2012 Conventions; Tampa & Charlotte

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It's quite interesting how variable your concern over the truth is, Indy. Well, not variable, really, as it consistently crops up when its in response to statements made by those of the opposing political viewpoint, and is conspicuously absent in response to those who share your viewpoint.

I know Bill Clinton lies. He looked into the camera and lied to Americans, he lied to a federal judge and he lied under oath.

I'm predisposed not to trust what he says.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by digitize

That wasn't a lie. The deceptive part was the fact that Ryan's budget would do more or less the same. Oh, and then gradually drive Medicare into uselessness for those under 55 (you know, the demographic that isn't an enormous component of the GOP base and receiving pork for it).

1) Obama spends the 700 billion on his new entitlement program, Ryan uses it to pay down the debt. Not the same.

2) If you have a problem with Ryan's omissions of the whole truth you have to have the same problem with Bill Clinton when he says:

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."

You have to flag Clinton for not mentioning that the seeds of the "total mess", the housing collapse, were planted during his presidency in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and other pressures applied to the banking industry.

That's my only point.

[Irvine511]

So you're agreeing that much of the deregulation of the 1990s hurt us in both the 2001 recession as well as the near collapse in 2008?

Just want to be clear on that, as we construct an argument for a man who wants to cut even more taxes on the wealthy, deregulate even further, spend even more on defense, and start a war with Iran.

[deep]

Clinton
1. admits 2. regrets 3. apologizes

Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Debts of the Spenders: Bill Clinton Regrets Repeal of Glass Steagall
Former US President Bill Clinton admitted to bad judgment in a tv interview. Specifically, Clinton blamed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers for deceiving him about the risks of unregulated derivatives products. Under Clinton, the Depression era Glass Steagall Act that separated banking activities from trading was dissolved.

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after the influential senators who were bought and paid for by the banking community. As for Robert Rubin, immediately after his term as Treasury Secretary expired, he was appointed head of Citigroup Travellers with a $1 billion/annual paycheck. Completely coincidental? You decide.

Clinton also said that Republicans who controlled Congress would have stopped him from trying to regulate derivatives. “I wish I had been caught trying,” Clinton said. “I mean, that was a mistake I made.”

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So you're agreeing that much of the deregulation of the 1990s hurt us in both the 2001 recession as well as the near collapse in 2008?

It wasn't deregulation it was the government forcing banks to make loans against their better judgement due to mythical redlining. It was Fannie Mae stepping in with government subsidizing to buy up these toxic loans.

Wall St played a role but it was under the supervision of regulatory boards and, from 2006 - 2008, the Congressional Banking Committee led by Barney Frank.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

It wasn't deregulation it was the government forcing banks to make loans against their better judgement due to mythical redlining. It was Fannie Mae stepping in with government subsidizing to buy up these toxic loans.

Wall St played a role but it was under the supervision of regulatory boards and, from 2006 - 2008, the Congressional Banking Committee led by Barney Frank.

And nothing else?

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

1) Obama spends the 700 billion on his new entitlement program, Ryan uses it to pay down the debt. Not the same.

2) If you have a problem with Ryan's omissions of the whole truth you have to have the same problem with Bill Clinton when he says:

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."

You have to flag Clinton for not mentioning that the seeds of the "total mess", the housing collapse, were planted during his presidency in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and other pressures applied to the banking industry.

That's my only point.

1) So? It's still absurd for Ryan to attack Obama for taking money away from Medicare when he does the same. Justifying the omission of the truth doesn't make it not a massive omission of the truth. It also gives the false impression that Ryan has a problem taking money from Medicare for a "good" purpose (good in the eyes of the beholder), when he doesn't.

2) Can't disagree there on the whole, but I put that into the "disagreeable statement" area instead of the "outright lie" category or the "misleading statement that is in effect a lie" category. And while the CRA probably helped cause the financial crisis (ehh, probably not just probably), I do think that both Republicans and Democrats of the Bush era share blame too.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

And nothing else?

Artifically low interst rates and both parties pushing the whole scam while in power.

[U2DMfan]

Here's a simple, great way to look at it.
I heard Karl Rove say this one night as I was flipping through the channels.
Romney either goes 3-2-1 and he wins or he can't win.

Take all the McCain States.
And then...
3-
Win the 3 'Red' States that Obama flipped on '08.
Virginia (13), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15)
2-
Win the 2 Big Swing States. Florida (29) and Ohio (18).
1-
Win any other State (i.e. Colorado, Iowa, NH, Wisc, Nev, Mich).

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

It wasn't deregulation it was the government forcing banks to make loans against their better judgement due to mythical redlining. It was Fannie Mae stepping in with government subsidizing to buy up these toxic loans.

What's amazing to me is that banks were more than willing to continue making absurd loans and buying absurd securities into the 2000s with no pressure from the government.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

How is this not the very argument you yourself have been making in this forum ever since I can remember?

What government spending have you been on record as supporting, other than defense? What regulations have you supported? Which tax cuts have you opposed?

FDA, NASA, infrastructure and all sorts of regulations and licensing agencies, but saying you'd stop the EPA from killing coal jobs, for instance, doesn't mean you want "dirtier air" as the president says.

Saying that government spending which now consumes a record post-world war level of 25% of GDP along with the cost of complying with government regulations now accounting for 10% of GDP are both too high doesn't mean, as Bill Clinton said Wed, “If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket."

That's absurd and a lie. What Republican says, "you're on your own" to the poor or sick anywhere? The values of self-reliance and personal altruism do not equal "you're on your own" unless you mistake the Great Society for personal responsibility or government egalitarianism with "Love thy neighbor." Which, judging from the applause for last week's speakers, many Americans sadly now do.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

FDA, NASA, infrastructure and all sorts of regulations and licensing agencies, but saying you'd stop the EPA from killing coal jobs, for instance, doesn't mean you want "dirtier air" as the president says.

Saying that government spending which now consumes a record post-world war level of 25% of GDP along with the cost of complying with government regulations now accounting for 10% of GDP are both too high doesn't mean, as Bill Clinton said Wed, “If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket."

That's absurd and a lie. What Republican says, "you're on your own" to the poor or sick anywhere? The values of self-reliance and personal altruism do not equal "you're on your own" unless you mistake the Great Society for personal responsibility or government egalitarianism with "Love thy neighbor." Which, judging from the applause for last week's speakers, many Americans sadly now do.

The Republicans in general and you in particular haven't tried very hard to make the case for any of the above. What you HAVE said is more along the lines of "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem" without any indication of exceptions or specifics.

And the sad thing about it is that the conservative point of view is a must in our political discourse. The potential for government abuse of power and waste is as great as that of the corporate sector and the conservative demand for accountability and fiscal responsibility is vital. I've often said that any place where the best jobs to be had are those in government is a place that's destined for trouble--I've seen it first hand in the Northern Marianas Islands--google it sometime. So, I for one am not someone you can paint with your usual "liberal tar-brush." Sadly, the Republican party in general and you in particular have abdicated any form of responsible conservative argument in favor straw man arguments, sanctimony, tweaking the noses of liberals for your own entertainment, and what was the word you used. . .ah yes, demagoguery. . .which is a shame. Because the very imbalance towards a liberal understanding of these issues that you claim to deplore both among the American public and here in FYM is something you yourself perpetuate.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

What Republican says, "you're on your own" to the poor or sick anywhere? The values of self-reliance and personal altruism do not equal "you're on your own" unless you mistake the Great Society for personal responsibility or government egalitarianism with "Love thy neighbor." Which, judging from the applause for last week's speakers, many Americans sadly now do.

Clearly people are getting that idea that's their attitude from somewhere. If we're not rich, it's been insinuated that we're "lazy", or "just not working hard enough". It couldn't possibly be that we're working as hard as we possibly can but we're not seeing any benefits from our hard work while the people at the top, the "job creators", take all the money and throw tantrums at the mere thought of giving any of it back ('cause that's redistributing the wealth, and that's bad!).

Wanting universal health care is akin to a commie socialist takeover in some people's eyes, for cripes' sake ("Get your government hands off my Medicare!", remember that infamous phrase?). As I said earlier, I can't afford healthcare. My job doesn't provide it for me. So I would likely need to turn to a government healthcare program of some kind to get my needs, and your party is the one who wants to cut a lot of funding to that, if not scrape it altogether. Wasn't there stories from a couple years ago of people who were in wheelchairs or whatnot at town hall meetings and such showing support for universal healthcare getting nastily attacked by those who opposed it? And remember the infamous video from a Republican debate where the question was asked of the candidates if people should be allowed to die if they don't have health insurance, and people in the crowd actually CHEERED at that?

So by those actions either candidates or their supporters are essentially implying that, yeah, you're on your own here. If I can't afford health insurance, well, that's my problem to deal with, I guess. Dare suggest there be a government program to help people like me and suddenly people are up in arms and getting nasty about it.

And for someone who's getting all upset about being painted with such a mindset, you're doing that in your own post. I for one DO value personal responsiblity and personal charity. I think both are very valuable and necessary to a society, and I try to utilize both in my everyday life as much as I can.

But I also believe, and I know you would agree, that as a society it's important to help each other when needed as well. Sometimes the government can do it. Sometimes they can't, and individuals and private sectors can. Each side steps in when possible and necessary. But to make it an either/or scenario, the way some people out there tend to do, or to dare suggest that having social programs is akin to some evil socialist commie takeover of some kind, is beyond frustrating and does nothing to actually tackle such an issue at hand.

No, not every Republican thinks that way. But obviously there's quite a few that DO, enough to the point where the Democrats had to make comments about it this past week. And if that's not the message the Republicans intend to send, then they need to figure out how to better articulate what their actual message is, 'cause right now, too many are feeling alienated.

[Jeannieco]

I have to jump in here and say great post Angel!! Bravo!!!

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Sadly, the Republican party in general and you in particular have abdicated any form of responsible conservative argument in favor straw man arguments, sanctimony, tweaking the noses of liberals for your own entertainment, and what was the word you used. . .ah yes, demagoguery. . .which is a shame. Because the very imbalance towards a liberal understanding of these issues that you claim to deplore both among the American public and here in FYM is something you yourself perpetuate.

I agree with you that if the Republican Party wants to have any viability in the coming decades, it absolutely has to abandon the ultra-conservative social positions that it has been espousing so adamantly as of late. I simply do not think that Republican social politics resonate with younger demographics, and we already know that they do not with minorities. If Romney loses this election, as I expect he will, I think that the Republicans have no choice but to reform their platform substantially. Where they go from there will be interesting to watch.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

If Romney loses this election, as I expect he will, I think that the Republicans have no choice but to reform their platform substantially. Where they go from there will be interesting to watch.

I was hoping they might do that after McCain lost in 2008. Sadly, they didn't, so I'd be really surprised if they started considering such a change this time around. But I do agree that some reevaluation and overhaul is definitely needed, especially on the social issues.

Also, Jeannieco, thanks .

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

If Romney loses this election, as I expect he will, I think that the Republicans have no choice but to reform their platform substantially. Where they go from there will be interesting to watch.

agreed.

if you look at the polls, there's been a big swing to Obama. what i think just happened was the sheer idiocy and lunacy of the present state of the GOP -- by far the most right wing mainstream party in the developed world -- was exposed first by the RNC in Tampa, and then by the DNC in Charlotte. the MVP of both conventions was clearly Bill Clinton, who didn't so much destroy the GOP argument but reveal that they aren't even making one. all they have is criticism and complaints of Obama.

which, fair enough, the economy isn't good. there's been the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. unemployment is 8.1%. we have deficits. again: fair enough.

but the opposing side has no plan. none. and what they say may sound good for the 24-hour news cycle, briefly, but when it all adds up, it doesn't add up.

[deep]

Obama is going up with independents and pragmatic GOP small business owners.

Florida pizza shop owner powerlifts Obama | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

That's absurd and a lie. What Republican says, "you're on your own" to the poor or sick anywhere?

Actually quite a few. I could show you numerous quotes from the healthcare debates. In fact I always say that one positive change that occured during the latest healthcare debates was the tune that the hardcore right were singing. I remember Hannity in 07 saying that if you can't afford treatment then go get a better job, work longer hours or just don't get treated; to 2010 saying, I believe in safety nets for those that cannot afford treatment.

Originally Posted by INDY500

The values of self-reliance and personal altruism do not equal "you're on your own"

But the problem is that YOU HAVE NO PLAN for when personal altruism doesn't work. You're either blind to the fact of how many people can't actually afford the care they need, or you're blind to how few people are actually alturistic in nature.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

I agree with you that if the Republican Party wants to have any viability in the coming decades, it absolutely has to abandon the ultra-conservative social positions that it has been espousing so adamantly as of late. I simply do not think that Republican social politics resonate with younger demographics, and we already know that they do not with minorities. If Romney loses this election, as I expect he will, I think that the Republicans have no choice but to reform their platform substantially. Where they go from there will be interesting to watch.

The disturbing thing is that there's still a possibility the Republicans try to go even more to the right. Reasoning that Romney lost because he wasn't far right ('conservative') enough.

Because from a more international perspective, this is how the Republicans are being viewed.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the sheer idiocy and lunacy of the present state of the GOP -- by far the most right wing mainstream party in the developed world

In an international spectrum the Republican party is solid/far right. I don't want to state extreme right, but there are some disturbing tendencies which are hopefully still a (vocal) minority.
On the spectrum the Democratic party is center/center-right. No, they're not on the left side of the spectrum. Even Obama is center-right. That's why all that socialist/communist/marxist talk is so stupid and refects bad on those stating it.

Given these positions on the political spectrum, the choice for the Republican party is to either present a clear alternative to the Democratic party. But this will move it even more to the fringe. Or move to the center(-right) and push the Democratic party from there. Hey, there might even be some cooperation then, if they can find some middle ground.