Printable View
Given the only two choices there were to pick from Stu, I would venture to say that most of the good folks of the Commonwealth pinched their noses closed as they were casting that ballot. And many of us here spoke of exactly that prior to Election Day. Neither candidate was a good choice, IMHO, so as is most often the case the best choice is the lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
or NOT confirmQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc
There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.
The Dems keep running terrible candidates against him, who have no chance to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Oh, I am not disagreeing with you. As I said, it's choosing the lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
As much as people complain about Mitch it is impossible not to see that much more gets accomplished with him in charge than it did with Reid in charge.
Yep, when Harry Reid refuses to allow votes to be taken it is conflict and the democratic process, if it is McConnell it is obstruction. Only those truly blinded by partisanship cannot see they are the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
No, that is the fallacy that the democrats have successfully perpetuated.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Happens in the presidency too. Sometimes you have to choose the least suckiestQuote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
example:
http://manifestcollegemag.com/wp-con...ma-200x200.jpg or https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thu...mwfxeedtg.jpeg
and this year the best the democrats can put out is a criminal or a communist
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thu...mwfxeedtg.jpeg or http://cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/00e2793...ie-sanders.jpg
so please lecture the right on quality political candidates.
As I stated, I'd have sympathy for their "cause" were it not for the hypocrisy. Reid spent years blocking proposals brought forth by the GOP by refusing to bring them to vote before the senate. He did it time and time again, and not one of you on the left complained about it. All those proposals and attempts to move the government forward that were OBSTRUCTED by Harry Reid seem to be so conveniently forgotten now. Many on the right warned that when the left pulled these antics under Reid that they would regret opening that pandora's box. I didn't like it when they did it not because it was the left that did it and got their way but rather because it circumvented the process. Now when the right uses the exact same tactic, the left cries foul. Personally I don't like the tactic and believe its bush (bush as in the baseball reference, not the presidential one) league HOWEVER I don't blame the GOP for doing it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Then defeat him in the primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
The difference here is people are saying they don't like their guy. I like my guys. If you Republicans don't like Mitch, vote him out in the primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I like Obama, Hillary and Bernie, to various degrees. If any of them were President(Obama is), then I'd be happy.
This is a conversation about disliking your own.
So many things wrong with these statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
First of all, you're implying that Harry Reid invented the tactic. That would make him a political genius, to which he's not. I can't stand the guy and I still rue the day that a top mission of the GOP was to defeat Tom Daschle, effectively elevating Reid to party leader. I'm a Chuck Schumer guy, so at least somebody who I think is competent will be the party lead.
Second, let's say for a minute that Reid did invent the tactics, that means you're embracing the childish notion that "well if they did it, we can to". You're either for obstruction or against it. If you're for it when your guy does it, but against it when the other guy does it, then it makes you a hypocrite, thus should exclude you from calling others one. Pot meet Kettle.
Third, you're trying to equate day to day business and operations of the Senate to the Supreme Court nomination process. It's apples and oranges, or maybe I should say it's grapefruit and grapes. Obstruction, filibustering, back room deals and so many tactics are business as usual in the Senate. What the GOP is proposing to do is unprecedented and it's an attempt to rewrite the powers of the President, a view that is completely opposite of what those people stand for. Circumventing process, using loopholes, etc IS part of the process. Obstructionism IS NOT.
Finally, "not one of you on the left" complained about it. Who are you lumping into that group? In defense, though, we had a whole lot to complain about with the economy going into a free fall, trillions of dollars going out the back door for an unnecessary war and just trying to survive under the regime of the worst President in the history of the US, a term validated by the GOP front-runner. Sorry if we were a little distracted.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
And as much as McConnell sucks, the democrats STILL can put up somebody to beat him. Says a lot about how piss poor they are when a man who very few of the Republicans in the state like can't be beat. I mean REPUBLICANS don't like the guy yet will still vote for him over a democrat!
I can't judge who Democrats put up because I don't live in the state, but if McConnell is the best that state can offer, then that's pretty sad. He's rock bottom. Maybe the state's making an error by not replacing him..Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
It's complete insanity to say the economy is worse off today than it was when Bush left office. It's just plain dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
EVERY part of the economy is better off.
And, no I wasn't referring to Obama. It's George W Bush who was the worst President in our history.
My life is tremendously better since Bush left office. The country is on a better track, but there's a lot of work to do still. Defeating 20th century conservatism, or as I like to call it, reverse Socialism, where the rich get richer, and the dumb get louder, is a top priority.
Doc, we are dealing with a sexual intellectual who can't see the forest for the trees or read and comprehend. He is on ignore, dealing with a sexual intellectual is a waste of time and energy
The vast majority of people will disagree with you, and rightly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Median family incomes are down (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred.../MEHOINUSA672N), the number of people on food stamps is way up, labor participation rate is way down (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000).
For most American families the economy is much worse today than in January 2009.
To those on the left, more people on welfare is good for the economy. It means more citizens are dependant upon the government and its handout, thus more reliant upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
To Stu's post above, I too am personally better off due to my hard work, despite the actions of the government. Of course it would be worse were it not for those bastard Republican obstructionists blocking all those grandiose democratic spending sprees
You have selectively chosen two data points of very small indicators of the economy, but I will give you that median family income is still a laggard, but the rate of decline since 1999 was much steeper during the Bush years, it's been relatively flat over the last 5-6 years, after the effects of the failed Bush economy were allowed to recover. A huge byproduct of the Bush economy were people having to take lower paying jobs to replace the jobs lost. That has a tremendous impact on family median income. Comparisons of economic turnaround can't simply be measured by two data points. The rate of change is most significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Labor Participation rate? That's completely skewed by baby boomers retiring. It was expected to drop. Now, an argument can be made that more than expected people were forced into retirement because high paying jobs weren't available, but again that's a product of a failed Bush economy.
30 years of trickle down economics take a toll on a nation and the psyche, the true measure of its effect is a growing wealth gap. You can't find a reliable counter argument to argue that the wealth gap continues to grow. It's a real issue that I actually do have with Obama is that he wasn't able to do enough to slow it down. Of course much of what he wanted to accomplish towards solving that problem was blocked.
Unemployment was more than halved, the stock market doubled, the auto industry was saved, the housing market recovered, I can go on and on. If people can't understand why we're significantly better off economically today than we were 8 years ago, that's on them. We'll keep repeating the boom and bust cycle that's magnified by awful trickle down economics. It will accelerate the wealthy to higher highs, the impoverished to lower lows and accelerate the growth of decline of the middle class.
Personally, I'll favor slow, steady and sustainable growth every time. Is the economy in the best place it can be? Of course not, but we're a whole lot better off today. Is every person in America going to see it that way? Absolutely not, but the overwhelming evidence that shows we are better off today is indisputable to rational people.
Nothing has been a bigger drain than the Iraq war, that we will continue to pay for generations. Not to mention, Republicans have been pretty deft at spending themselves. Not to mention welfare for the wealthy in excessive tax breaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Most Americans get to where they are through their hard work, but even those that work hard were denied the ability to do so, again and again, due to failed economic policies. Those that were able to survive, they should be thankful, because there are a whole lot of people that weren't so lucky, but the environment is much more stable and conducive to success than it was in 08-09.
Back to the issue of Supreme Court nomination... How about this proposal to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor? I like the thought process.
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/art...ourt_profs_sa/
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Wars end, entitlements don't. The astronomical suckage of money created by the ACA will far overshadow the spending of Iraq when you look back a decade or two from now assuming it doesn't get fixed. And of course the generous handouts such as "cash for clunkers" or God forbid Bernie's go to college for free plan comes to fruition, just keep adding up.
Too bad so many democrat in Congress voted in favor of the Iraq conflict, huh? Maybe they should they have been obstructionist and stood for what they believe in
Also, the cost of the Iraqi war ( http://www.businessinsider.com/the-i...numbers-2014-6 )is basically the same as the 10 year cost of Obama Care( http://www.google.com/search?sclient...30.VPq3SMWl3DA ). One ends, one doesn't.
Not true. The casualties of war can be never ending, or at a minimum, last our generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Obamacare and other programs are always meant to be fine-tuned. People always forget that the cost of doing nothing exceeds the cost of Obamacare. Escalating costs are slowing. That's a start. A full repeal will send us to a catastrophic state where millions go uninsured and insurance companies and the drug companies can profit without obstruction.
We can argue on who spends what all day, it's pointless. Both parties are completely guilty of overspending, and don't try to act like it's a one-party practice. We just have a disagreement on how to spend, or over spend.
I prefer to spend on infrastructure, making education affordable, innovation, the middle class and those less fortunate. Having said that, there's a HUGE need for reform in all of these areas.
Most Republicans prefer to give it to the wealthy, corporations and defense, probably the most bloated areas of our country. Hardly any of it "trickles". Wealthy people reinvest, corporations hoard cash overseas and Republicans just want to fight useless wars when we have so many problems at home that need to be addressed.
I think the idea has serious merit. Confirmation would be almost assured and the process should not take long. Then the court could take up it's cases and move forward with little interruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Why would Obama nominate someone that's 85 years old, that's already retired from the court?
If he were to make a recess appointment, I'd be supportive of that selection, but I don't think the President deserves anything less than to put up a permanent replacement for nomination.
He's going to pick someone that was confirmed with 95+ votes and make the Republicans make the case of why a moderate pick is not suitable for the Supreme Court and not make it look like it's ONLY political, which of course it is.
Then when they can't make that case, it's going to be a long few months for them. The longer they screw around, the better.
Escalating costs are slowing down? Try to explain that to people who have seen the price of their insurance increase five fold under ACA while having deductibles go from nothing to thousands of dollars.
The only way ACA was ever passed was through special carve outs and outright lies.
Obama has surpassed Carter as the worst President of my lifetime.
I agree he's not gonna appoint O'Connor. He also will not nominate a moderate, he made that clear yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
There is little interruption anyway. Many cases are in the process of being written, with decisions having been made. The only cases which won't be settled are those that end in a 4-4 deadlock, which may be few I number.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
You need not lecture me on the how one rises thru the economic system. I've been there and done it. See my parents work their asses off to pay for their kids childrens education, as well as paying for mine. I payed for my education with the help of my parents and paid my education debt w/o any govt handouts. I spent the last 23 years building my business to accumulate my wealth without the gov'ts handout or help. I have no interest in paying for the education of somebody elses kids in addition to mine. I didn't have the fun of creating those kids so I shouldn't have the responsibility of paying for them via welfare or other entitlements. Thats what PARENTS do.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
As for the topic at hand, lets compare apples to apples.... remember old Chuck Schumers stance back in 2007 when Bush was looking to fill the court with 19 months left in his term? According to Chuck... quote: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
LINK
You want to talk about that pot and kettle?
I'm hearing the 2 top candidates of the short list are Judge Judy and Judge Reinhold (a Martin County Florida High School Grad).
If you started and maintained a business over the course of 23 years, I'm sure you took advantage of some very nice tax breaks for businesses that have happened over that course of time that were implemented by both parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Let's just say for a minute that you haven't received any direct benefit. I'm not sure what line of business that you're in, but there's no way that you can say with certainty that your clientele hasn't benefited from the government and passed that on to you and your business.
EVERYBODY benefits from government in some way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
During that time I employed dozens if not hundreds of people who in turn paid taxes as well. As a small business, I didn't get any of the "nice tax breaks" to which you refer. In actuality I have had to pay some rather ridiculous taxes based on my profession each and every year. Some of which I'd consider bizarre, other that border on extortion, so please don't pretend to understand my business or how the government regulates me or my business. You don't have the faintest clue about it But thats another matter. I pay my fair share PLUS some to cover the roughly half of the population that pays NO INCOME tax. Yes, everybody benefits from the government, its just that some, myself included, pay for it while many don't and those prefer to suckle off its teat. I guess I'm suppose to be thankful because I have a job. As I stated, I took no government HANDOUT or HELP. There were no goverment bailouts for me or my business. I took a private loan to purchase my business and paid it off with my money. As a business owner, I have no unemployment benefits were it to go under. I have a private disability policy that I pay for. My insurance policies are mine, paid for by me, not Uncle Sam. My college paid for by my parent and a private student loan which I paid back in full. My retirement is funded by me (Oh, I put into Social Security but I'm not counting on that). So the "benefits" the goverment provided, like roads, etc... are things I PAID for with my tax dollars so they are things I actually purchased rather than handouts. Understand?
You and I are in the exact same boat, from the college loan it took me 7.5 years to pay back, to all the taxes, to owning my own small business with the same things you go thruQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc
And no he won't understand, sexual intellectuals never do
You mean the government subsidized tuition that allowed college to be affordable for you (I will assume you sent to school at the latest in the early 80s), that has had the subsidies gutted and as a result is entrapping many young kids in mountains of debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Some would counter that the governments subsidizing of the education system is in part the reason behind the skyrocketing cost of education. Free markets tend to cause the lowering of the costs of goods and services. With subsidizing, the colleges have no incentive to become less expensive, and in fact encourages then to raise their costs since the gov't willing to pay more and more.
So the drowning in debt is an interesting subject. It used to be, prior to 2008, that there were controls on student loans. After ceilings were lifted student debt skyrocketed (look at it since 2008).
Students aren't incurring debt to pay their share for govt subsidized tuition. Debt is paying their rent, restaurants, drinking, smartphones and phone bills, clothes, insurance, power bill, trips, ski passes, etc. Students take 6 years to graduate because going to college is awesome fun.
Debt can be reduced by planning your curriculum exactly, taking dual credit/dual enrollment classes in high school, taking 18 credits a semester, going to summer school, eating meals prepared at home from basic food, having a basic phone, wearing costco jeans and tj maxx, and spending most of your time on campus especially with an on/campus part time job. Debt burden can be borne by picking an engineering or other high paying field and by graduating cum laude or better.
Students who incur debt and graduate, graduate with an average debt of 28K (in Montana). This is usually stated by Ds and press as "average students graduate with 28k in debt". Setting aside what debt good or bad students graduate with for a moment, 40% of students graduate with no debt. So average debt is 19K, again another story.
28k is doable for an A student in computer science or engineering or nursing or many of the stem fields. Not so much french medieval poetry or art history... or poli sci...
Bingo..... getting a degree in French Literature is wonderful. Doesn't do you much for making money though.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
What the "Bernie Sanders Crowd" who is all for free college fails to realize is that with "free college" comes enormous taxes so while your college may be "free" and you don't graduate with a 30K student loan to pay back over 15 years, instead you will have a lifetime of increase taxes that you will be paying EVERY YEAR for the next 50 years. And when the government is paying for your college, their is no incentive for the education to become cheaper or more efficient. What was the last government run program that was done either efficiently or fiscally responsibly?
There is a reason tuition prices have skyrocketed since 2008, why many colleges have gone on spending sprees and have been erecting multiple new buildings.