Same Scam - Different Decade

[dross]

"I believe that the healthcare bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best healthcare system in the world, and bankrupt our country," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told a news conference. "That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care."

Boehner vows to repeal Obama healthcare reforms | Reuters

Rhetoric, and political tactics. He knows he can't get it repealed, but what he can do is get a repeal bill passed in the House, which will put the Senate on the spot. If it's killed in committee in the Senate, or comes to a vote and is defeated, that vote becomes a political weapon in the next election. Boehner knows there's no chance of repeal.

Pelosi was declaring a certain victory yesterday morning. Do you think she really believed it?

 

[dross]

Got any names to go with these mysterious puppeteers?

You know, it's those THEM guys that run everything from their shadowy lair.

 

[level.eleven]

Rhetoric, and political tactics. He knows he can't get it repealed, but what he can do is get a repeal bill passed in the House, which will put the Senate on the spot. If it's killed in committee in the Senate, or comes to a vote and is defeated, that vote becomes a political weapon in the next election. Boehner knows there's no chance of repeal.

Pelosi was declaring a certain victory yesterday morning. Do you think she really believed it?

Oh, I know that. But, I don't think your comment about it getting repealed was accurate. It certainly was central to Tea Party rallies and there were lots of candidates saying they would try. There is also a pantload of people that believed it. I remember seeing an attack ad going after an AG for NOT bringing suit from their state against HCR.

 

[88GT]

That's the same as saying "Oh, well, the Gun Ban has been in place for a hundred years. Why mess with it?".

With all due respect, the 5% of the population voting for the Libertarians hasn't exactly made sweeping changes either.

Don't give me that crap about "if everybody voted his principles." You don't know that they aren't. And even if they aren't, most of them live on Planet Earth where the perception is reality for all intents and purposes. And perception is that the two-party system is the only viable manner we have to make changes, making it reality for the vast majority of voters. Right or wrong, that's the way things are.

You can scream and rant and rave on the sidelines all you want, but if you don't play in the game, you can't change the score.

 

[Trading_Fool]

Alot of what I heard were new reps that wanted to change the bill from its current form and not necesarily(spell?) repeal it. I also hope that Obama stands by what he said about trying to come to more of a comprimise with the republicans in office. I am a pessimist and have my doubts, but I have to hope.

 

[dross]

Oh, I know that. But, I don't think your comment about it getting repealed was accurate. It certainly was central to Tea Party rallies and there were lots of candidates saying they would try. There is also a pantload of people that believed it. I remember seeing an attack ad going after an AG for NOT bringing suit from their state against HCR.

We're getting a little off the path. SE implied that somehow this election was a disappointment because they won't really repeal healthcare like they're saying. I'm saying that making the effort and putting on the table are good things, but there's no way it's getting repealed with this Congress. Perhaps the next.

But if you're evaluating this election as a bunch of sellouts and business as usual with the ruler of healthcare repeal, you're judging by an impossible standard, which is my point to Savage Eaglet.

 

[beararms1776]

Who are these master pupeteers? This sounds errily similar to how ones life can be manipulated. I know, sounds crazy but call it what you will.

 

[SavageEagle]

With all due respect, the 5% of the population voting for the Libertarians hasn't exactly made sweeping changes either.

Don't give me that crap about "if everybody voted his principles." You don't know that they aren't.

If people are voting their principles, especially in THIS election, it's over. Seriously. If people in Nevada, California, HERE, the entire East Coast, if all these people voted purely on principle then Liberty, personal responsibility, and our Country as a Constitutional Republic are DEAD.

Who here voted for Coats on principle and not just because he ran against a Dem?

And even if they aren't, most of them live on Planet Earth where the perception is reality for all intents and purposes. And perception is that the two-party system is the only viable manner we have to make changes, making it reality for the vast majority of voters. Right or wrong, that's the way things are.

You can scream and rant and rave on the sidelines all you want, but if you don't play in the game, you can't change the score.

Playing the game means running for office. And the game has left all the rules in the trash can. WE are a combination of Ref's and Coaches.

The Two Party system is the game the players WANT us to LET them play. Why can't there be 3? 4? 10? And why should party even matter? If you're voting on principle, it doesn't.

Know why the two party system still stands? Because the PEOPLE are too STUPID to do anything about it.

 

[Manan]

HUGE step in the right direction (pun intended).

 

[SavageEagle]

We're getting a little off the path. SE implied that somehow this election was a disappointment because they won't really repeal healthcare like they're saying. I'm saying that making the effort and putting on the table are good things, but there's no way it's getting repealed with this Congress. Perhaps the next.

But if you're evaluating this election as a bunch of sellouts and business as usual with the ruler of healthcare repeal, you're judging by an impossible standard, which is my point to Savage Eaglet.

My point is that it's NOT GOING TO BE REPEALED. It's going to be MODIFIED to suit the Republicans. It won't be repealed until real people run for office instead of these career politicians.

 

[Ski]

I say if all we can do is modify it this time around then so be it. It's not realistic to think that this is going to be fixed in one election cycle. Hopefully we'll get a few more conservatives in the House in two years. Also, it looks like there are 21 Dem Senate seats up for grabs in 2012, along with 2 Independents that vote with them. Get as many of those as we can, get the White House, and replace Lugar, and things could look significantly better.

 

[TopDog]

The only chance you have of ever seeing any change is to bust up the 2 party system. If you think there is a huge difference between Dems and Repubs you live in a fantasy world. There is a slight difference between the two parties but both are self severing and have no interest in the welfare of this country or give a crap about the American people.

 

[Compatriot G]

The two-party system has been with us since almost the beginning of our country. By our second presidential election, we had two parties, the Federalists led by John Adams and the Democrat-Republicans led Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists became Whigs and the Democrat-Republicans became just Democrats. The Whig party dissolved and the anti-slavery faction of the Whig party became Republicans.

Of course there were third parties that cropped up periodically in the 19th century. They usually got the same results that third parties get now. Very few votes. The best example of what happens when third parties are formed is the 1860 Presidential election. Lincoln was elected with slightly less than 40% of the vote. This means that 60% of the country voted AGAINST Lincoln. However, that 60% was spread between three factions of the Democratic party. Had the Democratic party not split, Lincoln would have never been elected and we may have been spared the costliest war in our history.

Like it or not, the two-party system is nearly as old as the country. It is an ingrained part of the American political system.

This is just an observation. It appears that a two-party system works best with a political system like ours. Multiple parties seem to work best with a Parliamentary-style of government.

 

[SavageEagle]

This is just an observation. It appears that a two-party system works best with a political system like ours. Multiple parties seem to work best with a Parliamentary-style of government.

We can't know this. If the Two Party system is all we've ever had, how can you know that our system of Two Party works best if we've never tried multiple party?

I think it would be best to be rid of ALL Parties period. It would force people to actually think before they voted.

 

[MarkR]

And the day after the election (today), the FED announced a plan to buy $600 billion in US bonds over the next 6 months.
No change, just more debt. There is nothing new other than a few new faces in DC. When they arrive, my bet is that they'll be "told" how things work there.

 

[cadan]

The Two Party system is the game the players WANT us to LET them play. Why can't there be 3? 4? 10? And why should party even matter? If you're voting on principle, it doesn't.

Know why the two party system still stands?

The two party system stands because it is more or less the product of the type of voting system used in this country. The system used here is called "plurality voting" where each citizens casts one vote per office. This provides an incentive for pragmatically minded voters to vote for either of the two candidates most likely to win the election, for a vote cast for a candidate with small following has a high probability of counting for naught, unless many other voters change their preference. Thus, the two popular parties essentially have a means of staying in power perpetually, unless the mess up really bad and a third party arises. However, for the same reason, a three party system will quickly reduce back to two parties again.

There are other voting systems which do not yield this result. I favour the idea of the "approval voting" system, where instead each citizen can vote for multiple candidates for each office. In essence, the citizens gives a list of canidates of which he "approves" for the office. The candidate with the most votes still wins. Therefore, one can vote in both a principled (my choice) manner and a pragmatic manner at the same time. This gives a much greater possibility of multiple parties that have a reasonable chance of success in actually winning an election.

Nevertheless, the government control of education is, IMHO, a serious obstacle to having a well informed citizenry that thinks for itself. Until government educated citizens can become better informed, the possibility for getting real reform and returning to constitutional and moral principles does not exist. We would be much better of if gov't schools would teach the ethics of private property (e.g. Bastiat's the law, etc,.).

 

[cadan]

And the day after the election (today), the FED announced a plan to buy $600 billion in US bonds over the next 6 months.
No change, just more debt. There is nothing new other than a few new faces in DC. When they arrive, my bet is that they'll be "told" how things work there.

At the risk of overemphasis, this might be the news of the decade.

Reason: What is going on here is that the gov't/Fed is creating money "out of thin air", and placing it into circulation. The increase in quantity of money, adds zero real wealth, but simply debases the value of currency already in circulation. When seeing this you should think "this is tantamount to raising taxes by as much".

But wait there's more -- The 600 billion here is so-called "high power" money. Remember we have a "fractional reserve banking system", which means the banks are authorized by law to pyramid loans on top of this. In other words, the commercial banks can create more money out of thin air using this 600b as the base of the pyramid. How much more? It's hard to say how far they will go, but a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1 is quite reasonable, and by current law/regulation they can choose to go to about 10:1. Hence, we have the worst case possibility that the amount of currency newly created out of thin air is 10*600 billion, or 6 trillion.

We are on the road to becoming Zimbabwe, When our foreign holders of debt recognize that we are defrauding them of what is owed, they will not renew treasuries and this will amplify the problem. If you look at the structure of treasury debt, realize that 1700 billion is up for renewal in the next 32 months. If the fed buys all this, then triple the numbers that I mentioned above.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

We can't know this. If the Two Party system is all we've ever had, how can you know that our system of Two Party works best if we've never tried multiple party?

I think it would be best to be rid of ALL Parties period. It would force people to actually think before they voted.

Ryan, look at Iraq over the last year. The "government", what little functioning there is, is locked in a three-way tie for the majority.

That means that no one is in charge of the .gov there, and hasn't been for most of a year.

The Saudi's just jumped in the other day and offered to help break the stalemate between the parties to either vote for a single party to rule or a partnership between at least two of the parties.

The same thing nearly happened in the UK. Two of the parties got together to run the .gov because none of the top three had a clear majority.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, I'm saying that two-party systems have their problems, three-party (or more) have their problems.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ryan, look at Iraq over the last year. The "government", what little functioning there is, is locked in a three-way tie for the majority.

That means that no one is in charge of the .gov there, and hasn't been for most of a year.

The Saudi's just jumped in the other day and offered to help break the stalemate between the parties to either vote for a single party to rule or a partnership between at least two of the parties.

The same thing nearly happened in the UK. Two of the parties got together to run the .gov because none of the top three had a clear majority.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, I'm saying that two-party systems have their problems, three-party (or more) have their problems.

Sure. But what I want to know is why have parties at all? And not the fun kind either. Seriously, I just think it makes mindless sheeple and destroys the concept of voting on pure principle. People don't have to do their research on each person. Instead they look at whether there's an R or D behind their name and vote which ever party the person favors.

Take Dross for example. (Sorry man, you should have known this would happen. ) Openly stated he doesn't care if the D is a good person to vote for, he'd vote for the R even if he was a complete douche.

Millions are just like this. And we wonder why this Country is in the ****ter.

 

[dross]

Take Dross for example. (Sorry man, you should have known this would happen. ) Openly stated he doesn't care if the D is a good person to vote for, he'd vote for the R even if he was a complete douche.

Millions are just like this. And we wonder why this Country is in the ****ter.

Not because I have some weird affection for the Republicans, but because in a two party system such as we have and as someone pointed out above, have had since the beginning, that's the only way to vote to advance your own interests.

Thinks about it. The two party system isn't some built in construct, it happened almost immediately. Our system naturally devolves to a two party model.

If you think multiple party systems are inherently better, study any number of the ones that exist around the world. All that happens is groups of parties band together to form coalitions, very similar to what happens here within each of the two major parties.

No parties, you say? A rose by any other name, or for that matter, a rose without a name, would still smell as sweet. Groups of like minded people would still form together in coalitions.

You long for a world that doesn't exist.