USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[froggyluv 2130]

Well froggy, would you agree that the current problem has mostly to do with low confidence in investments, caused by oil prices and the housing markets?

If so (like I think it is), then you should look at the reasons why these things happened.

Why hasn't the US built an oil platform or a nuclear powerplant in like 50 years? Why are we sitting on huge reserves of oil and coal and seem content to let our people and economy buckle under the preasure?

Who was it that forced mortgage banks into lending sub-prime loans to people unable to afford them?

I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Georgie or the vast Right Wing Conspiracy (RWC), to which I belong.

Now, I'll admit to you that the Republicans were not able to change the course of things before this happened, and I'm by no means a big fan of Bush, but these problems were a result of policies enacted before Bush took office. These aren't new - this has been in the works for years and years.

Anyways, these dosn't even sound like something a Republican would do...it sounds like something Democrats would do...think about it.

Actually I see the biggest cause of these mega-banks going under is deregulation and it's biggest culprit -The ' Commodity Futures Modernization Act ' sponsored by Republican Phil Grahmm when George W. was being inauggerated in 2000. This bill, in essence, took away regulatory and watchdog powers from both the SEC and CFTC's rendering them unable to check whether investment banks had the assests to guarantee potential 'losses.'

Republicans, under Ronald Reagan, passed similar legislation during the 1980's if you remember the S&L's scandals of which John McCain, although not charged, was severely reprimanded for his involvement as part of 'The Keating Five".

Regulations should have been re-installed and Pres. Bush had plenty of time to do just that but what do they do- give Big Business both mega-tax breaks and Corporate Welfare, in which we, the struggling middle-class have to bail out.

Thanks- but no thanks.

[scubaman3D 0]

Its incredible how quickly the propaganda machines start working.

Check facts. Billy C signed that into law and it was voted through by 87% of the house, with only 2 democrats voting no.

Has nothing to do with only Republicans or George Bush

[froggyluv 2130]

Its incredible how quickly the propaganda machines start working.

Check facts. Billy C signed that into law and it was voted through by 87% of the house, with only 2 democrats voting no.

Has nothing to do with only Republicans or George Bush

True, Clinton did sign it but Democrats have since introduced legislation to repeal it -

"An attempt to repeal the policy was vetoed by President Bush in 2008. Several Democratic Legislators introduced legislation to close the loophole from 2000-2006, but were unsuccessful due to Republican control of the House and Senate"- The WIKI

What propaganda? I am and have always been a registered Independent sir.

[scubaman3D 0]

sorry, sorry. I didn't mean that you were putting forth propaganda.

It was more of a comment about the irony how both sides are blaming the other for the problem. Fact is I think both sides caused the problem together - whether they like to admit it or not.

[froggyluv 2130]

Well I have to agree with you there. The overall philosophy of Republican- "less Government intrusion" is an appealing one to me the problem is that without certain regulations, Big Business and Investment seems to run rampant. But certainly both parties have way too many ties to lobbyist groups leaving 'average Joe American' out in the cold and in increasing debt.

[gL33k 0]

Mcfail would be a terrible thing for usa . i sincerly hope american will get a honnorable presidency.

[chops 111]

Watching this election from the outside, I'm horrified at the state of the whole process. Granted Australian media only pick up the salacious, sensationalist crap, but even looking around US websites...

"Lipstick on a pig"

"...Bush doctrine"

"hockey Mom...pitbull"

"...community organiser"

"Sambo beat the bitch"

And my personal favourite... "Change you can believe in"

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN??

It's almost impossible to find out what any of these idiots plan to do when in office other than "Change stuff".

I read an interesting stat once that said 42% of US citizens trust politicians, but 70% trust the president. It seems to me that the US is looking for a King, a Chief, who's personal attributes are more important than any policy or plans. It's as if the President just has to be the best person in America.

[scubaman3D 0]

Doesn't mean anything. Its all bullshit - more akin to a high school popularity contest than a serious presidential election.

Its just as frustrating for me too - and even though I can vote, my vote does not count unless I vote for Barak Obama, since I live in NY (under the electoral system).

[Panda-PL- 0]

I listened to Obamas views on both war on terror and US economy.

I am no expert on war, so I won't critisize, I can only point out simmilarity to Vietnam and premature withdrawal there.

Which I find morally wrong, you come into countries, wage war and then once it's no fun anymore you just leave and people that have allied with you are left with their problems.

On economics I am not sure how can one increase spendings and lower taxes simultanously. Simirarly I don't know how taxing companies and supporting economical growth go in pair.

It simply doesn't summ up.

Plus I am not sure if current situation in US economy allows enougth space for manouver to carry out a reform.

You generally start reforms when your economy is stable and in growth.

I haven't listened to McCain. I know he's much less charismatic but that could play with my tastes. That's however style, not content.

[JdB 151]

@ Sep. 22 2008,16:22)]I listened to Obamas views on both war on terror and US economy.

I am no expert on war, so I won't critisize, I can only point out simmilarity to Vietnam and premature withdrawal there.

Which I find morally wrong, you come into countries, wage war and then once it's no fun anymore you just leave and people that have allied with you are left with their problems.

This process was called the "Vietnamization" (ARVN troops gradually taking over combat tasks from American troops with massive amounts of weapons and money being invested, the speed of which was increased more and more (ultimately the time used for it proved insufficient to train the corrupt and morale inferior ARVN) as the war grew more impopular).

This process already applies to Iraq. The US has been trying to get this same process going in Iraq since at least 2005 (with noticeable success in some areas). McCain wants to get out as fast as possible (or so he says, nothing is more unreliable as the word of a politician), while Obama wants to get out as soon as possible as well.

I've watched parts of both the democratic and republican conventions, and what they say on Iraq really isn't that different from what the other guy says. Ultimately it varies in the details. I feel Obama would be less likely to send in more troops in "surge"-like operations, and focus even more on the process of having the Iraqis take over.

Also I guess the attitude displayed by Obama towards the rest of the world would be more humble, as the US really can't afford to play the big bad boy anymore as Bush has been doing for the last 8 years. If McCain continues Bush' way of treating people, countries and religions, the US will become even more isolated.

[scubaman3D 0]

@ Sep. 22 2008,16:22)]I listened to Obamas views on both war on terror and US economy.

I fully agree with your assessment on Barak Obama

Obama wants to raise income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes to pay for so-called "stimulus checks" to the lower and lower-middle class. He wants to put special taxes on oil companies to fund less efficient, alternate fuels- which will only result in them deflecting the cost onto the customers (i.e. raising the gas prices to pay this federal tax), and he has also been a proponent of socialized medicine.  These are about the stupidest things he could be proposing for the country.

I mean, the capital gains tax issue alone really makes me wonder about his intelligence. This is a tax the government takes on profits from investment. Raising taxes on investment profits will reduce incentive to invest, which is worse for the economy. I'm really questioning his judgment with this. .

Ultimately, however - like I implied in my previous post, I am disenfranchised by the electoral college. I live in the most liberal county in the most liberal state in the US. The electorates from NY will cast their votes for Obama - it is a 100% sure thing. My vote only counts if I live in a state that isn't so biased.

[echo1 0]

EDIT: Problem with internet lead to double post, ignore.

[echo1 0]

He wants to put special taxes on oil companies to fund less efficient, alternate fuels- which will only result in them deflecting the cost onto the customers (i.e. raising the gas prices to pay this federal tax), and he has also been a proponent of socialized medicine.  These are about the stupidest things he could be proposing for the country.

Well, first off, don't you think the reason why the fuels are inefficient (or indeed why there are no efficient alternatives) would be due to lack of investment in their development? I mean, things like the Hydrogen Fuel cell seem to show a lot of promise. I agree that the cost of petrol (or gas as you lot would call it over there ) is going to rise in the meantime, but at least it might incentivize people to buy more energy efficient cars instead of SUVs... And what's so wrong with socialized medicine anyway? I do agree however that pulling out of Iraq is just a stupid idea, and I know very little about the impact and theory behind taxation, so I cant really judge either candidate on that basis.

[froggyluv 2130]

@ Sep. 22 2008,16:22)]I listened to Obamas views on both war on terror and US economy.

I fully agree with your assessment on Barak Obama

Obama wants to raise income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes to pay for so-called "stimulus checks" to the lower and lower-middle class. He wants to put special taxes on oil companies to fund less efficient, alternate fuels- which will only result in them deflecting the cost onto the customers (i.e. raising the gas prices to pay this federal tax), and he has also been a proponent of socialized medicine.  These are about the stupidest things he could be proposing for the country.

I mean, the capital gains tax issue alone really makes me wonder about his intelligence. This is a tax the government takes on profits from investment. Raising taxes on investment profits will reduce incentive to invest, which is worse for the economy.  I'm really questioning his judgment with this. .

Ultimately, however - like I implied in my previous post, I am disenfranchised by the electoral college. I live in the most liberal county in the most liberal state in the US. The electorates from NY will cast their votes for Obama - it is a 100% sure thing. My vote only counts if I live in a state that isn't so biased.

Are you saying you'd prefer to abolish the Electoral and go with the Popular Vote? You do realize Al Gore would have won if that was the case.

I agree with the foolishness of stimulus checks as they are costly and do little for the economy and was fully against it when George W. did it. But why in the world do Republicans want to give tax-breaks to Big Oil when they are in record profits and the cost of fuel is seriously crippling the nation. How is Big Oil being patriotic and 'giving back' to the Nation which is suffering while they are thriving? Is it really a stretch to realize that both Bush and Cheney profit from high-oil prices and have very close ties to the industry.

Also why didn't you mention that Obama plan's to not raise taxes on the middle-class? I hope somebody does increase taxes on the filthy rich as they are only getting richer while the middle-class is falling.

Trickle-down economics only works if the "Rich"/Corporations have a conscience but I think we all know, judging by manufacturing outsourcing that they are all about the bottom line- the $.

[scubaman3D 0]

Quote[/b] ]You do realize Al Gore would have won if that was the case.

Good point. Thank God for the Electoral College - but I'm still essentially disenfranchised.

On the substantive points, why do you feel entitled to money somebody else made by their own work?

A man works his ass off and makes $350k in a year. Why do you deserve his money? He has to give, what $100k to the government. About 30% of his work, he does for free. How is that fair for him? He's not "filthy rich".

This is nothing more than jealousy and class envy.

I'm not defending "Big Oil"  - I think they're probably bastards, but if you raise taxes on them, they'll turn around and raise prices on gas to maintain their apparently "immoral" profits. Will this put America in a better or worse situation?

Oil has been investigated by all of these BS government committees and no faults have been found. Should they just "take one for the team" and give oil away at a price below market value?

and @Ch

I understand alternate energy sources are important but I believe it shouldn't be forced upon us. It needs to be market driven.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Newsflash: Hydrogen is not green energy.

It is an - quite inefficient - form of storing electricity.

The electricity has to be produced in the first place. And you'd have to burn more fossil fuels than you do in your car because major part of energy is lost durring conversion (yes, electric cars are less green than fossil fuels, just because pollution is produced where you cannot see it does not make it green). And then the vater vapour causes more greenhouse effect anyway, so what's the point?

Sollar cells, water or wind turbines are the only real green energy. Water vapour is much more efficient greenhous gass than CO2 so plants that would produce it (nuclear, geothermal...) are not ecological.

Why don't we just wait untill oil becomes too expensive, problem will solve itself.

So each time I see Al Gore or the like I ask "what's the point"?

[jakerod 254]

@ Sep. 23 2008,14:48)]Newsflash: Hydrogen is not green energy.

It is an - quite inefficient - form of storing electricity.

The electricity has to be produced in the first place. And you'd have to burn more fossil fuels than you do in your car because major part of energy is lost durring conversion (yes, electric cars are less green than fossil fuels, just because pollution is produced where you cannot see it does not make it green). And then the vater vapour causes more greenhouse effect anyway, so what's the point?

Sollar cells, water or wind turbines are the only real green energy. Water vapour is much more efficient greenhous gass than CO2 so plants that would produce it (nuclear, geothermal...) are not ecological.

Why don't we just wait untill oil becomes too expensive, problem will solve itself.

So each time I see Al Gore or the like I ask "what's the point"?

Electric cars would be more green if the plants used to make the energy were solar, wind or tide powered assuming that those don't put out a crap load of emissions when they are being built.

[Daniel 0]

Even if they did, they'd make up that energy over time by not polluting. Green energy (from what I can tell) is all about investing early in sensible areas.

How about those systems that pump water up-hill, then split the generated energy between the grid and pumping it back up again?

[Kolt 0]

to start off. Bush pretty much is an American Dictator. he has powers that no president has ever had before. he also plans to attack iran before his term ends...woo hoo World war 3 yah!

i loved Ron Paul. he was a true patriot. he believed in the constitution and the Rights of ever American. but the American people didnt wake up in time. we were too busy brainwashing our minds with Bullshit, and Lies. War on terror? no War on taking the rights away from the people. that is wat it should be named. bush screwed with America. he destroyed our name. and our glory. hell if he wants to he can declare martial law. and become Americas first dictator

[jakerod 254]

to start off. Bush pretty much is an American Dictator. he has powers that no president has ever had before. he also plans to attack iran before his term ends...woo hoo World war 3 yah!

i loved Ron Paul. he was a true patriot. he believed in the constitution and the Rights of ever American. but the American people didnt wake up in time. we were too busy brainwashing our minds with Bullshit, and Lies. War on terror? no War on taking the rights away from the people. that is wat it should be named. bush screwed with America. he destroyed our name. and our glory. hell if he wants to he can declare martial law. and become Americas first dictator

Attack Iran? With what? Sure we're in countries on both sides of it but I highly doubt that we would be able to do anything.

If he did become "America's" first dictator I can nearly guarentee you it would not last long. His approval rating is at 31% or something like that. I would like to think that at least 1 out of the 210,000,000 people who disapprove of him would do something about it. I highly doubt our military, legislative and judicial bodies are the 31% that are backing him up.

I will agree with you on one thing though, Bush totally screwed us up. Thanks Mr. Bush!

[Kolt 0]

to start off. Bush pretty much is an American Dictator. he has powers that no president has ever had before. he also plans to attack iran before his term ends...woo hoo World war 3 yah!

i loved Ron Paul. he was a true patriot. he believed in the constitution and the Rights of ever American. but the American people didnt wake up in time. we were too busy brainwashing our minds with Bullshit, and Lies. War on terror? no War on taking the rights away from the people. that is wat it should be named. bush screwed with America. he destroyed our name. and our glory. hell if he wants to he can declare martial law. and become Americas first dictator

Attack Iran? With what? Sure we're in countries on both sides of it but I highly doubt that we would be able to do anything.

If he did become "America's" first dictator I can nearly guarentee you it would not last long. His approval rating is at 31% or something like that. I would like to think that at least 1 out of the 210,000,000 people who disapprove of him would do something about it. I highly doubt our military, legislative and judicial bodies are the 31% that are backing him up.

I will agree with you on one thing though, Bush totally screwed us up. Thanks Mr. Bush!

our government is corrupt from the inside out. you seriously have no idea. the corporations could buy out congress if they wanted to..you have no idea how deep shit we are in.

[echo1 0]

@ Sep. 23 2008,19:48)]Why don't we just wait untill oil becomes too expensive, problem will solve itself.

I hope that was a joke... When dealing with something so important as oil, I think at least some fore-planning would be prudent. The fact is, when the oil runs out there are going to be a lot of problems. The sooner we embrace this fact and move away from oil, the less problems we will have to face. People sticking their head in the sand never really accomplishes much.

[binkster 0]

@ Sep. 22 2008,16:22)]I listened to Obamas views on both war on terror and US economy.

I fully agree with your assessment on Barak Obama

Obama wants to raise income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes to pay for so-called "stimulus checks" to the lower and lower-middle class. He wants to put special taxes on oil companies to fund less efficient, alternate fuels- which will only result in them deflecting the cost onto the customers (i.e. raising the gas prices to pay this federal tax), and he has also been a proponent of socialized medicine.  These are about the stupidest things he could be proposing for the country.

I mean, the capital gains tax issue alone really makes me wonder about his intelligence. This is a tax the government takes on profits from investment. Raising taxes on investment profits will reduce incentive to invest, which is worse for the economy.  I'm really questioning his judgment with this. .

Ultimately, however - like I implied in my previous post, I am disenfranchised by the electoral college. I live in the most liberal county in the most liberal state in the US. The electorates from NY will cast their votes for Obama - it is a 100% sure thing. My vote only counts if I live in a state that isn't so biased.

I agree... Even an idiot can figure out that taxing the rich will trickle down and cost the middleclass and lowerclass money. If Obama takes office then you can consider the middleclass screwed. The rich get taxed but they will be ok cause they have money. Then the lowerclass will be ok cause our government will take care of them. The middleclass will hurt to keep up with higher cost due to the rich being taxed as well as more taxes going to the people on welfare that are to lazy to work.

[froggyluv 2130]

The tax rate will return to the same rate as under Bill Clinton as far as the wealthy are concerned. That was a strong economy for many reasons but most will admit that the economy has gone into the dumps under George W. and nothing McCain has said leads me to believe he is has a plan to change Bush's failed policies. Remember, a strong economy is not just about low taxes; the strength of the US dollar, which has been raped, is also a factor.

Fiscal conservativity, long the hall-mark of the Republican party was at best elusive, worst, abandonend under this administration as record spending and debt have run rampant.

[Panda-PL- 0]

@ Sep. 23 2008,19:48)]Why don't we just wait untill oil becomes too expensive, problem will solve itself.

I hope that was a joke...

You don't think oil will run out overnight?

Really?

Or over one month or year?

The oil will just get more and more expensive gradually, the price will then settle when it's equal to the costs of green energy because the demand will dropp as people will switch.

That's when green energy will earn people fortunes.

So either way the price rises, by switching now it will just rise faster.

The investment would return 100folds, but the race has not started so far.

Untill it becomes bussiness it is a waste of taxpayer's money.

Developing technologies that have no applications prematurely, which will be outdated (because of advances in science) by the time you need them.

This IS foreplanning. And foreplanning tells me developing technologies 50n years before you need them is not a good idea.

The way I see it:

Green energy = popculture + secular eshatology + uneducated people + casandra syndrome + firm belief humans are the sole cause of everything on earth.