- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 15,910
- Reaction score
- 12,630
- Location
- Plano, Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Don't most politicians do that?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Republican wins Democratic New York House seat
- Thread starter lpast
- Start date
Don't most politicians do that?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
IMO, the special elections offered a snapshot of how voters in two areas feel today. Much can change between now and November 2012, so today's results do not guarantee tomorrow's outcomes.
Having said that, what remains clear is that the state of the economy remains the dominant issue confronting the nation's policy makers. Given the structural changes that have taken place since the collapse of the housing bubble/financial crisis/steep recession and ongoing changes globally (shifting comparative advantages, patterns of trade, etc.), the economy will almost certainly be the biggest issue in 2012. At that time, if the economy remains sluggish and the unemployment rate remains elevated with little prospect of a significant decline, voters will likely choose new leadership, consistent with historic patterns under such circumstances. By that time, voters will be looking for practical solutions. Backward-looking narratives won't be an adequate substitute for vision/practical solutions that offer a way out of a situation the nation largely finds unsatisfactory.
Even if the policy makers have not yet discussed it, some paradigm changes are required. First, in an era of consumer deleveraging and, later, fiscal austerity, the consumer-led model of growth in which personal consumption expenditures accounted for more than 70% of GDP needs to be replaced by a model that is more balanced i.e. relatively greater roels for gross private domestic investment and trade. In addition, leverage will need to play a much smaller role in growth than it has in recent decades. An approach were every dollar of GDP growth is achieved by $2 to $3 in domestic nonfinancial debt is not sustainable. Second, a greater role for trade will depend on increasing U.S. competitiveness. The current practice of trying to offset barriers to competitiveness e.g., labor costs, by shifting operations overseas is, to be blunt, largely an imitation (of more competitive rivals) approach. Imitation is not a source of sustainable competitive advantages. U.S. firms will need to increase their innovation relative to the rest of the world. To support such a drive, policy makers will need to tackle the problems that inhibit success in the nation's education system, as an improved human capital pool is essential to innovation. Third, the nation will need to address areas in which it is vulnerable (energy supply) or areas where tomorrow's growth lies. Both the private and public sectors have roles to play in that area e.g., the federal government can develop a credible energy policy. At the same time, the private sector can innovate to develop substitutes for, let's say, rare earth minerals, for which scarcity and resource nationalism will dampen availability down the road. Fourth, the nation needs to address its long-term fiscal imbalances. Failure to do so will raise the risk of a medium- and long-term debt crisis. Health care reform will be central to addressing those imbalances. Fifth, policy needs to be long-term-oriented. The nation's policy makers have to challenge themselves to think in terms of opportunity costs: namely, what opportunities are being foregone by today's decisions and whether such trade-offs make sense for the long-term. There needs to be a direction that is clear so that policy choices can be made in that context and the private sector can operate in an environment in which political certainty is much greater than at present. That clarity can enhance the private sector's planning. Inflation, political uncertainty, etc., all make planning, an already complicated process, even more complex.
Today, the U.S. still has powerful advantages. It is a free society in which the latitude for choice is substantial. It has a relatively educated workforce, though the talent edge has been eroding for some time. It still has an macroeconomic culture in which innovation can thrive, but risk-aversion (some due to macroeconomic and policy uncertainty, some due to complacency, some due to other factors) is suppressing innovation. Right now, the U.S. still has the luxury to chart its own course toward fiscal sustainability. Inaction will strip the nation of that choice, leaving that challenge to be addressed by circumstances (a much more disruptive situation). The nation still has the luxury to choose a path that leads to sustainable economic growth. Policy inaction, even with the best of intentions, will impose on the nation an era of sluggish growth.
Having said that, what remains clear is that the state of the economy remains the dominant issue confronting the nation's policy makers. Given the structural changes that have taken place since the collapse of the housing bubble/financial crisis/steep recession and ongoing changes globally (shifting comparative advantages, patterns of trade, etc.), the economy will almost certainly be the biggest issue in 2012. At that time, if the economy remains sluggish and the unemployment rate remains elevated with little prospect of a significant decline, voters will likely choose new leadership, consistent with historic patterns under such circumstances. By that time, voters will be looking for practical solutions. Backward-looking narratives won't be an adequate substitute for vision/practical solutions that offer a way out of a situation the nation largely finds unsatisfactory.
Even if the policy makers have not yet discussed it, some paradigm changes are required. First, in an era of consumer deleveraging and, later, fiscal austerity, the consumer-led model of growth in which personal consumption expenditures accounted for more than 70% of GDP needs to be replaced by a model that is more balanced i.e. relatively greater roels for gross private domestic investment and trade. In addition, leverage will need to play a much smaller role in growth than it has in recent decades. An approach were every dollar of GDP growth is achieved by $2 to $3 in domestic nonfinancial debt is not sustainable. Second, a greater role for trade will depend on increasing U.S. competitiveness. The current practice of trying to offset barriers to competitiveness e.g., labor costs, by shifting operations overseas is, to be blunt, largely an imitation (of more competitive rivals) approach. Imitation is not a source of sustainable competitive advantages. U.S. firms will need to increase their innovation relative to the rest of the world. To support such a drive, policy makers will need to tackle the problems that inhibit success in the nation's education system, as an improved human capital pool is essential to innovation. Third, the nation will need to address areas in which it is vulnerable (energy supply) or areas where tomorrow's growth lies. Both the private and public sectors have roles to play in that area e.g., the federal government can develop a credible energy policy. At the same time, the private sector can innovate to develop substitutes for, let's say, rare earth minerals, for which scarcity and resource nationalism will dampen availability down the road. Fourth, the nation needs to address its long-term fiscal imbalances. Failure to do so will raise the risk of a medium- and long-term debt crisis. Health care reform will be central to addressing those imbalances. Fifth, policy needs to be long-term-oriented. The nation's policy makers have to challenge themselves to think in terms of opportunity costs: namely, what opportunities are being foregone by today's decisions and whether such trade-offs make sense for the long-term. There needs to be a direction that is clear so that policy choices can be made in that context and the private sector can operate in an environment in which political certainty is much greater than at present. That clarity can enhance the private sector's planning. Inflation, political uncertainty, etc., all make planning, an already complicated process, even more complex.
Today, the U.S. still has powerful advantages. It is a free society in which the latitude for choice is substantial. It has a relatively educated workforce, though the talent edge has been eroding for some time. It still has an macroeconomic culture in which innovation can thrive, but risk-aversion (some due to macroeconomic and policy uncertainty, some due to complacency, some due to other factors) is suppressing innovation. Right now, the U.S. still has the luxury to chart its own course toward fiscal sustainability. Inaction will strip the nation of that choice, leaving that challenge to be addressed by circumstances (a much more disruptive situation). The nation still has the luxury to choose a path that leads to sustainable economic growth. Policy inaction, even with the best of intentions, will impose on the nation an era of sluggish growth.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,102
- Reaction score
- 33,446
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Bush was hated because he didn't give up his principles.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,176
- Reaction score
- 44,134
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Nope nope.
Bush was hated because of Iraq, plain and simple.
For both Blair and Bush, Iraq was their undoing.
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 20,630
- Reaction score
- 14,981
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Um... Bush was hated by many because he sold on out fiscally conservative beliefs and approved things the Democrat congress voted through. Bush was a sell out when it comes to his beliefs.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,762
- Reaction score
- 21,415
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Bush isn't really "hated" by anyone of significance. The most I can say for Bush is that I think he was incompetent and that his foreign policy was disastrous. But I don't hate the guy.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,102
- Reaction score
- 33,446
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think he stated he would spend more on education and such, he just let the Dems like Kennedy write the bills. I didn't agree with it
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,102
- Reaction score
- 33,446
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yeah, time of another monkey morph photo, what didn't you post that? Obama would have soiled himself on 9/11, because he's a nutless wonder. That's why those in the ME don't respect him, hell they don't even fear him. Bush knew that only the introduction of liberty could ultimately defeat the terrorists. The war just the method to start the process.
Strange, that's how the US was started, by a war against an oppressive regime.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Is it that Obama didn't support Israel enough? Or could it more likely be that the whole of the government, R and D, have ****ed us over so hardcore that we're going to see a lot of replacement when we have the chance?
Also, **** Israel. Why do we have to "support" them? Let them support themselves.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,762
- Reaction score
- 21,415
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Because I'm not a partisan hack. I'm just telling it like it is. And I highly doubt most posters, even on this site, disagree with me on that comment.
And people in the ME respect and fear Bush?
I suppose that makes waging a global war against all oppressive regimes a brilliant idea. Why not let's all be happy and live in a democratic global utopia, and bleed our treasury dry because we are "sticking to our principles." Jesus American, you sound like a ****ing liberal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 15,910
- Reaction score
- 12,630
- Location
- Plano, Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Because we are at least partially responsible for their problems...what with having helped plan and impliment the recreation of a jewish state in the 40s.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
He'll likely be replaced. There's probably going to be some house cleaning since in all this time the government has done nothing for us in terms of fixing the economy. We won't be better off for clearing house since we're replacing the R and D with more R's and D's; so we won't net anything out of it. I just hope the Republicans can put up a candidate that isn't worse than Obama.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
That was England and the UN. Let them deal with it. Besides, that was over 60 years ago. They're big boys and girls now; they can take care of themselves.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yeah, let's let the entirety of the Middle East be turned into a massive caliphate run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Fear of Israel is the only thing that keeps that region in check. They "take care of themselves" better than any nation in the world; I wish we had their resolve.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
No, he was hated because he was an idiot and got us into a war we're still fighting and wasting money on and that he was a partisan jackass who pandered to special interests. Much like Obama.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 15,910
- Reaction score
- 12,630
- Location
- Plano, Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
We had a significant hand in that entire situation. You can pass the buck if you want, but we were definitely involved. As for "screw it; every man for himself"...I get that you're a hardcore, no-government, **** the government kind of libertarian, but use some logic here. Once you've totaled the other guys car you have an obligation to provide your information and help get it fixed/replaced. In other words, you can't screw the pooch and walk out on the puppies. That would be far more disasterous than big government involvment.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Then let them at it. Wish we had their resolve? Pfft. I'll take our strength over their resolve any day; apparently they still need our strength regardless of their resolve. Let them take care of themselves, stop spending money on it. Not our country, not our problem.
PzKfW IVe
Banned
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,845
- Reaction score
- 289
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The irony of that statement must have been lost on you...
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,846
- Reaction score
- 68,959
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
If I wreck a car, sure. But if I gift something, I'm not responsible for how that gift is used. How long? How long is our "obligation" to this crap? If it's forever, let Palestine have it back. I'm not willing to forever fund another government like this. They're self-sufficient have have more than enough ability to self-govern. It is no longer our responsibility.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The results of this election, and others, are giving me a sliver of hope of an economic turnaround in the not-too-distant future.
In fact, if polls are reading the same way by next summer, we could see a spike in the markets and a drop in unemployment as corporate America starts to try to get a jump on their competition in hopes of a more business friendly and PREDICTABLE government on the way.
Of course, the liberals here and everywhere will claim that "see, Obama's policies started working, and you kicked him out." Uh, no, things turned around in anticipation of getting his pathetic ass out of office, as well as taking over the Senate and gaining a firmer grasp on the House.
Liberalism is being exposed to the masses for what it is. People finally understand that hope isn't a strategy.
In fact, if polls are reading the same way by next summer, we could see a spike in the markets and a drop in unemployment as corporate America starts to try to get a jump on their competition in hopes of a more business friendly and PREDICTABLE government on the way.
Of course, the liberals here and everywhere will claim that "see, Obama's policies started working, and you kicked him out." Uh, no, things turned around in anticipation of getting his pathetic ass out of office, as well as taking over the Senate and gaining a firmer grasp on the House.
Liberalism is being exposed to the masses for what it is. People finally understand that hope isn't a strategy.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 15,910
- Reaction score
- 12,630
- Location
- Plano, Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
We put them in a situation which we should have logically known would lead to violence and ongoing battles. It's like throwing a feral cat into a cage with a hungry pitpull. We're obligated to that cat until the pitbull is no longer a risk.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 863
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Nope. Most politicians in the U.S. support Israel.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 863
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Hmmm. You call being elected for a 2nd term an "undoing?" Wow!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,663
- Reaction score
- 4,633
- Location
- Fla
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No this is a totally different situation in NY....those lifelong democrats didnt switch to gop overnight.....they are pissed at obama for his stance on palestinians and israel...especially his speech where he said israel needs to abide by borders from before the war....that was the killer right there with the orthodox jewish vote in that district
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 863
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't see President Obama selling out his principles when it comes to Israel. We'll see.