About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums> USER>

Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

02-03-2012, 11:27 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: The politics of anger

Libertycitizen,

Cognitive dissonance does indeed apply at times to just about anyone, and not necessarily in politics. What we have encouraged in this website, however, is intellectual fact based discussions, and with that we naturally cater to liberals and Democrats who tend to like discussing the more nuanced side of issues...without a liberal or conservative distinction. I use the words, "critical thinking" a lot to describe those discussions...a questioning of the status quo.

Conservatives on the other hand tend to be more single minded, anti-intellectual, seeing things as black and white, and intolerant of opposing views, especially those that are faith based. However, I also agree that that stereotype does not apply to all conservatives, and some do like engaging in reasonable, respectful discussions. I'll happily exchange views with them...an "honest debate from both sides" as you put it. But I'll quickly lose patience with those that just regurgitate stuff that they heard on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh without any rational to back it up. I would like to ask them to dig deep into their inner selves and ask why they hold those particular views quite strongly...to write them down as an argument. That's what I do in this website. Writing down my views opens them up to questioning and scrutiny...and possibly exposing flaws in my thinking. Scientists do that with their peer review process subjecting their analyses and theories to a jury of their peers.

In my view, if one were to take every issue of the day along with a set of real facts, and don't attach an Obama view or a Romney view or any political view...just facts, the majority of people upon reflection and internal debate over time would gravitate towards being more liberal. The exception here, of course, would be those that are so heavily faith based that they can't get past their ingrained church doctrine...an example here being Michelle Bachmann's fear of gays.

Young people attending college tend to be more liberal because the academic environment and the inevitable peer discussions with fellow students are more conducive to critical thinking and open mindedness. On the other hand, the attitude of their parents to a college education might be one of mistrust. Some even fear sending their kids to public schools or college in case they develop more "liberal views" and expose their parents' bigotry:

"Colleges are brain washing our kids. Obama is using colleges against us. I am not paying taxes. If you want to be brainwashed, send your kids to college!" -- A "shouter" at a Tea Party event.

I put that quote in because I wrote it down at the time I heard it on TV when the Tea Party events were in full swing in 2010. I couldn't believe I heard it, but I certainly understand it as the Tea Party Republicans in Congress have so aptly demonstrated a lack of critical thinking skills...and a genuine fear of liberals.

So for those Republicans that want to exchange views on issues of the day in this website, we can do that if it respectful and intelligent. Please don't tell me I'm wrong...prove me wrong.

02-03-2012, 12:13 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Why do Republicans hate Planned Parenthood?

Komen has reversed their cut in funding and apologized. It's a testament to what opposite pressure can be brought to bear by a unified response from women of all political affiliations and religions...that a few won't dictate to the majority. Many Republican women do indeed support Planned Parenthood because they are women first...and Americans...not the dogmatic old white men in Congress that seem to want to score political points with their base at every opportunity.

02-03-2012, 09:45 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: President's 2012 State of Union v. Mitch Daniels GOP response

Sugarbaire,

I hesitate to even engage you, since you are obviously one of those that probably lives within the Fox News bubble of misinformation, fear and hate. Fox News of course uses everyone of Obama's vacations to make an issue of him taking time off, but his vacation time dwarfs that of George Bush who routinely used Air Force 1 to fly his entire entourage to and from his ranch in Crawford. The fact is that all Presidents are accompanied by secret service agents, critical staff, and reporters everywhere they go. Obama gets criticized for taking a day trip.

The liberal media criticized Bush not so much for the cost of his vacation trips but for the fact that he took so much vacation time...four times more than Obama. He took Air Force One 77 times (490 total days) to just go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Obama, I believe, has made only two vacation trips to Hawaii with Air Force One.

On the issue of voting present, it is a common practice, a tactical strategy, used in the Illinois legislature. Obama used it slightly more than 3 percent of the time on the over 4,000 votes he cast. Just putting that Fox New talking point into perspective.

And calling the Republican Congress "do nothing" is appropriate. Whereas "Experts Rank Pelosi Among Greatest House Speakers" for her accomplishments as Speaker, John Boehner will go down in history as one of the worst, not entirely his fault as he has been unable to control the radical Tea Party segment within his party.

But isn't anyone else concerned about their three day work week?

02-03-2012, 08:26 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: The Keystone Pipeline

I agree that it would be highly profitable, more so for Canada than the United States. But again you are missing the point. Should we ride rough shod over all environmental concerns for the sake of profits? Many Republicans want to just eradicate the EPA entirely, which ironically was one of the Republican signature achievements of President Richard Nixon.

As you well know, if you read my posts above, TransCanada and the other corporations that were trying to ram the approvals of the pipeline through the highly environmentally sensitive Sand Hills area of Nebraska totally misjudged how "not in my back yard" isn't just a liberal trait. Republican Governor Dave Heineman did the right thing and listened to his citizens and killed that route.

Now the Republicans are making an issue out of Obama not approving the alternative route that has not had an environmental assessment. What they are really saying is okay..."TransCanada screwed up and thought they could run rough shod over Nebraskans...but now President Obama, valuable time has been lost (a whole year or more) that hurts the economics of our project...and therefore you need to approve that alternative pipeline route NOW without that same environmental assessment that killed the Sand Hills route."

"Do it now Mr President or we will block all your other initiatives," Republicans say.

President Obama has rightfully called their bluff...they've already played that card too many times.

02-03-2012, 08:03 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Jon Stewart discusses Romney and Bain Capital

llagerdog,

You miss the point entirely. Democrats are not against wealth. We admire people that have succeeded because of their entrepreneurial spirit and hard work. And many wealthy are indeed big philanthropists...it makes for good publicity.

Furthermore, one must make a distinction between those like Steve Jobs that have created real wealth and others that have engaged in wealth transfer through their lobbyist and special interest groups that have "bought" changes in the tax code by buying their politicians that write the laws.

There is also a difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism. The first recognizes creativity and risk taking...the second has a heavy dose of greed and lack of empathy. Many of the "good wealthy" have said they should and could pay a higher share of taxes to put more money in the pockets of the spenders...the consumers that buy their products. Henry Ford understood that. And so do many ordinary Republicans on Main Street...the majority of which also support higher taxes on the rich. It just makes good economic sense. The income and tax inequality that has gotten progressively worse since Reagan will drive our country over the brink if it is not corrected. The rich cannot survive if they kill off the middle class. Most American people understand that.

However, our Republican Congressional leaders are not listening to their constituents. They too suffer from Cognitive Dissonance. Simply changing the top marginal rate from 35 percent to 39 percent (the prosperous Clinton years) is not a big deal for wealthy Republicans, many of whom, can easily afford it and many others, like Romney, have a bunch of their wealth stashed away in the Cayman Island and Bermuda hidden accounts to avoid taxes.

The Republican Party intransigence on the issue has exposed their dogma. For many Republicans, to capitulate is seen as a sign of weakness...and as you have so aptly demonstrated in your posts, Republicans can never admit they are wrong.

It used to be that under Presidents like Eisenhower, there was indeed a sense of "common good" within the Republican Party such that they could compromise on the issues of the day. Not so with this new breed of Republicans, particularly those in the House that see Obama as an enemy instead of "our President."

02-03-2012, 07:23 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Obama's second Term

Llagerdog,

Your comments are inappropriate. Wendy asked if this is a race issue? It's the same question that many in the mainstream media are asking when Gingrich talks about a food stamp President and blacks needing to learn how to work. If you cannot see the racial overtones in much of the Republican debates and the right wing media analysis of it, then you are blind to racism. Of course, I understand that Gingrich is playing to the base...the white southern evangelicals for which race is a paramount issue that cannot be hidden under the carpet.

02-03-2012, 07:11 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: The politics of anger

Llagerdog,

Regarding Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, my observation from the book was pretty much the same as that of the Amazon summary of professional reviews:

"The New York Times bestseller, praised as "hilariously funny . . . the only way to understand why so many Americans have decided to vote against their own economic and political interests" (Molly Ivins)"

"Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans."

The fact that you had an entirely different take on the book gets back to a point I raised in this website before. I cannot carry on a discussion with Republicans because they absolutely cannot see my perspective. Psychologists have a description for it: Cognitive Dissonance.

Perhaps you would find a more receptive group to your comments at Conservative Forum.

02-03-2012, 06:34 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Why do Republicans hate Planned Parenthood?

Republicans have had an ongoing war on Planned Parenthood even though no federal funds are used for abortion and only 3 percent of their total funds goes towards abortion services. So Republicans in effect are really attacking the other 97 percent...women's health...cancer screenings and birth control.

Now I don't think Republicans have anything against cancer screenings, but the hard core Christian right of the party is adamantly opposed to even that 3 percent that they cannot control..that and birth control. House Republicans have twice passed bills this past year defunding Planned Parenthood, and I expect they'll do it again...right before the November election to remind their base where they stand.

So now they are putting pressure on the benefactors of Planned Parenthood including working inside organizations like the Susan G. Komen charity to come up with excuses for cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. Much of the focus for the Komen decision to cut their funding has been on Karen Handel, a former secretary of state in Georgia and a Republican activist against abortion, who was hired by Komen in April as vice president of public policy. According to the L.A. Times: "Handel has made no bones about her anti-abortion -- and anti-Planned Parenthood -- position. In a July 2010 blog post, Handel explained, "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood ... In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor.""

Does someone with such strong anti-abortion views even belong at Komen? Why was she hired? Whatever the reason, the Komen decision has raised the bar on the Republican's attacks against Planned Parenthood.

Social media sites meanwhile are condemning the decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure charity to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

Whatever one wants to read into the Komen decision, we cannot escape the fact that it is just one part of what has been described in some circles as the Republican War on Women. Unfortunately, some Republican women don't see it that way:

"The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands." -- Michelle Bachmann quoting scripture.

I'll quit now. Maybe women would be better able to provide more insightful commentary.

02-02-2012, 09:37 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Rich or poor?

Who is rich? He that rejoices in his portion. -- Benjamin Franklin

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

02-01-2012, 11:38 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Obama's Long Game

Democrats want to talk about jobs for middle class workers and what to do about income inequality.

Republicans want to talk about the evils of gay marriage, sodomy, banning birth control, banning abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood, controlling women's bodies, putting God into the classroom, teaching creationism in public schools, bombing Iran, building a fence across the border, deporting undocumented workers, fearing Muslims, Obama's birth certificate, Michelle's back side, replacing janitors with 11 year old kids, food stamps for welfare queens, Obama's teleprompter, hyping voter fraud, and lowering taxes for the rich...but never never anything about creating jobs.

02-01-2012, 11:15 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Jon Stewart discusses Romney and Bain Capital

Reference: Jon Stewart Takes On Mitt Romney's Bain Capital Credentials (VIDEO), February 1, 2012

Sometimes we have to rely on a comedian to explain all this venture capitalist stuff...or how to make money without using your money.

This is good...

02-01-2012, 09:27 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: Castro's Rebuttal to Republican Remarks

The Huffington Post covered Castro's response to the Republican candidates' remarks.

Whatever our feelings about Castro, Romney's and Gingrich's comments were totally inappropriate...as were Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Castro. But they seem all to pile on President Obama as well. It's a reflection of the sad state of affairs within the Republican Party right now. Off hand, I can't recall either Bush I or Bush II or Reagan ever making comparable remarks about foreign leaders for political gain.

01-31-2012, 11:32 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: The politics of anger

Llagerdog,

It's interesting how Republicans view history differently. But let me give my version of events.

You claimed: "I do not think we were on the verge of a Depression once Congress passed TARP, which was signed into law by President Bush sometime in October 2008. If anything, the Bush administration deserves the credit for fending off a Depression (if there was to be one at all). Certain businesses WERE allowed to fail; AND IT WORKED WHILE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT!"

So lets revisit the events at that time. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) also commonly known as the "the bank bail-out" was supposedly designed to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions (mainly banks) to promote bank lending again. Bush signed it into law on October 3, 2008 as the stock market was on a downward spiral. On the Friday he signed it, the Dow Jones Index dropped 157 points. On the following Monday it dropped another 158 points, followed by successive day losses of 370 points, 508 points, 189 points, 679 points, and 128 points to finish the week. Over eight days in October, the market lost 2,400 points or 22 percent to close at 8451.

The market was very volatile and did rebound sharply on Monday October 13, rising 936 points, but on Wednesday it again dropped 733 points. The market volatility continued through the end of the year and into the first quarter of 2009 reaching 7,949 on January 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated and continuing to decline to a low of 6,507 on March 9, 2009.

Furthermore job losses were also on a downward spiral. In August 2008, 84,000 jobs were lost; in September 159,000 jobs; in October after TARP was signed into law 240,000 jobs were lost. November 533,000; December 524,000; January 650,000, February 651,000; March 633,000; April 539,000; and May 345,000.

The New York Times used the words, "as stock markets plunged, credit markets around the globe seized up and the world seemed on the verge of a cataclysmic financial meltdown."

On December 16, 2009, the IMF chief warned of a Great Depression “if the international community does not work together."

On January 11, 2009, Professor Peter Morici, a former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, contended: "The economy will not recover without fundamental changes in banking and trade policy. A large stimulus package, though necessary, will only give the economy a temporary lift," he said. "The economy is in a depression, not a recession."

There are others that forecasted doom, and some not so pessimistic. But the point I would make is that, although economists were divided (some with 20:20 hindsight), when Obama was inaugurated there was no consensus that a depression was not imminent. A combination of actions including Obama's Stimulus bill (which McCain voted against), Bush's bank bail-outs, and Federal Reserve lending got us past the uncertainty. Ultimately the market got a big confidence boost with Tim Geitner's article, My Plan for Bad Bank Assets, published on March 23, 2009. But job losses continued for a few months after until the benefits of the Obama Administration plans started to be noticed.

So yes, some Republicans credit Bush's bail-out of the banks and AIG as what averted the depression. But some Republicans also slam Obama for bailing out the banks. You can't have it both ways.

While you can argue the relative contributions, I am certain that the world was looking to the United States and Barack Obama for leadership to take us out of that quagmire with a series of steps. John McCain would have not have inspired that confidence in my opinion.

01-30-2012, 03:47 PM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: The politics of anger

Llagerdog,

Your take on Thomas's What's the Matter With Kansas differs from mine. You state that you "do not understand why Frank has such confusion while trying to understand the voting habits of his native state." Actually Frank understands it quite well..it's the essence of his entire book, and he spells it out quite clearly. And for you to somehow justify that peculiar Kansas voting behavior you conclude: "The spirit of individual rights, self determination, self reliance, taking risks, patriotism, and non-intervention from government, are things Kansans and Heartland residents cherish. These values ring through more often in the GOP agenda, than they do in the Democrat Party agenda.
Think Bob Dole. Think Ike."

Well Frank did not make that distinction, and actually those are liberal American Democratic values and not just Kansas Republican values. What you omitted from the list (and what Frank and I would emphasize) is that liberals also believe in equal opportunity for women, minorities and the LGBT community, instead of "the majority voting away the rights of the minority;" and pro-choice on abortion instead of "life begins at conception;" and freedom of religion (or from religion) instead of "we are a nation of Christians;" and public schools instead of charter schools that take away critical funding from the public schools; and war as a last resort instead of unchallenged war to feed the military-industrial-complex.

Liberals are patriots that believe every much in freedom as conservatives, but we apply that often misused word "freedom" to all Americans and not just some...and we don't have to wear a flag lapel to prove that patriotism or wrap ourselves in the American flag. We believe that "non-intervention from government" includes keeping the government out of our bedrooms...or from spying on us. So add to your list all of the above culture war issues and the real differences between Democrats and the current brand of Republicans become more apparent.

But that's not all. As long as we are debating these culture war issues, Americans won't get distracted with how the conservative brand of capitalism has failed them. And how every single tax plan of the Republican candidates for President aggravates the wealth disparity in this country instead of making it better. Cutting taxes even more for the rich doesn't stimulate the economy enough to create the desired jobs. We need even more federal government spending now on things like infrastructure and education to make up for the lack of private investment and cuts in state funding, and we need comprehensive tax reform that doesn't necessarily increase revenues but provides more fairness for the middle class that has borne the brunt of the cost of the recession.

The Republican elitists...those in the top 0.01 percent have skillfully created an imaginary enemy in liberals and Democrats (especially an imaginary Obama) using culture war issues to divide the middle class. They demonize the LGBT community and their "decadent life style," not to mention "godless liberals" and "socialists" and "Tiller the baby killer" and "Ground Zero mosque" and the "food stamp President." It's phony outrage repeated over and over again by the right wing media until it gets solidified as an ideology into the minds of their viewers and listeners. Some might call it mind control or even "brain washing." But what does it have to do with job creation? Nothing! That's why they have to keep doing it.

I saw a bumper sticker on a construction worker's truck in the Home Depot parking lot that read "the only good liberal is a dead liberal." The anti-liberal rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Fox News is indeed "mind control." Most Republican voting Americans have little understanding of what liberals really stand for...to them they can only echo the words of the Fox News hosts, or Rush Limbaugh...or a Mark Levin, who speaks of the "tyrannical liberal corrosion that has filtered into every timely issue affecting our daily lives, from the economy to health care, global warming to immigration, and more." Wow, that's crazy talk.

But let me finish...you said "Think Bob Dole. Think Ike." Of course, as you well know both Ike and Dole would be far to the left of the current slate of Republican candidates and many of those Republicans that reside in Congress. But it is refreshing to know that your brand of conservatism identifies more with these two distinguished gentlemen. I respect you for that.

I'll address your other comments on Obama's averting the Great Depression next.

01-30-2012, 10:29 AM

Edit

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 841

Thread: MMT Summit with Kaboom

Good thinking Kaboom,

I'm still mulling other parts of MMT, but I've already taken too long to respond on your original posting with respect to Warren Mosler's Plan and your take on it. I agree with it and will add my own take.

1. Full FICA payroll tax suspension. I agree. It is a regressive tax that hits the poor and middle class disproportionately. And the Alan Greespan/Reagan generated surplus (although now much smaller) has only worked as a means of wealth transfer using the tax code...i.e. lower progressive income taxes in return for higher regressive payroll taxes. Those that cry that reducing or eliminating that payroll tax "borrows from our future" don't understand that every penny of the SS surplus has already been borrowed by our government and will be paid back over time, not via payroll taxes, but rather income taxes. As I said before, I like PAYGO...pay as you go, the way SS was before Greenspan/Reagan created the surplus accounts, which has been nothing more than a back door means for wealth transfer upwards.

2. Per capita aid to state governments. Yes again. As Jared Bernstein shows in this graph from his blog, the contribution to or subtraction from real GDP growth from the state and local sectors since the late 1980s has steadily declined and especially so in the last decade as states have struggled with forced balancing of budgets by laying off teachers, cops, and other public sector workers. While the states are budget constrained, the Federal government is not, so all means of transfer of funds from the fed to the states makes good economic sense...it will help growth instead of hindering it. Cutting education, especially, is cutting the legs out on our future.

Bernstein adds a reflective note that "this figure is a good argument against a balanced budget amendment...think of a recession as all the states piled in a boat together along with the federal government and the boat is taking on water. There’s really only one institution in that boat with bilge pump and that’s the feds. A BBA takes the pump away…then the boat sinks…"

3. Federal Jobs Guarantee (JG). Again, I agree, although on the surface one might have concerns of how the mechanics of this would work. You, of course, have addressed these in your "basic principles to guard against moral hazard," with caps and certification of jobs. I haven't thought through the whole concept enough to raise any additional questions. But yes conceptually, it makes good sense. Although the $8/per hour wage is not great for some that may have had better paying jobs, it is better than nothing, particular if your unemployment benefits have run out (although you have proposed restructuring that program as well). And people that partake in the program are contributing to society...creating wealth...and feeling good about themselves. The healthcare component is important incentive to appreciate the jobs.

I like your examples of “Habitat for Humanity” style community cleanup crews that refurbish, restore, and beautify run-down housing; crews that develop and beautify parks and recreation facilities; elderly and homeless outreach; urban farming crews who distribute food to needy families or manage and plan community gardens; foreign language translator crews for community outreach; adult literacy teachers; administrative assistants to local county-municipal JG coordinators. All of these are worthy jobs that contribute to our society. A very good list...work that those participating should be made to feel proud of.

Okay this is a start on your very long posting. I'll move onto additional topics that you addressed, but just wanted to get something on the table now before I lose my thought process...us seniors forget our trends of thought at times if we don't write them down.

More later...

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES