Recreating America under Obama.

[Thunderbird]

Recreating America under Obama.

 

Some questions I would like to pose in this thread .

* How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?

* Will we see a burst of innovation in alternative energy source in the next few years, comparable to the “.com boom” of the 90s ?

* How will the international community change under Obama?

*Is the far right sunk, or will they reemerge in 2012 with a viable candidate and platform ?

[Buffy]

How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?

Unbelievably powerful. To a certain extent the conservatives have pushed this hard, but their vision is misguidedly paternalistic, Bush' and McCain's "the economy is fundamentally strong" was a perfect example of this sort of "the people have no clue what is good for them, only we Brahmins do, so we should tell them not to worry their little heads about it and keep them from panicking..." This is fundamentally different than the more Jeffersonian point of view that an educated electorate is essential to not only good governmental oversight but also strong and efficient markets.

* Will we see a burst of innovation in alternative energy source in the next few years, comparable to the “.com boom” of the 90s ?

Absolutely. If the Congresscritters don't keep doing stupid but popular things like letting the US Auto industry self destruct which will eliminate the potential for the economy to be able to support increased investment, energy/green technology is going to be the US's number one export over the next decade.

* How will the international community change under Obama?

It already has. The G20 leaders all ignored Bush and really wanted to meet Obama last week in Washington.... Iran's radicals are now scared to death that Obama's called their bluff and actually will offer to talk to them and they know that if they refuse to actually negotiate, they'll lose all the soft support they've gotten from Europe and Russia....

*Is the far right sunk, or will they reemerge in 2012 with a viable candidate and platform ?

This is an interesting issue. One of the things that happened in this election was that it was the more moderate Republicans who lost, while the more extremist one's held on. Typically its the people that are in office that carry the most weight in deciding the direction of the party, and thus its looking like the more extremist wing of the party will hold sway in 2012, unless in 2010 they get thumped because they end up causing the loss of even more seats in congress due to their extremism. These folks are all saying "we lost because we didn't uphold our conservative principles.

 

The Republican Party is really splitting into three pieces on its way to possible irrelevance as the Whig party of the 21st century:

• Social Conservatives: This segment is led by the fundamentalist religious groups and their panderers. They care only about social issues such as making abortion illegal, teaching creationism Intelligent Design, making America a Christian Nation fighting the War on Christmas, and harassing gays defending marriage. This is the group that thinks that Sarah Palin is too much of a softie because, well, look who *picked* her!
  
• Neo-cons: These are the folks that drove the Bush administration, led by Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, the Kagan Brothers, Bill Kristol,
  Norman Podhoretz, David Addington and of course the Dumbest-F%$^ing-Guy-On-The-Planet. These people are entirely focused on the most bizarre, paranoid, triumphalist view of what a "great nation" should be since at least Stalin (if not further back but I'm trying to avoid Godwin's law here :doh: ). What's odd about this group is that their technique for gaining power is alignment with the Social conservatives. They (specifically Bill Kristol) hand-picked Sarah Palin and forced her on McCain because they think she is a social conservative darling, but also an "empty vessel" that they can fill up with their New World Order machinations...
  
• The Fiscal Conservatives: These are the old libertarian, small-government-is-good-government, Reagan-Bush I Republicans who don't give a rat's tail about social issues unless they somehow hinder business. These folks have been powerless for nearly 20 years now and most of us have left the party for good, and when we try, we get called "apostate." Some interesting folks in this group like Arnold Schwarzeneger (who can't run!), Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal.
  

I'm personally convinced that unless the Fiscal conservatives regain power, the Republican party is doomed, but I think a really good thumping in 2010 may turn things around. Who's going to fill the void? The Libertarian Party?

 

Here are some great examples of what's going on:

Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. And if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's still fair to talk about it.

Remember that so many times there's dialogue about, you know, we have to go back to our core values. What is that? What is core? How far does core go back in history in America, the word core? Does it go back 30 years? Does it go back 50 years? Because we know that Teddy Roosevelt talked about universal health care. So they're off the core for a long time ago already. He has talked about protecting our environment. So they've been off for a long time on that. I mean, let's be honest. Ronald Reagan -- let's go to Eisenhower, for instance. Eisenhower has built the highway system in America and he's poured billions of dollars into infrastructure. Where Republicans today say, well, that's spending. We shouldn't spend. That's not spending. That's investing in the future of America.

 

So there's a lot of things that they have been off on, if they want to go and talk about the core values. But maybe their definition of core values is maybe different. But I mean, so I think it's all nonsense talk. I think if they just talk about one thing, what do we need now? Now, America needs to be rebuilt, because we haven't really rebuilt America for decades. So we need to rebuild America, fix the bridges, fix the highways, fix the buildings, tunnels and all of those kind of things we need to do. And then we have to go and create great relationships with our partners overseas, with the world, and to build those relationships again. And we have to take care of health care. We have to take care of our environment. And we have to build an energy future. Those are the things that people want right now. And I know in the poll numbers in America -- I mean in California, that's what the people want.

 

 

It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force. I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.

 

That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did when he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist.

 

 

What are the voices of reason? Does anyone ever bother to look in the mirror any more?

 

Nation, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that things are not going well for the Republicans. Two years ago they controlled both the White House and the Congress. Soon they'll be controlling both the Coke machine and the fry station. And then they're asking, how did we fall so fast? Which takes us to tonight's Word...Pity Party, :phones:

Buffy

[Southtown]

Which takes us to tonight's Word...Pity Party, :Glasses:

Buffy

That's two words. :doh:

 

By the way, the Republicans were saying the same when they lost control of Congress. I have no respect for the government anymore. They will never tighten the belt, and they will never lessen the regulations.

 

How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?

I think a fundamental restructuring is in order, not just another 'rebuilding.'

[jackson33]

I was hoping some other replies were added to counter Buffy, but since none will offer my opinion...

 

Recreating America under Obama.

 

Some questions I would like to pose in this thread .

1- How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?

2- Will we see a burst of innovation in alternative energy source in the next few years, comparable to the “.com boom” of the 90s ?

3- How will the international community change under Obama?

*4-Is the far right sunk, or will they reemerge in 2012 with a viable candidate and platform ?

 

1- If you don't feel our markets have already been replying to the possibly, to probable and now pending Obama Administration, at least in part, then the negative power is just beginning. Hope, change and 'yes we can' have meant the most to those thinking he meant them, whoever them are. Lower taxes for people not paying taxes, jobs for those that have never worked, probably wouldn't take a job, those in college expecting to graduate and receive pay levels other than an entry level into the workforce or those already receiving assistance and wanting more. These folks and those that picked out one promise or another are going to be sadly disappointed, becoming his worst critic's.

 

2- We have been developing alternative energy or forms of energy for 30-40 years in most cases and government has been right square in the middle with grants through it all. Innovation, already under attack, has dwindled to and any resurgent will come from investors not from the small Federal Discretionary funds available. IMO, I do think 'Nanotech' will make progress in the next few years, which could create a boom to technology AND alternative energy sources (size/storage) but again from the private sector.

 

3- It's hard to say what the International Community, will do as a result of our new President. I am sure many leaders will be looking for additional aid, some concerned about our trade agreements and others feel they can gain some advantage through diplomacy or have some unpleasant scheme in mind to gain test his, then assumed our resolve and other probably couldn't care less.

 

4- The far right, wasn't in this election in the first place. Indications are they sat this election out and frankly demographics have change so much in the past 20/30 years, I don't know if 'far right' has a meaning. I do feel the country remains right of center, but were certainly not going back to Reagan or even the days of JFK, who by todays standards was right of Reagan.

 

Buffy; The Republican Party is far from doomed and your listing of factions horribly misrepresents them. Conservative in politics aligns itself with traditional, or what you'll call 'Status Quo'. Palin, apparently your new arch rival, represents only what most American are, with a little added admiration for her accomplishments. I happen to like Arnold, but wouldn't call him a republican and doubt he could get the nomination. If he could, as did McCain a moderate, and was qualified by birth, would probably govern pretty much as Bush has. You portrayal of a few people, upset with the outcome, would have taken on a far different picture, had Obama lost, and I not only think you believe this, I believe many sat out this election fearing even trying to vote.

[Essay]

I think a fundamental restructuring is in order, not just another 'rebuilding.'

Only skimming this thread (so far), but I wrote this earlier today (for no apparent reason) and thought it might fit here. I'll read all, closely, later. :)

===

 

Capitalism's goal should be to increase value for humanity (the society) and not the individual.

Capital, emerging only due to the society, will trickle back down to the capitalist (after he uses it), as the society benefits.

There will be enough individual greed within any system pursuing a noble goal; we don't need to institutionalize personal greed as a goal also.

 

~ :D

[Turtle]

I think a fundamental restructuring is in order, not just another 'rebuilding.'

 

As in religious fundamentalism I presume?

 

I like Obama, but the idea that he is the doom or the bloom of America is putting off one's own responsibility onto another. Individuals (IMHO) ought to get busy taking their own actions to reduce waste, economize, continue political activism (write or call your local elected officials with your concerns), yada, yada, yada, good-stuff, and only when encountering difficulties too great to get over on your own go asking for help. What I expect now from Obama is his good management of how, when, & to whom that help is extended by government. :D

 

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. ~JFK

[Buffy]

I was hoping some other replies were added to counter Buffy, but since none will offer my opinion...

It's certainly just evidence of the silent majority: most folks disagree with me but they refuse to say so, right?

1- If you don't feel our markets have already been replying to the possibly, to probable and now pending Obama Administration, at least in part, then the negative power is just beginning.

That's absolutely right. The market is crashing solely because Obama won and the markets are certain that that means doom for the economy. If McCain had won, we'd be in a complete recovery, both due to the optimism it would engender as well as the fact that Bush's policies have been fundamentally sound.

Lower taxes for people not paying taxes, jobs for those that have never worked, probably wouldn't take a job, those in college expecting to graduate and receive pay levels other than an entry level into the workforce or those already receiving assistance and wanting more. These folks and those that picked out one promise or another are going to be sadly disappointed, becoming his worst critic's.

Yep, everyone who voted for Obama is expecting a free lunch. If he doesn't completely turn it around in the first 100 days, he's doomed and the SouthRepublicans will rise again!

2- We have been developing alternative energy or forms of energy for 30-40 years in most cases and government has been right square in the middle with grants through it all. Innovation, already under attack, has dwindled to and any resurgent will come from investors not from the small Federal Discretionary funds available.

Yah, see, if the government ever spends any money investing in R&D, it dramatically reduces private investment, and thus causes the target technologies to slow down.

 

The money is totally different, and even though the government actually doesn't ask for any return, and the actual investors benefit from the increased funding, it's tainted money, which means that people will refuse this benefit, and it will destroy the market.

 

The *only* solution is to ensure that investment comes solely from private investors without the taint of free money from the government.

I am sure many leaders will be looking for additional aid, some concerned about our trade agreements and others feel they can gain some advantage through diplomacy...

Yah, most of the other countries are simply reacting to this by assuming that Obama will be giving out much more money than under Bush, with the possible exception of Israel, because as you know, Obama is a Muslim and is seeking to destroy the Zionists.

 

... or have some unpleasant scheme in mind to gain test his, then assumed our resolve and other probably couldn't care less.

Yah, well al Qaeda is already calling him a "House Negroe" and supporting his desire to beef up our forces in Afghanistan because as we know Gen. Petraeus says we should keep all of our troops in Iraq instead because that's where the "real" terrorist threat is, and Zawahiri knows that if he backs Obama's initiative to beef up Afghanistan that the Defense department will want to do the opposite, thus guaranteeing that the troops don't go to Afghanistan, which is good because if we sent more troops to Afghanistan then it would make Bush and the Neo-cons look foolish and that would be bad for morale, and make the troops think that we don't support them, which we want to blame Obama for because he's a Muslim, but of course Zawahiri's tape shows pictures of Obama wearing a yarmulke to make him look like a Zionist so that he doesn't look foolish to the Jihadi's, and also gives the neo-cons lots of evidence that al Qaeda is preparing to attack Israel so that they can talk the Likud in Israel into attacking Syria, thus justifying the US's recent attack on the Iraq-Syria border which caused the Syrians to remove all of their troops from the border thus letting al Qaeda in Iraq more easily move arms into Iraq which will make it harder for Obama to remove troops from Iraq which we don't have to do because as we all know Dana Perino and Gen. Mullen say the recently approved SOFA agreement with it's end of 2010 "deadline" "only aspirational" and we can just renegotiate them later, and that will cause people to think Obama hates the troops, and since he's such a typical pandering Democrat he'll have to back down and carry out Bush's brilliant and consistent long-term plans for Iraq, along with stonewalling North Korea until they all starve to death, and insisting on placement of a well-tested and battle proven missile shield against Iran which cannot be placed anywhere except on Russia's border, and which is absurd to compare to say, Russia putting a missile defense in Canada to protect it against long range attack from Columbian reactionaries.

 

4- The far right, wasn't in this election in the first place. Indications are they sat this election out...

Absolutely! Especially in places like California where depression about Obama so resoundingly kept the conservatives at home: and that of course is perfect proof that it was actually the liberals that voted to ban Gay Marriage!

 

What's very clear is that Obama really only has the support of the far left. As these figures from Pew Research show, compared to the 2004 election, among White voters who are traditionally more conservative that immigrants, only a very few segments really moved toward Obama:

Source: Pew Research

 

So you're right:

... and frankly demographics have change so much in the past 20/30 years, I don't know if 'far right' has a meaning. I do feel the country remains right of center...

Absolutely the increase in minorities has fundamentally altered America, but of course it's still a Center-Right nation: it's just that the liberals have so tortured the term "center" to encompass the radical positions taken by for example Bill Clinton and his ilk, that it just has no meaning anymore.

...but were certainly not going back to Reagan or even the days of JFK, who by todays standards was right of Reagan.

Yes, it's sad. Long gone are the days when the acts of the United States were unquestioned and Presidents were empowered to focus on centrist, international policies that were the best thing for the entire world's population even if they weren't smart enough to realize it, like the Bay of Pigs, and Iran-Contra. How the liberals can think that there won't be horrible consequences from limiting our Presidents' ability to simply take action when they know they are right, and instead having to think through all the consequences of their actions and asking others for advice. I mean, just look at what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis when meddlers like Bobby Kennedy from the *Justice* Department were brought into the analysis and disagree with the Joint Chiefs who wanted to do the only right thing and eliminate the threat directly. We might have lost Florida, but they voted for Obama anyway and nearly cost Bush the election in 2000, and we would have really shown the Commies that we meant business and that the next step was East Germany. Just think, we could have ended the Cold War right there!

Buffy; The Republican Party is far from doomed and your listing of factions horribly misrepresents them.

You're right, these three groups really don't exist. They're just figments of liberal imaginations. Whew!

Conservative in politics aligns itself with traditional, or what you'll call 'Status Quo'.

...and that bears absolutely no resemblance to the third group in the list.

 

The Neo-cons--who of course do not really exist--really are for the status quo, that's why they wanted to invade Iraq, overthrow Iran, attack Pakistan even though they're our allies, push for Israel to annex all most all of the West Bank and Gaza, support the development of multi-national firms who can operate without governmental oversight, and so on. That's very traditionally conservative.

 

And of course the Social Conservatives aren't for real change either, they just want it to be a consistent representation of the Nuclear family of two parents, two children living in a ranch house, going to church every Sunday, agreeing that the world is 5438 years old, and understanding that anything goes on that is disagreeable is due to a lack of faith in the creator. It's just wanting things to be like they've always been until the liberals and God-haters came along and caused all of these problems and conflicts. Never in our history have we had such things to deal with, except for maybe the westward expansion, and maybe the Industrial Revolution, and maybe Reconstruction, and maybe the massive immigration in the first half of the 20th Century, and maybe a few other times. If we all just live like June and Ward Cleaver as was true for almost all of American history until the liberals came along with their insistence on strict adherence to Marxism everything would be just fine.

Palin, apparently your new arch rival, represents only what most American are, with a little added admiration for her accomplishments.

On the contrary! As a Hillary supporter, of course I detest everything about Obama, and Sarah represents everything a Hillary supporter could want! And yes, just *look* at her accomplishments! She stopped that bridge to nowhere single-handedly went designer glasses to ugly mug with that saintly Ted Stevens (who was shockingly and unreasonably convicted based on completely trumped up charges over a minor accounting error)! And she single-handedly built that new natural gas pipeline that is going to drastically reduce our energy requirements (well, its not quite finished yet...just started, well, not actually funded yet...)! And her incredible leadership and detailed direction of the Alaska National Guard has kept the entire Russian Army at bay!

 

And don't get me started about all the work she did getting the oil companies in Alaska to support Revenue Enhancement for the state by reducing infrastructure investments so that the money could be redistributed to the states citizens no matter whether they worked or not so that it could enhance the state's economy and run real estate prices up in the Turnagain Heights section of Anchorage and other areas that have been targets of evil government regulators who want to slow the economy down by saying that areas subject to massive liquifaction are somehow dangerous and would cause increased government expenditures....

 

No, this woman has so much more experience than *anyone* that the Republicans could promote that it's silly to consider another candidate!

I happen to like Arnold, but wouldn't call him a republican and doubt he could get the nomination.

And he's an alien--actually a former *illegal* alien--and he's married to a Kennedy! He's no Republican!

 

And if the Republican party dares let *anyone* who thinks like Arnold even be a member, the party is doomed to keep losing! The party *must* go back to its roots!

You portrayal of a few people, upset with the outcome, would have taken on a far different picture, had Obama lost, and I not only think you believe this, I believe many sat out this election fearing even trying to vote.

Absolutely! If Obama had lost there would have been riots everywhere. People were scared to go out and vote!

 

What I don't understand is why the vote suppression efforts failed so miserably. I mean, what about those phone calls to Marxist students letting them know that its illegal to vote where they go to school? What about those fliers that were sent out informing folks that in order to ease the lines, that the Democrat party had agreed to have all their voters vote on November 5th? What about all those people who had moved and whose licenses didn't match their voting records that were purged from the voter rolls? Why were they allowed to vote?

 

Well, unless this country comes to its senses and starts promoting *mainstream* centrism as represented by our greatest leaders like Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Michelle Bachmann and Donald Wildmon well, America will get exactly "the kind of government they deserve!"

 

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them, :D

Buffy

[Cedars]

Recreating America under Obama.

 

Some questions I would like to pose in this thread .

* How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?

Hope and optimism keep people from becoming despondent. The potential to profit rebuilds an economy.

 

* Will we see a burst of innovation in alternative energy source in the next few years, comparable to the “.com boom” of the 90s ?

I hope (theres that word) that it comes out better than the .com did by producing something tangible. Didnt alot of people lose alot of money during that episode of "how can I make money doing nothing?".

 

Too bad we leapt into the b.s. of a global economy without comparable requirements (as NAFTA opponents wanted). #1. Industry used alot of energy creating materials. We would have tapped out our electric grid and been forced to build new plants that came in under our own clean air/clean water requirements.

 

Hopefully (theres that word again) toyota will see this as an opportunity to invest in the usa:

 

Twin Cities Assembly Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Too bad ford didnt try to compete with the Japanese economy cars. You would have thought they would have learned something in the 70s. Well they did. Remember the ford escort? How about the Chevy Chevette? Geo Metro anyone?

 

India is getting a great deal. This place comes with its own power plant. Where is the american investors? This plant was sold when Iron was going for around $150 per ton as scrap. It peaked at $325.

 

Minnesota Steel To Be Purchased By India's Essar Global

 

 

* How will the international community change under Obama?

I would guess the international community will quickly become disenfranchised with Obama. That is if Obama really means to change things. First thing I would like to see him do (internationally speaking) is question why India and China are still on the "developing nations" list. If they can send people into space and probes to the moon (and build nuke bombs [pakistan]) when they should be building sewars and wells, its time to rethink our position on what makes a developing nation.

 

Second thing I would like him to do (internationally) is rethink global competition/economy. If you (other countries) are exporting goods to the USA and not importing at least an equal value (say 60%) then your goods need to be balanced via import taxes. Its good business to have americans working. Its americans who are paying washingtons bills and americans are its primary customer and I want better customer service.

*Is the far right sunk, or will they reemerge in 2012 with a viable candidate and platform ?

That depends on Obama and the democrats. Things must improve for americans or the tossing of the bums will resume in two years, viable alternative or not (see Al Franken Minnesota). Gawd, if the democrats would have put up a real candidate, we wouldnt be having a recount now.

 

Whew...

 

<-- end of opinion rant -->

[jackson33]

Buffy; Your anecdotal comments through out your post could be countered with the same from reported incidents through out the Country, including voter intimidation (Joe, the plumber), sign removals (McCain) and the many reports from individuals denied access to actual polling places. The election is over and the folks that spoke, have spoken.

 

"In part", yes I feel very strongly the markets with emphasis on investors and business in general have been setting themselves up for programs Obama proposed and most important the 'Capital Gains' and top tax bracket increases, taking profits, going cash and getting out of ALL risky stocks and business began cutting back on future programs as the probability became more obvious. Obama, taking out the Clinton Machine, was a very clear indication of public opinion and occurred well before any crisis assisted in the SIX TRILLION dollar loss to market values in the US and possibly 20 Trillion Dollar loss world wide. The US annual GDP 15T and World wide GDP 55T or so, to give you a perspective of drop. Unlike you, in fairness I will say Bush REALLY added to the problem yelling fire, calling for immediate actions on a variety of issues didn't help one bit and I am on record thinking the failure to properly address the 'Illegal Immigration' issue well before the primary season was the trigger in what became the 'said' financial crisis. You just can't attack 12-20 million people already in an economy, the business involved, the homes bought to taxes (were paid) and expect business as usual to follow. Having said this, its my opinion: If the 'Reform' had been enacted, Congress had made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent and Clinton had gained the nomination, NONE of whats going on would have happened.

 

It might be interesting, being from California and the SF area, what *mainstream centrism* means and compared to the folks in Wyoming, Georgia, Oklahoma or Alaska. I think you will find even people from NYC and SF would have very different ideas on just what they desire or would call an acceptable compromise.

 

You know, I feel the President in todays climate is going to be the person who can inspire the most people, issues meaning practically nothing. Obama certainly fits that idea and McCain inspired virtually no one other than those that vote 'Republican' every election or this year voted against Obama, for whatever reason. IMO and frankly where Government is most effective, emphasis must be placed on Congress and the agenda toward that Branch for guidance in policy. I'm not sure any one person, with as large a staff thats needed, can effectively change anything.

[Buffy]

Buffy; Your anecdotal comments through out your post could be countered with the same from reported incidents through out the Country, including voter intimidation (Joe, the plumber), sign removals (McCain) and the many reports from individuals denied access to actual polling places.

Well, most importantly, we've gotten rid of the massive and more importantly *official* efforts by the government to disenfranchise voters through programs specifically designed to purge voter rolls in districts that mostly vote Democratic, and to fire US Attorneys who refused to pursue baseless allegations of voter fraud. Or do you think that Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez resigned simply "to spend more time with their families?"

 

Equating official government actions by officers sworn to uphold the law to clearly wrong-headed individuals who steal signs is to say the least a bit disingenuous, but has become an extremely popular debating tactic of the extreme right wing and parroting it is well, unseemly....

If the 'Reform' had been enacted, Congress had made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent and Clinton had gained the nomination, NONE of whats going on would have happened.

Wow. So you're saying that there was no housing bubble? That massive lending to poor credit risks would have all been just fine?

 

Whoa. Know of any economists who agree with you on that?

It might be interesting, being from California and the SF area, what *mainstream centrism* means and compared to the folks in Wyoming, Georgia, Oklahoma or Alaska.

Throw out Georgia and you're talking about less than 1% of the population of the US. Does that constitute "mainstream"?

 

In California, you'd find that it's only because LA and the Bay Area are two of the biggest metropolis' in the US that it votes slightly differently than Georgia: Atlanta is liberal but the rest of the state is very conservative. Where I live in the Bay Area 'Burbs, it's actually quite mixed, and lots of my friends are indeed Social Conservatives who go to Evangelical Churches every Sunday. Go over into the Central Valley (which I do frequently as I have family in Modesto and Fresno) and it gets downright redneck. Heck, I regularly go to a genuine Honky Tonk in Fremont just south of Oakland where a friend of mine sings with the house band when she's out here from Nashville that's packed every weekend with step dancers and pickups with Huckabee stickers in the parking lot.

 

California ain't Berkeley, or even San Francisco, no matter how much Rush says so.

 

The fact is that most "conservatives" I know actually are more cooperative and centrist than you'd imagine. What you aparently misunderstood above is that the categories I described are that of the *leadership* who--with the exception of that old-line third group--are complete and total whack jobs who care more about power and getting their way than anything else.

 

What's scary is that while the equivalent whack jobs on the left do exist, you *never* hear about them because they have no power.

 

Conversely, its the whack jobs on the right that are in total control of the Republican party and all of its major communications outlets (Rush, Drudge, Michelle, etc.).

 

My point is is that if the Republican power center *did* move back to the center, they'd recover nicely because *lots* of people like to have a counter balance on the right.

 

This is not "we're a center-right nation" (do you realize that's just this week's "conservative" talking point?), it's "we're a *centrist* nation" who doesn't like radicals on *either* end of the spectrum.

 

Extreme Polarization as practiced by the Gingrich's and Delay's and Rush's of this world have destroyed political cooperation in America, and the kind of "Recreation" that T-Bird is pushing in the OP of this thread has *everything* to do with changing the mode of discourse in our country to "get it back on track"--something that 85% of American's think is Job One no matter what their political persuasion.

 

Seeing political debate as a "not only must we win but the other side must lose" is Unamerican and Unpatriotic, yet the only people demanding a pound of flesh on these grounds are hypocrites like Michelle Bachmann.

 

Do you really think that the best way to Recreate America is to continue to demonize Liberals as capable of doing nothing but evil?

 

If you think that a country where not even Ahnold can be allowed to be a Republican is a good thing is downright scary to me.

I'm not sure any one person, with as large a staff that's needed, can effectively change anything.

Well, no, not all by themselves: that was Bush's principal problem. "My way or the highway" is no way to motivate everyone to move in the same direction when everyone really has to sacrifice. That's why "charismatic" leaders like Kennedy or Reagan or Clinton or Obama really *can* get things done.

 

Power consists in one's capacity to link his will with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and a gift of cooperation, :friday:

Buffy

[jackson33]

Buffy;

 

Disenfranchise or intimidation of voters can have the same results and both illegal. The problem is where the voters become the intimidated and little can be done. This years we had up to 97% of Blacks and 80% of young voter, arguable indoctrinated (Students) which can be quite unruly to most anyone over 35-40. If this trend were to continue, I think it will, voting will become a undesirable task, not worth the effort. Take this for what its worth, but true in many urban areas of this country today...

 

According to government statistics, up to 5 Million loans may have been issued to 'Illegal Aliens'. The areas hit hardest by your 'Housing Bubble' were Southern California, Nevada (Las Vegas), Florida and then rural areas around the Country, all of which have heavy concentrations of illegals. Even today, most areas around this country are reporting less than 2% default rates, the common norm. Add to this the effects of the 1989 Savings and Loan problem (similar to today) and the 2000 Tech bubble burst and those minor effects on the overall economy, then YES, I could summarize this should have been no worse than those two periods. IMO, GWB was advised of rising default rates building with a rising concerns on immigration (Phoenix) and pursued his Reform Act, which at the time and today I believe should have been passed. No housing collapse, no recession and then no crisis...

 

As for lending practices or loaning to folks that had no business trying to buy homes or bought homes over their current incomes, you have an entirely different issue, with very different causes for defaulting, all of which had/have been problems since people first bought into the home market and will be forever.

 

As for economist agreeing, think you would have a problem finding one to disagree...

 

Guess in trying to over simplifying inequalities, by using States, should have just stuck to California. You have probably 30 districts that control the State, all of which are in and around SD/LA or SF. Yes, they make up the majority of people, but all those that live in the other 23 districts covering 80% of the area live under laws designed for urban areas or their needs. Where this might be OK at the State level, I hardly think it acceptable to those States with virtually no interest in common with the few that represent the majority.

 

The US, today IMO remains socially conservative or center right. They believe in Motherhood, Church and Family Values and their rights to fail or succeed in life and want as little government involvement as possible, especially taxes. I'll go a couple steps further and suggest those demographics that are increasing, Latinos and 1st generation Americans (up to 10 million from everywhere) are further right than you might think and

will be dominate voting blocks in 2-4 and eight years from now.

 

Thunderbird, is from small town USA and no doubt republican. He is concerned with the results of this election as are all thinking republicans or even those wanting to maintain the two party system or as you say keeping a check on which ever variation may hold the Executive or Legislative Branch. Back on track, probably has less meaning than your giving and certainly half of those 85% thinking about getting on track, have opposite views of what 'on track' means. In my mind getting on track is keeping the Federal on its intended track and out of State issues.

 

I do not criticize people, nor does Limbaugh or do most people in politics at any level. We have differences in policy or the means to effect change or simply stated the functions and purpose of government in the US. You actually use specific names of people (personal level) more than anyone I have ever discussed politics with. Do you really think Chaney, Gonzales, GWB, Rove or anybody really hates their political opponent or thinks those folks WANT to destroy this country or that I hate Obama for some personal bias? I hope he is successful, even in proving me wrong but at the first sign of socialism, he will be criticized by me and with all the effort I can gather...

[Southtown]

I think a fundamental restructuring is in order, not just another 'rebuilding.'

As in religious fundamentalism I presume?

No. Actually, I would like to see less civil regulation and more corporate. I think that would save money and hinder corruption at the same time.

[Buffy]

The problem is where the voters become the intimidated and little can be done. This years we had up to 97% of Blacks and 80% of young voter, arguable indoctrinated (Students) which can be quite unruly to most anyone over 35-40.

So people who are over 35 are all so scared of "indoctrinated students" and Black People that they didn't vote?

 

Whoa.

 

Not sure I even know what to say about that, although it is hard to square with lots of data that's started floating around: for example, in Florida, McCain actually won most of the votes registered on Election Day; Obama won the state because he won a much bigger percentage of absentee and early voting because people who are poor or students had been warned that they might find themselves purged from the voting rolls by the Republican administration so that they were better off voting early so that any irregularities could be fixed before election day!

 

In fact, early/absentee voting is going way up, in large part due to more states allowing it (numbers are far higher in California which has had it in place for a long time):

 

Source: Pew Research

 

But the people who are doing it aren't just Marxist kids and black folks:

Source: Pew Research

 

In fact fear of being "threatened" by "students," "blacks" or anyone else is nowhere on the list of reasons why people were doing it:

Source: Pew Research

 

Of course facts refuting the notion that conservative voting is being suppressed by "intimidation" don't matter to anyone but the liberals in the Reality-Based Community, so they must be irrelevant.

 

If this trend were to continue, I think it will, voting will become a undesirable task, not worth the effort. Take this for what its worth, but true in many urban areas of this country today...

So I guess then that it's most certainly true that conservatism is doomed due solely to scary kids with Che Guevara t-shirts and nose rings and the even scarier Black People....

 

Okay....

 

So on to the "cause" of the "mortgage crisis":

According to government statistics, up to 5 Million loans may have been issued to 'Illegal Aliens'. The areas hit hardest by your 'Housing Bubble' were Southern California, Nevada (Las Vegas), Florida and then rural areas around the Country, all of which have heavy concentrations of illegals....

And according to Rush, the only reason that those loans happened was that the Democrats *intimidated* the banks into making all those unsafe loans! And it was all *illegals*!

 

No the banks weren't at all motivated by the fact that they could write up loans with incredible upsides due to giant premiums that could be charged on "riskier" loans--made possible by deregulation of the home loan industry driven by the Republicans--and that the banks could turn around and "eliminate" the risk by selling the loans to others or by "insuring" them with options that were totally unregulated due to....Republican-driven laws allowing them to be traded without oversight! Don't want to unduly "restrain" any market!

 

Do you know what Collateralized Debt Obligations or Credit-Default Swaps are?

 

Warren Buffett--no namby pamby Liberal--was saying that CDS's are "financial weapons of mass destruction" way back in 2002, but did the Republican controlled government listen? Nope.

 

Do you realize that these are generally considered by every economist to be the real reason we both had a housing bubble and why it popped?

 

No, no. Obviously it was *solely* due to the Democrats forcing Freddie, Fannie and the banks to give illegals loans...

 

I do not criticize people, nor does Limbaugh or do most people in politics at any level. We have differences in policy or the means to effect change or simply stated the functions and purpose of government in the US. You actually use specific names of people (personal level) more than anyone I have ever discussed politics with. Do you really think Chaney, Gonzales, GWB, Rove or anybody really hates their political opponent or thinks those folks WANT to destroy this country or that I hate Obama for some personal bias?

Calling the arguments against these people's policies and statements "personal attacks" is certainly an interesting rhetorical approach: it basically dismisses the arguments as to why the actions that these people are bad with out presenting any evidence to the contrary.

 

Shoe on the other foot: Can I say that all of the attacks against Bill and Hillary by the conservative wingnuts are just personal?

She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. (on Hillary Clinton)

 

If you're Ted Kennedy and you call Bill Clinton to say, 'Look, you have to dial this down, this is not dignified', Clinton could come back and say, 'Hey, at least Monica is still alive.'

 

Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?

 

Did you know there's a White House dog? (while displaying a picture of a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton)

Hillary Clinton is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical *****, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical nagging -- [screeching]. You know what I mean?

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot--so....’

 

Nope. Conservatives are *never* "personal" in discussing liberals, they concentrate *solely* on debating issues and facts!

 

Do you agree with the very active policies of voter suppression pursued by Rove and Gonzalez? Is this a good idea or a bad idea? Will it contribute to how we want to Recreate America?

 

Or is disagreeing with their policies simply an example of irrational, personal hatred of these individuals?

 

- - -

 

Seriously, I wouldn't bother to debate you on this except for the fact that your posts adhere so closely to the downright silly and absurd wingnut talking points of the week, and they're so easy to shoot down because they're nothing but content-free rhetorical nonsense.

 

I have no doubt that you're sincere in your beliefs, but I would urge you to think through some of the things you're saying and what their implications really are. So many of these influential sources that you're repeating have ulterior motives--not personal actually! usually simply avaricious or power grubbing!--and what may be in both your interest and in line with your morals are not what these spokespeople of the far right are actually saying!

 

Now if you want to debate about what we ought to actually *do* about Recreating America, say so, rather than just making blanket, unsupported allegations that any policy supported by someone to the left of the Republican party platform is by definition bad for the country. "Raising taxes is always bad" is one of those oversimplifications that has no basis in reality but is a standard "conservative" talking point, and really doesn't make sense when you start to think about the details. Reagan hated government and yet grew it and raised taxes. Bush I knew it was irresponsible to go to war and then not raise taxes to pay for it, and was crucified by his own party for doing so, even though he was practicing one of the foundational principles of Fiscal Conservatism.

 

Recreating America is a complex topic, and while simplistic policies may seem satisfying, they're merely the same empty calories you get in cotton candy: you're going to end up fat and sclerotic if you go down that road...

 

For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong,

Buffy

[Thunderbird]

Buffy;

 

 

Thunderbird, is from small town USA and no doubt republican. :eek: He is concerned with the results of this election as are all thinking republicans or even those wanting to maintain the two party system or as you say keeping a check on which ever variation may hold the Executive or Legislative Branch. Back on track, probably has less meaning than your giving and certainly half of those 85% thinking about getting on track, have opposite views of what 'on track' means. In my mind getting on track is keeping the Federal on its intended track and out of State issues.

 

...

Actually Jackson I’m a Liberal Democrat community organizer that campaigned for Obama along with two ministers and handful dedicated “Church ladies” we won our rural county by 8 votes. :evil:

[Zythryn]

Well, at least Jackson33 is consistently wrong;)

 

I can't believe you actually said that Rush's 'discussion' of democrats didn't use personal attacks? Thank you Buffy for a few of the many examples.

[jackson33]

Actually Jackson I’m a Liberal Democrat community organizer that campaigned for Obama along with two ministers and handful dedicated “Church ladies” we won our rural county by 8 votes. :)

 

Had mixed you up, with whoever was from a small SE Missouri Town. Would seem to me the recreation of America, should be a closed scenario issue as presented by your candidate. Hope you enjoy what I fear is to come, but grats are in order for you efforts and victory.

 

Z; I am not sure Limbaugh would have voted for McCain, over Ms. Clinton.

Think you will find he has been very critical of McCain's POLICY, certainly more so than hers. I am sure I would have and many otherwise conservatives, for a perceived acceptance of interest and experience. Also hope she accepts the Secr. of State job, which she is the best available for these times.

 

As for consistency, there seems to be plenty around here, which only shows me conviction/passion in posters, not something bad...

[jackson33]

Buffy; It was early voting where my concerns drew from, where little control was present and most the stories came from. The issue itself will probably not be as bad as

I presented and did watch the Oregon results where 'mail in ballots' used. The outcomes very much along National Trends. Also thought you might argue back, what we did to blacks in the past, which we did, but neither acceptable.

 

If you really want to continue taking statements taken out of contents or made to amplify some point, I'll look up a few and we can spend months concluding nothing. I would start with Reverend Wright, who would seem to have nothing good to say about Obama, Clinton or even the country he lives in, but certainly doesn't agree with American Policy, who ever makes it. Since you do seem to have some knowledge in American History, you might note our founders really got along quite well socially, but had very different ideas on policy. Franklin, deplored slavery and Virginia's policy, but was able to draw many together into drafting our Constitution, Adams and Jefferson, with nothing in common except attorney's not only worked together, served together, but were friends, on and on.

 

'Absurd talking points of the week'; Thanks, didn't realize I kept up on those things, but if you check them out many become the talking points. I appreciate your comments, understand where you come from and only visit this site for its members. I have said this before, but there is a commonality here of like minded posters and/or management. Also as said before this is understandable. My only argument with policy is some apparent reprimand made to some not understanding this and the relative high number of banning toward those disagreed with. Other than this, its a good place to offer opinions and argue points.

 

No, recreating America is anything but complex. America is our law and Constitutional foundation, which is firmly established in our laws today, Federal and all States. It is what it is and change has to come slow or what is America will be something entirely different. Today I live in a small SE NM town, but have lived in many places and no two were alike. I personally have changed some ideas to conform to each place, they didn't change to my ideas or should they. This to me is America and the greatness of diversity and all under those principles that have set this country apart from so many others. There will be change under Obama, some you will perceive good and I will probably disagree or the reverse, but 99.9% of us will change along with it, so long as slowly implemented.