The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

Again I think this is the weakest set of candidates I have ever seen, especially on the democrat side, if you can honestly say you would support Clinton you have no soul nor moral compass, she is poison.


I'd support her in a heartbeat versus the occupants of the Clown Car on the GOP side. Now, where's my moral compass gone?

Same here. Especially when the choice could be Trump, a man who believes in nothing but his own self aggrandization, or Carson, an apparently gifted man who nevertheless has the usual array of clueless Christian right anti-intellectual views.

Ultimately,  policies are what matters. Ethics... they're all at least a little crooked! If Hillary is the nominee, it won't be for lack of trying, on the part of the GOP,  to bring her down. If she makes it, she will get my vote.

Of course she will, is it not the idea? bringing the other side down like?

I am not a yank so I cant vote, but if it was her or Trump I would abstain, she is a blight on this country as far as I am concerned, a cancerous part of the establishment, her husband was a gangster and so is she!

Whatever his personal failings, Clinton got things done and oversaw a strong period for the US. Would have thought his third way/triangulation politics would have been right up your alley.

[stew]

For the final time stew, what should Obama have done regarding the debt under the circumstances?  Do you know how much of it is down to stimulus?  Declining tax revenue?

He should have trimmed the fat, Government was far to heavy as it was, he should have stopped giving Israel Billions every year and he should have been tougher on the wealthy, that is a good start.

Look at the job Bubba did cutting the deficit, Reagan for that matter, under Bubba, there was actually a surplus if you can get your hear around that. In other words he could have learned from history.

FDR had his new deal, he invested heavily in building dams, roads, bridges, the infrastructure of the country, he also had a madman in Germany who he knew was spoiling for a war, war means jobs and  i give him a ton of credit for dragging the country out of the depression.

No one can seriously look at his record and say, you know, yes he spent 10 trillion but he took us out of recession, this is like the idea to give free degrees to illegal people, at the end of the day, in the good ole USA, somebody pays, in this case, future generations will pay OR they will default if it gets too big, and what happens then folks?

The democrats are spend happy, I look at the way the British run their general elections, the window to canvas is very small and compared to the states, they spend a minuscule amount of money on their elected officials, and that is taking in the populations into consideration.

Allowing banks off the hook and giving GM fat checks millions upon millions for ruining companies to big to fail does not fix the economy, you asked, I answered.

[stew]

Again I think this is the weakest set of candidates I have ever seen, especially on the democrat side, if you can honestly say you would support Clinton you have no soul nor moral compass, she is poison.


I'd support her in a heartbeat versus the occupants of the Clown Car on the GOP side. Now, where's my moral compass gone?

Same here. Especially when the choice could be Trump, a man who believes in nothing but his own self aggrandization, or Carson, an apparently gifted man who nevertheless has the usual array of clueless Christian right anti-intellectual views.

Ultimately,  policies are what matters. Ethics... they're all at least a little crooked! If Hillary is the nominee, it won't be for lack of trying, on the part of the GOP,  to bring her down. If she makes it, she will get my vote.

Of course she will, is it not the idea? bringing the other side down like?

I am not a yank so I cant vote, but if it was her or Trump I would abstain, she is a blight on this country as far as I am concerned, a cancerous part of the establishment, her husband was a gangster and so is she!

Whatever his personal failings, Clinton got things done and oversaw a strong period for the US. Would have thought his third way/triangulation politics would have been right up your alley.

I am talking Hillary for the most part, Bill Clinton was a tremendous president in many ways, gifted far more than most, he repulsed me with his stance on partial birth abortion but he put manners on those loyalist f**kers in the north and almost got a lasting peace in Israel/ Palestine. He was a legend from a foreign policy perspective and I think Obama erred in not using him more as an advisor. maybe he tried but then again they are not exactly all chummy now are they?

[easytiger95]

Whole pile of contradictions there Stew - FDR's New Deal relied on running a deficit, spending rather than reducing debt - it was classic Keynesian economics. What ultimately cleared those deficits were war and Bretton Woods. The problem with Obama's stimulus was that it was too small, that's why it didn't drag people out of poverty, and that is why your infrastructure is crumbling, because there was little spending on those kind of capital projects (blocked by Republicans by the way)

Bubba cut the deficit because he had to deal with a hostile Congress, but also the tech stock boom gave him plenty to work with - that congress ultimately overplayed its hand but there was no comparison with the economic situation in 92 and the one in 08.

Campaign cash is a different matter all together - and the Citizens' United decision was a right wing one all the way.

As for allowing banks and GM off the hook, those actions saved those pillars of capitalism, which you claimed he was trying to destroy earlier. if he was looking to do capitalism all he had to do was refuse to do TARP, burn the bondholders, let Detroit burn and the same with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac - none of which he did.

You can't have it both ways stew - he's either a bomb throwing anarchist or the stooge of Wall Street rather than Main Street. In your philosophy he's both simultaneously.

[stew]

Whole pile of contradictions there Stew - FDR's New Deal relied on running a deficit, spending rather than reducing debt - it was classic Keynesian economics. What ultimately cleared those deficits were war and Bretton Woods. The problem with Obama's stimulus was that it was too small, that's why it didn't drag people out of poverty, and that is why your infrastructure is crumbling, because there was little spending on those kind of capital projects (blocked by Republicans by the way)

Bubba cut the deficit because he had to deal with a hostile Congress, but also the tech stock boom gave him plenty to work with - that congress ultimately overplayed its hand but there was no comparison with the economic situation in 92 and the one in 08.

Campaign cash is a different matter all together - and the Citizens' United decision was a right wing one all the way.

As for allowing banks and GM off the hook, those actions saved those pillars of capitalism, which you claimed he was trying to destroy earlier. if he was looking to do capitalism all he had to do was refuse to do TARP, burn the bondholders, let Detroit burn and the same with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac - none of which he did.

You can't have it both ways stew - he's either a bomb throwing anarchist or the stooge of Wall Street rather than Main Street. In your philosophy he's both simultaneously.

[J70]

For the final time stew, what should Obama have done regarding the debt under the circumstances?  Do you know how much of it is down to stimulus?  Declining tax revenue?

He should have trimmed the fat, Government was far to heavy as it was, he should have stopped giving Israel Billions every year and he should have been tougher on the wealthy, that is a good start.

Look at the job Bubba did cutting the deficit, Reagan for that matter, under Bubba, there was actually a surplus if you can get your hear around that. In other words he could have learned from history.

FDR had his new deal, he invested heavily in building dams, roads, bridges, the infrastructure of the country, he also had a madman in Germany who he knew was spoiling for a war, war means jobs and  i give him a ton of credit for dragging the country out of the depression.

No one can seriously look at his record and say, you know, yes he spent 10 trillion but he took us out of recession, this is like the idea to give free degrees to illegal people, at the end of the day, in the good ole USA, somebody pays, in this case, future generations will pay OR they will default if it gets too big, and what happens then folks?

The democrats are spend happy, I look at the way the British run their general elections, the window to canvas is very small and compared to the states, they spend a minuscule amount of money on their elected officials, and that is taking in the populations into consideration.

Allowing banks off the hook and giving GM fat checks millions upon millions for ruining companies to big to fail does not fix the economy, you asked, I answered.

Seriously? ? Clinton had a tech bubble and roaring economy. It's easy to balance the budget and run a surplus when that happens.  Obama inherited the worst economic catastrophe in 80 years, with collapse companies,  ballooning unemployment and huge drops in government revenue.  Throw on top of that the resulting ballooning demand for social welfare. You cannot credibly compare the two.

Not sure what the British hustings has to do with anything - the US election cycle is nothing to do with Obama.

Obama has been campaigning for years for infrastructure investment.  Still is, given the rock bottom interest rates. You can blame the GOP for that.

Israel.... good luck with that! Netanyahu hates Obama and went behind his back to Congress and the GOP. You think the religious right will countenance dropping aid to Israel?

And GM repaid their bailout with interest.

Just what government departments would you have him cut, and what would that save?

How about actual major parts of government expenditure, like the military,  social security and medicare?

[heganboy]

What part of taking profits from companies and redistribution of wealth is a moderate thing to do?

These people want to give illegal aliens free education when the national debt is 18.5 trillion dollars.

Free cellphones for all, free this, free that, there is no such thing as free anything anymore, someone is paying the price the last thing this shower should be doing is having the country dispense free college degrees to those that have no right to be there in the first place! I paid $126,000 for me and my two girls to get our degree's, I have paid over $40,000 in taxes alone this year and you are going to allow someone to walk in to the country and add to the incredible national debt by allowing them to get free degrees? The mind boggles.

Stew,
you want to boggle the mind- you are getting absolutely screwed on taxes, and you know what its not (just) the democrats doing it. You think free cellphones are the problem? Wonder why the colleges cost $126,00? Wonder why the infrastructure of the "world's richest nation" is crumbling?



You're getting screwed because the lobbyists have the politicians (who are all more than 60% untrustworthy) are screwing the people of the country to protect their capital. Want to know why a small number of families (158 of the 120million families in the US) choose the president? Its because the entire tax system is designed to protect and grow their capital at the expense of the rest, especially the poorest families, because they have no-one lobbying for them. I know you may think that your usual socialist targets are, its really in name only. The best way to improve the lot of the countries economy is to look after the poor. A company is on target to make $8Billion dollars in a year, legally pays no tax, despite the fact that the healthcare system is set up to make the drug companies enormous profits- zero tax paid...

I agree you are getting screwed on taxes, but point the blame at the right target, it's not the poor people who have no right to be at college, educate the poor and you'll find they don't stay poor for long...

[stew]

For the final time stew, what should Obama have done regarding the debt under the circumstances?  Do you know how much of it is down to stimulus?  Declining tax revenue?

He should have trimmed the fat, Government was far to heavy as it was, he should have stopped giving Israel Billions every year and he should have been tougher on the wealthy, that is a good start.

Look at the job Bubba did cutting the deficit, Reagan for that matter, under Bubba, there was actually a surplus if you can get your hear around that. In other words he could have learned from history.

FDR had his new deal, he invested heavily in building dams, roads, bridges, the infrastructure of the country, he also had a madman in Germany who he knew was spoiling for a war, war means jobs and  i give him a ton of credit for dragging the country out of the depression.

No one can seriously look at his record and say, you know, yes he spent 10 trillion but he took us out of recession, this is like the idea to give free degrees to illegal people, at the end of the day, in the good ole USA, somebody pays, in this case, future generations will pay OR they will default if it gets too big, and what happens then folks?

The democrats are spend happy, I look at the way the British run their general elections, the window to canvas is very small and compared to the states, they spend a minuscule amount of money on their elected officials, and that is taking in the populations into consideration.

Allowing banks off the hook and giving GM fat checks millions upon millions for ruining companies to big to fail does not fix the economy, you asked, I answered.

Seriously? ? Clinton had a tech bubble and roaring economy. It's easy to balance the budget and run a surplus when that happens.  Obama inherited the worst economic catastrophe in 80 years, with collapse companies,  ballooning unemployment and huge drops in government revenue.  Throw on top of that the resulting ballooning demand for social welfare. You cannot credibly compare the two.

Not sure what the British hustings has to do with anything - the US election cycle is nothing to do with Obama.

Obama has been campaigning for years for infrastructure investment.  Still is, given the rock bottom interest rates. You can blame the GOP for that.

Israel.... good luck with that! Netanyahu hates Obama and went behind his back to Congress and the GOP. You think the religious right will countenance dropping aid to Israel?

And GM repaid their bailout with interest.

Just what government departments would you have him cut, and what would that save?

How about actual major parts of government expenditure, like the military,  social security and medicare?

let me get this straight, you would cut social security and medicare, in essence hurting the working class retirees who paid into it all their lives, great, screw Sweden, we are now Greece.

I would tax the rich, tax companies that empty out of the USA and set up elsewhere, I would trim any and all Government spending that was not deemed necessary, I mean some of the grants out there are scandalous and have been for decades.

I would take a look at the military budget and get rid of as much waste as possible, I would target contractors that work and get rid of the firms that have been ripping off the Government.

I know FDR spent his way out of trouble, but he was the right man, in the right place at the right time, as was reagan and clinton, good men at the right time I used to think about this country, nae longer.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Uncle Sam's infrastructure is an archaic public-money allergic zone (apparently), and we think that the 40 mph (average) commute from Arklow to Dublin (for example) is a nonsense:

David Mc Williams in the US

[J70]

For the final time stew, what should Obama have done regarding the debt under the circumstances?  Do you know how much of it is down to stimulus?  Declining tax revenue?

He should have trimmed the fat, Government was far to heavy as it was, he should have stopped giving Israel Billions every year and he should have been tougher on the wealthy, that is a good start.

Look at the job Bubba did cutting the deficit, Reagan for that matter, under Bubba, there was actually a surplus if you can get your hear around that. In other words he could have learned from history.

FDR had his new deal, he invested heavily in building dams, roads, bridges, the infrastructure of the country, he also had a madman in Germany who he knew was spoiling for a war, war means jobs and  i give him a ton of credit for dragging the country out of the depression.

No one can seriously look at his record and say, you know, yes he spent 10 trillion but he took us out of recession, this is like the idea to give free degrees to illegal people, at the end of the day, in the good ole USA, somebody pays, in this case, future generations will pay OR they will default if it gets too big, and what happens then folks?

The democrats are spend happy, I look at the way the British run their general elections, the window to canvas is very small and compared to the states, they spend a minuscule amount of money on their elected officials, and that is taking in the populations into consideration.

Allowing banks off the hook and giving GM fat checks millions upon millions for ruining companies to big to fail does not fix the economy, you asked, I answered.

Seriously? ? Clinton had a tech bubble and roaring economy. It's easy to balance the budget and run a surplus when that happens.  Obama inherited the worst economic catastrophe in 80 years, with collapse companies,  ballooning unemployment and huge drops in government revenue.  Throw on top of that the resulting ballooning demand for social welfare. You cannot credibly compare the two.

Not sure what the British hustings has to do with anything - the US election cycle is nothing to do with Obama.

Obama has been campaigning for years for infrastructure investment.  Still is, given the rock bottom interest rates. You can blame the GOP for that.

Israel.... good luck with that! Netanyahu hates Obama and went behind his back to Congress and the GOP. You think the religious right will countenance dropping aid to Israel?

And GM repaid their bailout with interest.

Just what government departments would you have him cut, and what would that save?

How about actual major parts of government expenditure, like the military,  social security and medicare?

let me get this straight, you would cut social security and medicare, in essence hurting the working class retirees who paid into it all their lives, great, screw Sweden, we are now Greece.

I would tax the rich, tax companies that empty out of the USA and set up elsewhere, I would trim any and all Government spending that was not deemed necessary, I mean some of the grants out there are scandalous and have been for decades.

I would take a look at the military budget and get rid of as much waste as possible, I would target contractors that work and get rid of the firms that have been ripping off the Government.

I know FDR spent his way out of trouble, but he was the right man, in the right place at the right time, as was reagan and clinton, good men at the right time I used to think about this country, nae longer.

Where did I say I would cut SS or medicare?

My point is that they account for 40% of federal spending, while the military accounts for another 20%. Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare subsidies account for 8%. Other entitlement spending accounts for 11% and has been declining, in both proportion and real terms as the economy has improved. Even if you gutted all entitlement spending that helps the poor, as the GOP wants to do, the budget would still be in deficit. Science and medical research account for only 2%.

So what spending is unnecessary? Who decides what research grants are "scandalous"? I remember McCain making a huge deal in 2008 over some grant on grizzly bear research. Well, where do these people think the knowledge to manage wildlife and ecosystems and to improve medicine is going to come from? The competition for these grants is tremendous and the idea that they're dishing out money willy-nilly on fanciful fluff is ludicrous.

And just how much power do you think the president has? You think he is solely responsible for all the bad government contractors and the waste? Congress controls the purse strings. Just today there is a story in the Daily Beast about some Tea Party congressmen who is a leader is the so-called Freedom Caucus and a highly vocal proponent of fiscal responsibility who ensured that some factory building tanks which the army did not want got to keep their contract just because it was in his district.

Good luck getting those corporations taxed BTW. Ain't going to happen while the GOP is in control of congress.

[stew]

Good luck getting those corporations taxed BTW. Ain't going to happen while the GOP is in control of congress.

THEY WERE NOT ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS UNDER THIS PRESIDENT, COMPRENDE? House, Senate, White House ALL Democrat, they got nothing!

I cannot be arsed anymore, I have lived here for 20 years, I came over a democrat and after watching their act I bother became more conservative in my thinking, values etc were a better match, I am not changing my mind but at least I can say some good things about the center left, very few of the vast majority can say anything decent about any republican.

I will leave you all with this as this is my last post on here, like facebook I am shutting the door on politics and Religion, that said, the GOP candidates, some of them are deeply Religious and a lot of you are offended by that, you should not be because it is their right under the constitution.

J70 you seem like a good skin, I have enjoyed your commentary, see you on other pages, I cant be arsed anymore, there is no point to it.

Up Armagh!

[easytiger95]

I'm not offended by the GOP candidates religion, I'm offended by their stupidity. Low blow to dismiss all the rational arguments put forward opposing the GOP position as mere anti-religious bigotry.

[muppet]

Good luck getting those corporations taxed BTW. Ain't going to happen while the GOP is in control of congress.

THEY WERE NOT ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS UNDER THIS PRESIDENT, COMPRENDE? House, Senate, White House ALL Democrat, they got nothing!

I cannot be arsed anymore, I have lived here for 20 years, I came over a democrat and after watching their act I bother became more conservative in my thinking, values etc were a better match, I am not changing my mind but at least I can say some good things about the center left, very few of the vast majority can say anything decent about any republican.

I will leave you all with this as this is my last post on here, like facebook I am shutting the door on politics and Religion, that said, the GOP candidates, some of them are deeply Religious and a lot of you are offended by that, you should not be because it is their right under the constitution.

J70 you seem like a good skin, I have enjoyed your commentary, see you on other pages, I cant be arsed anymore, there is no point to it.

Up Armagh!

I don't mind people being deeply religious, as long as they don't insist on imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Like for example ISIS do.

[deiseach]

THEY WERE NOT ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS UNDER THIS PRESIDENT, COMPRENDE? House, Senate, White House ALL Democrat, they got nothing!

You've clearly forgotten the GOP use of the filibuster. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

[J70]

Good luck getting those corporations taxed BTW. Ain't going to happen while the GOP is in control of congress.

THEY WERE NOT ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS UNDER THIS PRESIDENT, COMPRENDE? House, Senate, White House ALL Democrat, they got nothing!

I cannot be arsed anymore, I have lived here for 20 years, I came over a democrat and after watching their act I bother became more conservative in my thinking, values etc were a better match, I am not changing my mind but at least I can say some good things about the center left, very few of the vast majority can say anything decent about any republican.

I will leave you all with this as this is my last post on here, like facebook I am shutting the door on politics and Religion, that said, the GOP candidates, some of them are deeply Religious and a lot of you are offended by that, you should not be because it is their right under the constitution.

J70 you seem like a good skin, I have enjoyed your commentary, see you on other pages, I cant be arsed anymore, there is no point to it.

Up Armagh!

True, there is probably not much point to it in that we will not change too many minds, but it's good crack to discuss this stuff. Same as with the likes of Iceman on religious stuff. A bit of debate is good for the brain cells, and sure we will always learn at least a wee bit!