chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 interesting responses to electionothers, the hard core partisans, the dogmatic, and one-sided, seem to be just angry. instead of trying to change their party so as to appeal to more americans, they are fixated on lamenting the downfall of america, mocking the democrats, making excuses, and, in general, finding every way possible to avoid confronting the harsh reality - which is that they failed to appeal to the majority of americans. you hear them making statements like 'america is doomed,' and 'the people are just voting themselves free stuff,' and 'the democrats bought votes.' i am truly curious to see which wing of the gop will take control and determine the furture of the party. i hope they get it together and survive as a party. america is better and stronger when we have competing voices to discuss serious issues. |
||||||
|
Our system kind of breeds two parts by the way we vote with a winner take all system. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Nov-12, 12:26 |
|
||||||
|
This is best exemplified by unions contributing to the party and the party voting to raise taxes in order to pay higher salaries and huge pensions to the unions. But it applies also to granting citizenship to millions of people who are not here legally. It applies to allowing people here illegally to take jobs from citizens & people who are here legally. It applies to people who have gotten increased welfare benefits, food stamps benefits. (millions in the last four years) It applies to giving people free medical care at the expense of those who work. It applies to giving free education to people who are not citizens. One-party rule is now the norm. There will be no more two party system anymore. We are now like Mexico of the last century with the PRI and the Soviet Union with the Communist Party. As Ben Franklin said: "Once the people discover that they can vote themselves money, the Republic is dead". The Democrat Party has bought itself lasting control. |
||||||
|
mr doom and gllom so. you find it troubling that unions, which represent working people, engage in the political process using money. and you would like to go back to the good old days where only the rich and corporations could afford to engage in the political process using money. i see. interesting. buying senators with lobbyists is just fine, but buying votes by supporting workers struggles for a living wage, health care, and a pension is just a wee bit too much like socialism for you. <But it applies also to granting citizenship to millions of people who are not here legally.> this is a bi-partisan response. only the extreme right wing of the gop actually does not want this. furthermore, it is a measured response to an existing situation. as much as you would like to just magically deport 12 million people, it ain't gonna happen. and if it did, it would strike a crippling blow to america's economy <It applies to allowing people here illegally to take jobs from citizens & people who are here legally.> we have been over this. american workers will not take those jobs. remember what happened in alabama? www.businessweek.com <It applies to people who have gotten increased welfare benefits, food stamps benefits. (millions in the last four years)> because gw destroyed our economy. you would have these folks go hungry? just like in the good old days? <It applies to giving people free medical care at the expense of those who work.> so if you are unemployed and sick, tough luck bud. <It applies to giving free education to people who are not citizens.> right. because having them uneducated hurts the country. educated people can get jobs, and be productive members of society. as for sending them back, i already addressed that. |
||||||
|
also the democratic party in the usa for 4 years. and now 8 more. before that was 8 years of republican. and before that 8 years democratic. and 12 years of republicans before that. so, i hope you will excuse me that i laughed pretty hard at your comparison. overreacting just a bit, perhaps |
||||||
|
and anyway it makes sense on an evolutionary scale. as humans develop and evolve, we naturally move politically left. |
||||||
|
However, there will be an opposition party regardless. It's the way our winner take all system works. It's inevitable. |
||||||
|
josh the truth: www.youtube.com |
||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Nov-12, 17:05 |
|
||||||
|
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543042_425974390789869_1758571885_n.png |
||||||
|
Another result Business was just waiting for the election to be over so they could invest, build, hire and create jobs. Now they will wait some more. Businesses were waiting to see if they would hire. Now they will downsize to under 50 employees and full-time jobs will become 28 hour per week part-time jobs. We know that sequestration will happen as they will not come to a meaningful agreement on taxes and spending cuts. That means we lose 3 - 4% of GDP growth, and when you consider that we are only now growing at 1.5%... that means recession. The Democrat Party bought the election. Now, they get the results and it will be clear who did what. btw... I think that those single females who sold their votes for free condoms and birth control pills made a poor bargain. |
||||||
|
softaire |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
softy. . . but not a result, just as say the War between the States was an anticipatory response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, but not a result of of his actions. |
||||||
|
sham softy - are we really going to have to listen to this for the next four years too? by the way, do you realize that the stock market has risen more than 60% under obama? the fourth best of any president? seekingalpha.com |
||||||
|
jeff meh depending on how it's calculated, stocks are barely keeping up at best to having actually gone down at worst something else to think about though . . . if you don't want him taking the blame, how are seriously in any intellectually honest fashion suggesting he should take some credit? |
||||||
|
here's the bottom line |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
the difference in what the Dems and GOP want to do with the government, taxes, and economy are real issues . . . if they can get a real compromise then they should try for a real compromise, but we can't continue to spend like this |
||||||
|
Shamash I am with JD about the stock prices. Whereas the stock market had climbed back up to about 95% of it's value (by number) just before the election, the value of my house is still at about only 65% of it's value (by number) from before the crash. Same with my 401K... a little higher at about 70-75% of it's value before the crash. So, while the stocks are indicating that we have almost "recovered", the value of things indicated that we have not really even gotten close. The answer, of course, is that the Fed has been printing money hand-over-fist for years now. That, as you all know, causes the value of money to go down. It causes inflation. The government likes that because they can pay their bills with more dollars and they can give away more entitlements (which help them buy votes). But inflation destroys the value of houses, 401K's, fixed incomes, and other investments. It increases the cost of energy, gasoline, food, rent, repairs, clothes, entertainment. It is particularly destructive to elderly, poor, retired... just the people that Democrats say they want to help. |
||||||
|
restoring the market values of single-family residences Now what if Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama were to issue a joint statement on fighting deflation, that was in turn prominently heralded as the new monetary policy of the Fed? This would be the idea: That as the central bank, the Fed would buy government debt (as it does in quantitative easing) but then just rip up those bonds, and cancel the debt, with few consequences, except maybe some inflation (which the Fed should want now, anyway, fighting the deflation of housing prices). This flavor of blatant monetization seems unlikely in a country like the US, borrowing at staggeringly-low rates ---- yet the idea of the central bank working more closely with the government to stimulate the economy, and to help asset-values like home prices recover should be a policy-makers' game plan as a strategy for taking action. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Nov-12, 22:47 |
|
||||||
|
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396358_4856468769128_600775260_n.jpg Higher educated state voting Democrat, lower educated states voting Republican. Anyone know the reasons for this? |
||||||
|
stock market as for house prices, jd is correct. and softy has been sold a bill of goods. home prices were vastly inflated. to thin k your home is worth what some one said it was worth at a certain time is silly. your home has not lost any value - it is still a house. expecting values to stay the same, or constantly go up is just silly. that is what caused the housing bubble in the first place. |
||||||
|
change |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
