Who do we trust?

[Traveler]

I do not want to make this too political but our nation is being divided politically. Along with the division there is a thought that one political party is right and the other is wrong. For years I have believed that our political parties are nothing more than two sides of the same coin.

We are currently thinking that we are facing a government debt and economic challenge with two very different possibilities. Really??? Both parties have recognized that there is too much government spending - especially in ratio to current government revenues. But the reality is the both political parties have continually increased the amounts of actual revenues and both parties have continually increased spending.

Can anyone give me an example of actual cuts to government spending in the USA since our government was established? It seems to me that our two parties are playing economic chicken. Each waiting and pressuring the other to dare to cut any program spending. And each knowing to actually propose a actual cut to any program would be political suicide.

I predict that when the dust clears - taxes and revenues will be increased - spending will also increase and both parties will claim victory and both parties will say the other party failed and is responsible for problems that did not get solved.

What choice is there - Really????

The Traveler

[Vort]

As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party is the second-most corrupt in the US, and it disgusts me. But the winner of the Corruption Contest makes Republicans look like children at play.

[Anddenex]

This is why I am not affiliated with any party.

I am thinking your last statement sums it up correctly. Our politics love the blame game. It is like the ball hog on a basketball team who took 65% of the shots and then blames the other team members for the loss.

[Guest]

This is what happens in a voting system of government. You end up taxing the minority to buy the votes of the majority...

At least in the Marcos era, the vote-buy is very obvious - the voter receives a pre-filled ballot with 7 pesos stapled to it (that's how much the vote cost in 1985).

Now, it's in the guise of Pell Grants and free contraceptives.

[slamjet]

Didn't George Washington warn the country that it's going to fall into a dangerous two-party system?

[Traveler]

As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party is the second-most corrupt in the US, and it disgusts me. But the winner of the Corruption Contest makes Republicans look like children at play.

How is it that the Republicans are the second most corrupt party??? The Republicans run on the platform that they will reduce taxes (government revenue - leaving capitalism as the engine of the economy) and cut spending; things that they have never done. The Democrats run on a platform that they will increase taxes and spend more - things they have always done.

Thus the Republicans say the right things and do the wrong things. The Democrats say the wrong things and do the wrong things. And the difference in who is in power is????

No one want to make any deals that would curtail the debt. The goal is not to accomplish anything. They are both trying to blame the other for everything that is bad and take credit for anything that is good. Unfortunately the bad things are accumulating much faster than the few good things. Thus blaming becomes much more important than accomplishing. There is no effort to be concerned about citizens or tax payers.

The Traveler

[talisyn]

The parties are tools of our corporate overlords. Until their power is curtailed any plebian discussion of political parties is moot.

Wow I'm cranky. I'm off to find a wild chocolate candy Santa and redistribute it's head to my stomach.

[applepansy]

Didn't George Washington warn the country that it's going to fall into a dangerous two-party system?

I think so... one of the founding fathers anyway.

[Traveler]

The parties are tools of our corporate overlords. Until their power is curtailed any plebian discussion of political parties is moot.

Wow I'm cranky. I'm off to find a wild chocolate candy Santa and redistribute it's head to my stomach.

This is an interesting post to which I wish to comment. I find that for the most part that politics do not favor corporate overlords but rather favor specific quid pro quo partners - linking election donation to favors.

For example - the current economic crisis does not help corporations at all but, according to my studies, was brought about as specific corporate entities sought government backing of sub-par (unqualified) loans that were previously legislated through Freddy Mac and Fanny May to assist the poorer (unqualified) elements of society.

I see the same red flags and economic devastation on a even more broad scale associated with what is called the Affordable Health Care Act. That will devastate 99% of the corporate entities of the USA.

I believe you have been convinced by false propaganda of a very misleading generalization. To which I wonder why citizens of the USA are so naive and easily deceived about?

The Traveler

[Guest]

This is an interesting post to which I wish to comment. I find that for the most part that politics do not favor corporate overlords but rather favor specific quid pro quo partners - linking election donation to favors.

I agree. And that's crony capitalism. A perversion of capitalistic principles which majority of corporations do not engage in.

For example - the current economic crisis does not help corporations at all but, according to my studies, was brought about as specific corporate entities sought government backing of sub-par (unqualified) loans that were previously legislated through Freddy Mac and Fanny May to assist the poorer (unqualified) elements of society.

This is true, but the context is kinda lacking. The corporate failure became a government problem because it is because of government legislation that the corporation failed in the first place. When the government mandated that banks have to offer loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify for them, it forced the banks to hold toxic loans for which they had to play hot potato with corporations who invest in mortgage-backed securities.

Entities like Lehman Brothers who are not engaged in crony capitalism sunk, those who are kneck deep in cronyism got bailed out.

So, can we conclude that corporate overlords are the problem? I can't.

I see the same red flags and economic devastation on a even more broad scale associated with what is called the Affordable Health Care Act. That will devastate 99% of the corporate entities of the USA.

I believe you have been convinced by false propaganda of a very misleading generalization. To which I wonder why citizens of the USA are so naive and easily deceived about?

The Traveler

It's whichever spin you prefer to accept as truth. Not really that much different than religion. There are grains of truth on both sides. Truths that you can spin to paint whatever picture you like that will match whatever you want to hear.

[skippy740]

I trust Fox News! (Oh wait...)

[prisonchaplain]

Depending on what your issues are, the parties may seem similar. However, they are very different in many ways.

1. One is predominantly prolife, the other pro-choice.

2. One favors military spending, the other "safety net" programs.

3. One favors on-going social engineering through affirmative action type programs, the other does not.

4. One favors a continued "war on drugs," the other is leaning towards legalization and rehabilitation support.

5. One favors continuing to allow a fair amount of "civic religion/tradition," while the other wants it driven out.

6. One favors lower tax rates, the other says it's time to lean heavier on the wealthy

I could go on. The parties are different. That neither seems ready to tackle our mounting debt is true. That neither articulates a clear foreign policy that is consistent, affordable, and long-term also seems true. They both disappoint. However, they are not the same. For me, the preferable one is pretty clear.

[Traveler]

Depending on what your issues are, the parties may seem similar. However, they are very different in many ways.

1. One is predominantly prolife, the other pro-choice.

2. One favors military spending, the other "safety net" programs.

3. One favors on-going social engineering through affirmative action type programs, the other does not.

4. One favors a continued "war on drugs," the other is leaning towards legalization and rehabilitation support.

5. One favors continuing to allow a fair amount of "civic religion/tradition," while the other wants it driven out.

6. One favors lower tax rates, the other says it's time to lean heavier on the wealthy

I could go on. The parties are different. That neither seems ready to tackle our mounting debt is true. That neither articulates a clear foreign policy that is consistent, affordable, and long-term also seems true. They both disappoint. However, they are not the same. For me, the preferable one is pretty clear.

I have often wondered why Charlie Brown would continue to allow Lucie to hold the football while he tried to kick it. Oh wait - now I remember the reason - she is his "best" or preferred option.

You and I differ on one important principle (at least to me). I do not believe that one can claim choice of will or free will if the option of their will is not available.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, it could be that the issues the two parties differ on are not that weighty to you. Alternatively, you may believe that the differences are more lip service than reality. I can respect either perspective. For me, the differences are quite stark, and it's easy for me to favor one over the other.

BTW, if debt reduction were my flagship issue, I suppose I'd have to go with the Libertarians. However, their libertine social stances and anti-religionist philosophical underpinnings make that a difficult option for me. Doug Bandow, a conservative Christian and Liberterian commentator was a notable exception--but folks like him are too rare.

[Guest]

You and I differ on one important principle (at least to me). I do not believe that one can claim choice of will or free will if the option of their will is not available.

The Traveler

That's the great thing about America - unless you're a felon - all legal options are available to you. Free will. The mark of true democracy.

You forget there are more than just 2 choices. You can always run for office yourself if none of the options appeal to you. Just because you can't win an election doesn't mean you didn't have free will. You just don't have anybody else choosing what you want.

[Traveler]

Traveler, it could be that the issues the two parties differ on are not that weighty to you. Alternatively, you may believe that the differences are more lip service than reality. I can respect either perspective. For me, the differences are quite stark, and it's easy for me to favor one over the other.

BTW, if debt reduction were my flagship issue, I suppose I'd have to go with the Libertarians. However, their libertine social stances and anti-religionist philosophical underpinnings make that a difficult option for me. Doug Bandow, a conservative Christian and Liberterian commentator was a notable exception--but folks like him are too rare.

Just for my understanding - what over the last 50 years have the Republicans done (not said they would do but actually done) that has standing up and cheering for them and has convinced you that they are worthy of your support and allegiance?

The Traveler

[Sharky]

Didn't George Washington warn the country that it's going to fall into a dangerous two-party system?

I believe it was Ben Franklin that defined Democracy as a Lamb and 2 wolves discussing what was for dinner & the lamb (the minority) prevailed, he was not dinner.

One of the Founding Fathers also said something to the effect that this country and it's people will never be free if we are unable to provide for ourselves everything necessity of life. Any group of people that are dependant on another group of people to provide a necessity of life is far from being free.

Oil is only 1 thing we are dependant on other countries to provide. Much of our food supply comes from other countries today. The vast majority of "stuff", including clothing comes from other countries.

The slippery-slope was set into motion many many many many decades ago.

The pattern of this country really isn't much different then the people of biblical times. Generations living freely & worshiping God, then bountious times of plenty, then captivity. Though perhaps our captivity isn't as litteral as physical slavery, we are still becoming captives.

[Traveler]

That's the great thing about America - unless you're a felon - all legal options are available to you. Free will. The mark of true democracy.

You forget there are more than just 2 choices. You can always run for office yourself if none of the options appeal to you. Just because you can't win an election doesn't mean you didn't have free will. You just don't have anybody else choosing what you want.

I use to be involved in the Republican party - My father was very influential in the Republican party and I also worked on a number of campaigns. But one campaign I was working on was involved in illegal activity - which I reported - for which I was banned from the party.

I have been asked to rejoin the party and run for office - but I am not convinced much has changed - I am thinking the juster at the time was more political than sincerer. I did work with the Ron Paul campaign - even though I differ with his stand on foreign affairs.

Some have thought that I am being sarcastic when I say that I believe if the American people knew what was going on in Washington DC and what their congressmen were doing - they would drag them out in the streets and lynch them.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Just for my understanding - what over the last 50 years have the Republicans done (not said they would do but actually done) that has standing up and cheering for them and has convinced you that they are worthy of your support and allegiance?

The Traveler

I'm not openly cheer-leading for a particular party. The callings I have lead me to believe that beyond supporting particular issues, and quietly making some small donations, it is better for me not to be a noisy partisan.

Having said that, the policies advocated by the Elephants are more in line with my thinking than those promoted by the other major player. I am pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and in favor of a robust military. I prefer spending cuts to tax increases. I could go on.

You may respond that neither party has been very good at implementing those policies. Perhaps. However, one party makes no pretence of supporting my issues, and the other does. I'd rather have a team do poorly in fighting my cause, then have one do well at opposing it.

[Traveler]

I'm not openly cheer-leading for a particular party. The callings I have lead me to believe that beyond supporting particular issues, and quietly making some small donations, it is better for me not to be a noisy partisan.

Having said that, the policies advocated by the Elephants are more in line with my thinking than those promoted by the other major player. I am pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and in favor of a robust military. I prefer spending cuts to tax increases. I could go on.

You may respond that neither party has been very good at implementing those policies. Perhaps. However, one party makes no pretence of supporting my issues, and the other does. I'd rather have a team do poorly in fighting my cause, then have one do well at opposing it.

Which is better, someone that tells you the truth about what they are doing - even though it is not what you prefer or believe is right? Or someone that lies to you because they know it is what you want to hear but does something quite different than what they tell you they will do?

I find that I personally cannot support or pretend to back either nor will I advise anyone else as to which deserves support. I honestly believe we are wasting our time and expectations thinking that anything is going to change. When was the last time you heard a Republican state clearly what must be cut to balance the budget.

I posted this in another thread - last year to balance the budget we would have to cut all spending by 58% - but since we cannot cut debt payments we would have to cut by more than 60%. Name one program the republicans are willing to cut by even 15% which is only 1/5 of what must be cut. What do you think would happen to the Republican party if they actually cut even 10% from Social Security or any other program?

Even if we had an economy growing at the highest our economy has grown in the last 200 years we cannot sustain what we are currently spending. If we cannot make even 10% cuts then me must increase taxes - and we must increase much more than just with the top 1% - we cannot balance the budget even if we increased all taxes by 20% and this is all before we even get to unfunded liabilities.

The truth is that neither party is telling the truth. Either we will have to balance our budget by choice - or it will eventually be balanced for us - meaning we will have in essence no choices.

The Traveler

Edited December 11, 2012 by Traveler