, and despite regular questioning, none of the ST Repubs describe the US as a socialist country, and yet that is exactly what they are waving about as justification for their argument: that any kind of nationalized system would make us a Socialist country once and for all.
We could easily have a balanced solution to this serious problem: a baseline level of healthcare & coverage for all citizens that is funded via payroll taxes, while maintaining private insurance options to amend that policy to the level of care that one desires and can afford. Instead, this polarized, hyperbolic, ridiculous debate has resulted in a 'solution' that satisfies no-one.
I have heard it posited of late that perhaps the US is an ungovernable country any longer, given the diversity of the issues and inability to find functional, balanced consensus on key issues. It makes me wonder sometimes.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
The Republicans are just as socialist as anyone else. Bush grew the government and didn't fund it, leaving over 6 trillion dollar debt at the end of his term. GOP just prefers socialism of war profiteering and corporate welfare to blow trillions of our tax dollars on. They seem OK with building roads too. They claim to be more patriotic, but all of our tax dollar thru them goes to multinationals that have no interest in what's best for people in America.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"My guess is that we both probably fall near the the middle of the bell curve since the statistical odds do favor that."
I would agree, totally, and believe it or not, I think most of the ST ideologues (who present themselves that way) fit somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, too. That's the frustrating part of the way the US political process works: it is performed in a hyperbolic, partisan manner, with each side denouncing the other as being on the most extreme ends. The result is a lot of suspicion, division, and an utter lack of reasonable, productive dialogue. We all suffer the effects mightily, and blame the other, with little acknowledgement of the fact that we used the same tactics to get us where we are.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Let's talk about the "unfunded liabilities" of SS and Medicare:
Watch Fatty sell "socialism", watch him sell FEAR and IGNORANCE
Fatty's "The Sky Is Falling": NOT
The notion of "unfunded liabilities" in certain programs is based on the arbitrary assumption that certain designated revenue sources should pay for certain classes of government expenditures. The story that Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of payroll taxes and their trust funds is not a recent creation of critics of those systems. It has been around for decades. But why? Revenues and expenditures are "fungible," meaning that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In fact, today's Social Security surplus flows right into the pot with other revenues, while a significant portion of Medicare costs already are paid for out of general revenue. The real question is not "will the designated revenues be enough to pay for the designated programs" but "will we have enough income to afford to keep the promises we have made?"
There is no question that the nation's gross domestic product will be sufficient to meet all of our Social Security promises forever, leaving lots of income for increasing the prosperity of the young. In general, the outlook for economic growth is good. Our average income per person in 100 years is likely to be much, much higher than it is today (more than four times as high). Social Security benefits are predicted to rise from about 4.5 percent of our GDP to about 6.6 percent over the next century. Even though such long predictions are very uncertain, this one should leave us sanguine: if incomes in 100 years are only twice their present level, and incomes of the old rise from 4.5 to 6.6 percent of income, that still leaves us with $1.96 for every dollar we have today, after Social Security obligations are taken care of. We can continue to keep our modest Social Security promises, and young families still will be much better off than families are today.
There also is no question that, if health care costs continue to rise as rapidly into the indefinite future as they have in recent years, medical expenditures will soak up a much, much larger share of our overall income than they do now, leaving a smaller and smaller share for other uses. Unlike Social Security, this could indeed become a grave problem.
What's Generational Accounting Got to Do With It?
Although the notion that we are headed for a fiscal train wreck is stated in the language of scientific prediction, there is a moral element as well. Building on the idea of "generational accounting," those who foresee a catastrophe are implicitly using the ethical standard that people should take care of themselves over their lifetimes-not rely on government transfers from others (including from other generations). The idea is that it is unfair for old people as a group to get back more than they paid into the public trough (using appropriate interest rates).
This is a very odd notion. Why is it that young people in general will be better off than their parents? Fundamentally, it is because of the information and technology that earlier generations produced, the engine of modern economic growth. If the older generation levied fees on all the intellectual property they created, that could amount to an enormous claim by older people on their children: "We invented the transistor and financial derivatives, which is what makes you so productive. Pay up."
There is no need to charge rent on the intellectual property the young inherit from earlier generations. Instead, we can use our common sense. If the old are a growing proportion of the population, and the pie we all have to share is much bigger than it was, we should give a larger slice to the elderly.
Don't Worry, Be Happy
Imagine if in 1950, someone had calculated the costs of educating the baby boomers in public institutions through their college years. What an immense, unmanageable burden! And nothing-not a penny-had been set aside by 1950 to cover the costs of public universities in the 1960s and 1970s! Using the logic of unfunded liabilities that has fueled alarmist media stories, public universities should have been closed; education should have been left to the private sector.
Yet nobody ever claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that the education of the Baby Boomers was an excessive burden our society, or that our public institutions could not afford to accept the challenge. When we needed more schools, we built them. Why should the Boomers' retirement be unmanageable? We need to strengthen social insurance for old people, and we will be able to afford it.
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=496
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
fattrad, your fear-based ranting is a prime example of the hyperbole that prevents any kind of reasonable, productive dialogue on issues like this. I know you are just being a faithful GOP-ster- thanks for providing a perfect example of what I was talking about.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
As an employer for the past 40 years, I can tell you that the very LAST
person I would consider hiring would be Fatty.
I want people with positive attitudes, people who are not "afraid" to fail.
Fatty is driven by fear, it clouds his attempts at logic and reason.
Everything is "can't do it", no, too many potential problems.
Everything is "Socialism", everything will "bankrupt" this country.
The sky is constantly falling in fatty's world of FEAR.
He even has his own website http://www.chickenlittle-movie.com/
And the Obama BULL MARKET in stocks roars on, now up a whopping 60%
since he stabilized the financial sector and signed the Stimulus Bill.
Over 1.5 trillion dollars in America's wealth in retirement funds has been
restored since march of last year, 6 weeks after Obama's taking office.
SUCK ON THAT
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
I think it's you Fattrad who are singing Kumbaya. Americans are sick of paying double for nothing. You'll have a revolution on your hands before too long.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
fattrad.......with all due respect , try being more positive.....i undestand your socialism fears....yes there is a possibility that public health care could bankrupt our government.....however, in my opinion , our government is pretty good at throwing taxpayer dollars down the drain on dubious wars , bridges in alaska to nowhere , executive bonus's....you name it...our government is shameful when it comes to spending the taxpayer dollars on unecessary junk.....i worked for the forest service and know first hand the wasteful spending that goes on....! my point is that there is money available for public health insurance.....we simply need to get the special interest pork out of politics that contribute to our wasteful spending and put that money into an affordable health program for american citizens.....what a concept ? the government actually giving the taxpayers back something useful for their hard earned wages.....!!!! healthy american citizens are productive happy citizens that contribute to our society....investing in healthy americans , i believe , is the best bang for our bucks......what's your thoughts on this...?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!