and so it begins......

WalterHouston · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:34 am

Steven Carter wrote:

For this conservative, Bush was very much not. Expanded gov't intrusion into many areas of life, the world, Medicare part D etc. No, that's not a true representation of conservatism. Weirdly, Clinton's second term was closer, thanks in part to 1994 and Gingrich's House.

Will Obama get the message? Will he triangulate, compromise and change course? If he does, he'll get re-elected. If not, well....

Dick,
As of 2008 exit polls most of the electorate considers themsleves to be moderate (44%), conservative (32%) and liberal (22%), and that is acknowledged by Dems, including Evan Bayh in his well-written NYT op-ed today. That's not a partisan issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opini ... ef=opinion

It's clear the Dems overreached these past 2 years. They mis-read the election landscape, and instead of encouraging businesses to hire workers (It's the economy stupid!), they saddled the country with healthcare mandates that no one read before passing and spent money in a fashion that appeared fiscaly irresponsible. In much the same way, Republicans overreached in 2004 (remember that silly "Political capital" remark W made? {facepalm}) and paid dearly for it in 2006 and 2008.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the siren's song of DC lobbyists makes the new gang into the same old, same old.

And also, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic.

Well stated.

WalterHouston · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:35 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

Must .... not ... post .... Aw what the hell

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Ryan Holton wrote:

This thread is going to be epic, its seems that some people believe there is a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and that party X is going to save the day. I used to believe in Santa too

That's the part that is amazing to me. Neither party is after anything more than a wad of cash to stuff in their pockets.

Can we all stop being so cynical about politics and politicians for a minute?

Single party control of the oval office, house, and senate is a BAD thing. We see that over and over again. The party in power gets a free pass to shove all sorts of crap down our throats. I'd be just as worried about all-red as all-blue.

What we have NOW is a divided government. Things will be in gridlock for a while. Which is just FINE by me. More partisan bickering in washington means less opportunity for them to pass more un-read far-reaching law.

A return to check and balance, and difficulty in passing new national legislation. Just like the founders of the country wanted it -- leave the power to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution wrote:

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Right again.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:39 am

Interestingly, the Federal Reserve gets to fly under the cover of the election. What happened yesterday is vastly more important, imo, to the future of our nation (FOMC decision to print at least another $600B dollars, buying Treasuries, i.e. QE2). The fact that in the US we've assigned a dual mandate to our central bank is hopefully not going to be the biggest mistake of all. The Australian dollar has been the place to be all year -- yielding 4.5+% on overnight funds and soaring versus the dollar.

Our gov't is trying to debase our currency to reduce our debt exposure and is pulling out all stops to make that happen. Emerging markets are soaring on the funds that pour out of the US. The more we "stimulate" our economy, the more EM soar (i.e. a large percentage of stimulus money ends up in EM countries when our "consumers" buy more junk -- i.e. trade deficit just keeps growing). The end game on all of this is going to be interesting I suppose.

Who gets hurt the most in all of this? It would appear to be the middle class of our country. It's been going on for years and now is in hyper-mode thanks to the Fed.

Just look at the distortions in our market at this point in time. 5yr T-notes are at huge RECORD low yields 1.04%. This far eclipses anything that happened in the 30's depression. 30yr yields are 4.07% and actually rising after yesterday's announcement. All it will take is for China to pull back from a Treasury auction, and the fireworks will be lit. (i.e. similar to what they've done in the past month with the rare earth minerals exports).

The average person in the US will start complaining about oil prices "soaring", metals prices, etc, any world commodity priced in dollars when in fact what they should be realizing is that their view is a dollar based one. Price that stuff in Aussie dollars, Yen, Euros and the picture is vastly different.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:43 am

Richard Casto wrote:

Seriously? Are you suggesting that to save money, people should have just voted for the Republican candidate? Are we at the point that we should throw away democratic (small "d") principles just to save money? I am sure if we compromise our values we could save even more money.

I didn't say that a democrat should vote republican. But they should consider the cost of what they're doing and look for an alternative. Such as not voting for the seat or writing another candidate in (assuming that is an option)

Richard Casto wrote:

I am assuming you lean toward the right, so lets put the shoe on the other foot. Pick your favorite win for the Republicans and lets say that person died just prior to the election and would the right answer have been to just say the Democratic candidate should win? Would you have been OK if Marshall had won by default over Burr?

I don't vote down a party line. If I were forced to pick a party it would probably be the rep. party. Either way, I assure you that I would never intentionally vote for a dead person. Especially if I were in the shoes of the Californians.

Richard Casto wrote:

And we occasionally have to hold special elections when people die or resign.

They voted FOR a special election. They voted to throw away money that they don't have. They voted to spend money that is eventually going to come from your pocket. I assume that as a democrat you are okay with that. I certainly am not.

Of course, you and I both are assuming that they intentionally voted for a dead person. The sad truth is, that they might not have known what they were doing.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:46 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

A return to check and balance, and difficulty in passing new national legislation. Just like the founders of the country wanted it -- leave the power to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution wrote:

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

I understand your position Mike, but I will also say that based upon my readings it was never quite as clear cut as many on the right would like to think it is. My understanding is that while there were varied opinions at the convention (just like today), that they realized that giving most of the power to the states had proven to be a failure. That it resulted in a feeble and ineffective central government. Which is part of the reason the convention happened anyhow!

So how do you decide where the limits are for the central government? You could try to spell out every potential eventuality. The list would be long and you inevitably would miss something. So the alternative (and how it was done), was to explicitly list the items that they new should be handled by the central government at a "minimum". But they also knew it couldn't be the "maximum" list either. So they left wiggle room for their ancestors on purpose. A plan to deal with unforeseen situations and an unpredictable future. And as I mentioned earlier, not everyone agreed with this position. But it is what came about. And if we all put so much trust in our founders, then maybe we should continue to do so. Or try to amend the constitution. If I understand it correctly, even the 10th amendment didn't address this idea as it didn't turn off the wiggle room that was built in.

I doubt this will change your position, but I just wanted to toss out the opposing viewpoint. Has the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses been abused? Maybe, but if so, not by much in my opinion. I think that in line with what the founders had in mind, it can eventually be self correcting if it strays too much. The provisions for correction exist. I tend to believe that what we have today is better than what I view the alternative would be. I really don't think the country would be as successful (and powerful) as it is if we had tried to work much like it was defined in the Articles of Confederation.

If left to the states, I suspect that you still would see much of what you have today, but it would be enacted on a per state basis. However the polarizing divide would not be at the level it is today, but you would see much greater regional and state differences. Both the left and right leaning areas would be at much more extremes than they are today. You think California is crazy now, imagine if they ran themselves nearly 100%. The want and desire to preserve a union of states would slowly die away. Maybe something such as the succession of the South would have been successful and maybe even fragmented more than that. Just look at other countries around the world that have been glomed together via random borders. They have no central identity to keep them together so they fallback to ethnic, tribal and political roots which results in a weak and failing society.

Clearly there is no way of saying how any of this may have played out. Maybe it would have been a utopia?! It's just my opinion.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:48 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

Must .... not ... post .... Aw what the hell

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Ryan Holton wrote:

This thread is going to be epic, its seems that some people believe there is a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and that party X is going to save the day. I used to believe in Santa too

That's the part that is amazing to me. Neither party is after anything more than a wad of cash to stuff in their pockets.

Can we all stop being so cynical about politics and politicians for a minute?

I would love to stop being cynical, but they just make it so damn difficult...

MikeWhitney wrote:

Single party control of the oval office, house, and senate is a BAD thing. We see that over and over again. The party in power gets a free pass to shove all sorts of crap down our throats. I'd be just as worried about all-red as all-blue.

I'm with you here, 100%!!

MikeWhitney wrote:

What we have NOW is a divided government. Things will be in gridlock for a while. Which is just FINE by me. More partisan bickering in washington means less opportunity for them to pass more un-read far-reaching law.

I don't know where I stand here. I'm not sure that a gridlocked government is any better for our nation than a one-sided government. I think, personally you and I individually will be better off, but nationally, we need some form of progress.

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:54 am

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Interestingly, the Federal Reserve gets to fly under the cover of the election. What happened yesterday is vastly more important, imo, to the future of our nation (FOMC decision to print at least another $600B dollars, buying Treasuries, i.e. QE2). The fact that in the US we've assigned a dual mandate to our central bank is hopefully not going to be the biggest mistake of all. The Australian dollar has been the place to be all year -- yielding 4.5+% on overnight funds and soaring versus the dollar.

Our gov't is trying to debase our currency to reduce our debt exposure and is pulling out all stops to make that happen. Emerging markets are soaring on the funds that pour out of the US. The more we "stimulate" our economy, the more EM soar (i.e. a large percentage of stimulus money ends up in EM countries when our "consumers" buy more junk -- i.e. trade deficit just keeps growing). The end game on all of this is going to be interesting I suppose.

Who gets hurt the most in all of this? It would appear to be the middle class of our country. It's been going on for years and now is in hyper-mode thanks to the Fed.

Just look at the distortions in our market at this point in time. 5yr T-notes are at huge RECORD low yields 1.04%. This far eclipses anything that happened in the 30's depression. 30yr yields are 4.07% and actually rising after yesterday's announcement. All it will take is for China to pull back from a Treasury auction, and the fireworks will be lit. (i.e. similar to what they've done in the past month with the rare earth minerals exports).

Chuck gets it. Thing is I keep hearing the estimates for QE2 going up. First $500B, then 600B and this morning I read they could buy as much as 1T. I just can't see anything other that bad things happening with this.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:54 am

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

Seriously? Are you suggesting that to save money, people should have just voted for the Republican candidate? Are we at the point that we should throw away democratic (small "d") principles just to save money? I am sure if we compromise our values we could save even more money.

I didn't say that a democrat should vote republican. But they should consider the cost of what they're doing and look for an alternative. Such as not voting for the seat or writing another candidate in (assuming that is an option)

Richard Casto wrote:

I am assuming you lean toward the right, so lets put the shoe on the other foot. Pick your favorite win for the Republicans and lets say that person died just prior to the election and would the right answer have been to just say the Democratic candidate should win? Would you have been OK if Marshall had won by default over Burr?

I don't vote down a party line. If I were forced to pick a party it would probably be the rep. party. Either way, I assure you that I would never intentionally vote for a dead person. Especially if I were in the shoes of the Californians.

Richard Casto wrote:

And we occasionally have to hold special elections when people die or resign.

They voted FOR a special election. They voted to throw away money that they don't have. They voted to spend money that is eventually going to come from your pocket. I assume that as a democrat you are okay with that. I certainly am not.

Of course, you and I both are assuming that they intentionally voted for a dead person. The sad truth is, that they might not have known what they were doing.

this is easily explained Jason. anyone that voted straight Democrat automatically voted for the deceased politician.

what we as citizens should be most concerned about in the State of California is San Francisco's push to ban toys from The Happy Meal. our government again trying to legislate against STUPID. ya can't fix stupid. maybe if the fat little bastages got up from the computer / video games and went outside once in awhile they might get some excercise. :lol:

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:57 am

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

Seriously? Are you suggesting that to save money, people should have just voted for the Republican candidate? Are we at the point that we should throw away democratic (small "d") principles just to save money? I am sure if we compromise our values we could save even more money.

I didn't say that a democrat should vote republican. But they should consider the cost of what they're doing and look for an alternative. Such as not voting for the seat or writing another candidate in (assuming that is an option)

Richard Casto wrote:

I am assuming you lean toward the right, so lets put the shoe on the other foot. Pick your favorite win for the Republicans and lets say that person died just prior to the election and would the right answer have been to just say the Democratic candidate should win? Would you have been OK if Marshall had won by default over Burr?

I don't vote down a party line. If I were forced to pick a party it would probably be the rep. party. Either way, I assure you that I would never intentionally vote for a dead person. Especially if I were in the shoes of the Californians.

Richard Casto wrote:

And we occasionally have to hold special elections when people die or resign.

They voted FOR a special election. They voted to throw away money that they don't have. They voted to spend money that is eventually going to come from your pocket. I assume that as a democrat you are okay with that. I certainly am not.

Of course, you and I both are assuming that they intentionally voted for a dead person. The sad truth is, that they might not have known what they were doing.

I get that they have money problems. But what I still don't understand is what you think they should have done.

You say they "should consider the cost of what they're doing and look for an alternative. Such as not voting for the seat or writing another candidate in (assuming that is an option)"

1. Not voting for the seat is the same as voting for the opposing candidate.

2. I assume they could write in someone, but again, does that really work? It looks like the one in Alaska MIGHT work and that is a write in campaign that has been organized months in advance. Even then it might not work?

Frankly, I don't think either are realistic options. The first in my humble opinion is beyond idiotic (not a comment to you Jason). The second has generally proven to not be feasible and with two weeks to prepare I would say is impossible to do successfully unless the opponent is an ax murderer and had nearly zero chance to win in the first place.

To your point of would I pay for this? Absolutely! It's extremely unfortunate, but is it what we have to do in a democracy.

And yes, a percentage voted straight party and cast a vote for a dead person as well as a number who didn't get the word that she had died.

We will just have to disagree on this one.

WalterHouston · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:04 am

JamesShort wrote:

DickRasmussen wrote:

I've been reading a mystery book series set in the FDR (depression and early WWII) time frame. The books were written by one of FDR's sons, Elliot Roosevelt, in the mid 80's or so. The words and right wing sources of them describing FDR and what he and his policies would do were almost word for word the same as the ones the current generation of right wingers use against Obama. Just updated slightly to reflect the current enemies of the right wing.

Funny how so many of the current right wingers and tea party folks are living on Social Security and kept alive by Medicare but don't consider themselves to be socialists, let alone communists. :lol:

The repubs like to insist that we are a "center right" country . . . which may be true. But the center has generally shifted to the left for many decades. I remember in the 50's when federal involvement in education was BAD per the repubs. Funny how Bush did the federal no child left behind thing. Darn socialist. :lol:

Didn't medicare increases actually pass under that socialist Nixon?

It will be fun to watch where the repubs try to cut spending other than to make stuff to use in ads in 2012 given their stated highest priority being to defeat Obama.

Are they going to cut SS and Medicare given their and the tea party base age?

How about farm subsidies given their mid west and southern base?

Defense contractor spending given their "only we can defend the country and the world" base?

Not much money left elsewhere compared to the deficit.

I like the idea of INVESTING tax money in things like OUR infrastructure instead of Iraq's and Afganistan's. Spend it on aging roads, bridges, power grid, or whatever is falling apart that is obviously needed. Real jobs for real people at all levels in this country. What a potentially bipartisian concept. US government has been investing in infrastucture since at least the Erie canal days. Remember the interstates started under that socialist Eisenhower? Not a new concept.

Dick's sarcasm (in his EXCELLENT post) brings to light something that really pisses me off. Numerous polls have suggested than 90% or more of people who play the 'socialism' card in regard to the current administration can't even define the fundamental concepts of socialism. It's really quite embarrassing. I mean the ODonnell's and Palin's don't even know what the first amendment means/contains......how the hell could they understand something complex like socialism......or democracy for that matter.

James, I'll tell you something that "pisses me off." It is those on the left that use "conservatives are dumb, uneducated or just don't understand" to attack their positions and justify their own. Twice in this thread you have used that argument. It offends me.
I am educated, formally and informally. I am certain I grasp the fundamentals of Marxist Determinism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Democracy and the concept of the form of government called a Republic. Do you? When I didn't understand some of the more complex concepts in economics I educated myself by reading. I challenge you to read one of the books I read, The Road to Serfdom by F.A Hayek ad edited by Bruce Caldwell - ISBN 10:0-226-32055-3. Let me know how long it takes you to get through it. Better yet, PM me your address and I'll have a copy sent to you.
We all have the right to disagree and discuss controversial issues. Watch your step when you make statements and insinuations that those that disagree with you "should educate themselves." You just might be the one less educated and less informed.
Steve, All this is your damn fault!

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:09 am

WalterHouston wrote:

I'll tell you something that "pisses me off." It is those on the left that use "conservatives are dumb, uneducated or just don't understand" to attack their positions and justify their own.

I am not trying to pile on here, and I agree with your general comment Walter, but I do think that there is truth to the comment about "socialism". How about I re-phrase the point...

I doubt most American regardless of political leanings understand what socialism is. Which makes it really unfortunate that particular topic is a big factor in driving politics today.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:13 am

WalterHouston wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

DickRasmussen wrote:

I've been reading a mystery book series set in the FDR (depression and early WWII) time frame. The books were written by one of FDR's sons, Elliot Roosevelt, in the mid 80's or so. The words and right wing sources of them describing FDR and what he and his policies would do were almost word for word the same as the ones the current generation of right wingers use against Obama. Just updated slightly to reflect the current enemies of the right wing.

Funny how so many of the current right wingers and tea party folks are living on Social Security and kept alive by Medicare but don't consider themselves to be socialists, let alone communists. :lol:

The repubs like to insist that we are a "center right" country . . . which may be true. But the center has generally shifted to the left for many decades. I remember in the 50's when federal involvement in education was BAD per the repubs. Funny how Bush did the federal no child left behind thing. Darn socialist. :lol:

Didn't medicare increases actually pass under that socialist Nixon?

It will be fun to watch where the repubs try to cut spending other than to make stuff to use in ads in 2012 given their stated highest priority being to defeat Obama.

Are they going to cut SS and Medicare given their and the tea party base age?

How about farm subsidies given their mid west and southern base?

Defense contractor spending given their "only we can defend the country and the world" base?

Not much money left elsewhere compared to the deficit.

I like the idea of INVESTING tax money in things like OUR infrastructure instead of Iraq's and Afganistan's. Spend it on aging roads, bridges, power grid, or whatever is falling apart that is obviously needed. Real jobs for real people at all levels in this country. What a potentially bipartisian concept. US government has been investing in infrastucture since at least the Erie canal days. Remember the interstates started under that socialist Eisenhower? Not a new concept.

Dick's sarcasm (in his EXCELLENT post) brings to light something that really pisses me off. Numerous polls have suggested than 90% or more of people who play the 'socialism' card in regard to the current administration can't even define the fundamental concepts of socialism. It's really quite embarrassing. I mean the ODonnell's and Palin's don't even know what the first amendment means/contains......how the hell could they understand something complex like socialism......or democracy for that matter.

James, I'll tell you something that "pisses me off." It is those on the left that use "conservatives are dumb, uneducated or just don't understand" to attack their positions and justify their own. Twice in this thread you have used that argument. It offends me.
I am educated, formally and informally. I am certain I grasp the fundamentals of Marxist Determinism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Democracy and the concept of the form of government called a Republic. Do you? When I didn't understand some of the more complex concepts in economics I educated myself by reading. I challenge you to read one of the books I read, The Road to Serfdom by F.A Hayek ad edited by Bruce Caldwell - ISBN 10:0-226-32055-3. Let me know how long it takes you to get through it. Better yet, PM me your address and I'll have a copy sent to you.
We all have the right to disagree and discuss controversial issues. Watch your step when you make statements and insinuations that those that disagree with you "should educate themselves." You just might be the one less educated and less informed.
Steve, All this is your damn fault!

nah Walter, that's just your inner-Redneck rearing up there beau.

and Cline, I ask this. If the poor and the illegals get free or reduced cost health care why can't the middle class get a break too? As i mentioned to you earlier this week my less than stellar BCBS plan is jumping by 17% in January. My only option is to drop down another level for the second year in a row to a plan that basically covers nothing, cost too much monthly and I still have to pay for office visits and meds.

pardon me if my buttocks region feels abused. :roll:

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:14 am

Donnie Barnes wrote:

I agree with Mike completely, and am actually kind of sick of all the political cynicism, too. It's gotten so en vogue to just rail the system as well as any attempt at any kind of political discussion. You're just a zealot or whatever. It's "uncool" to talk politics, which then means it's uncool to talk about any issue that turns into politics. So now we can't talk about healthcare AT ALL since the government has gotten so heavily involved.

F' that. We need discussion. We need debate. We need people to not feel like things were rammed down their throats. And most importantly, we need checks and balances.

Sadly, the internet has made it far too easily to take discussions to extremes and thus turned topics like this into complete taboo. But if WE don't discuss these things, who will?

--Donnie

I have already posted regarding Mike's comments, but Donnie I otherwise agree with you. The fact that politics are so polarizing these days is not helping us as Americans. We are not debating and moving forward we are shouting at each other and trying to score points vs. making things better.

Oh, and to be clear in my other posts. I don't consider California to be an example of what is right in our country! :cry:

steve remchak · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:16 am

Richard Casto wrote:

Donnie Barnes wrote:

I agree with Mike completely, and am actually kind of sick of all the political cynicism, too. It's gotten so en vogue to just rail the system as well as any attempt at any kind of political discussion. You're just a zealot or whatever. It's "uncool" to talk politics, which then means it's uncool to talk about any issue that turns into politics. So now we can't talk about healthcare AT ALL since the government has gotten so heavily involved.

F' that. We need discussion. We need debate. We need people to not feel like things were rammed down their throats. And most importantly, we need checks and balances.

Sadly, the internet has made it far too easily to take discussions to extremes and thus turned topics like this into complete taboo. But if WE don't discuss these things, who will?

--Donnie

I have already posted regarding Mike's comments, but Donnie I otherwise agree with you. The fact that politics are so polarizing these days is not helping us as Americans. We are not debating and moving forward we are shouting at each other and trying to score points vs. making things better.

Oh, and to be clear in my other posts. I don't consider California to be an example of what is right in our country! :cry:

i think California would be considered Left Richard. :lol:

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:26 am

steve remchak wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

Oh, and to be clear in my other posts. I don't consider California to be an example of what is right in our country! :cry:

i think California would be considered Left Richard. :lol:

Haha

I have visited the Bay area a few times on business and absolutely loved it. But cost of living aside, I don't know if I could deal with the political nuttiness of California. :nuts:

I tend to think that I am a slightly left leaning centrist and prefer living in a more moderate state (even if it leans toward the right as a whole).

THSCC Forums

and so it begins......

Who is online