Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

POLITICS EXPLOSION [Liberal Strategies and Methods]

Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
edited September 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Okay, I can't be the only "liberal" starting to become extremely pissed off can I? The insansos have complete domination in the media while the corporate shills play them like puppets on a string. If there ever was a strong case against democracy, we're seeing it. I can't believe these people, after 8 long painful years under the thumb of conservative rule (Dems were ineffective and spineless, as usual) they're ready to vote in the people that got us into this damn economic mess!? Because Obama couldn't undo 8 years of bullshit in one term? I hate the dems, but we lack a real Liberal party, and we've admittedly had good times under them, while conservatives are constantly on the wrong side of history. For thirty years, conservative policies has been wrecking this country. I'm seriously about to blow a vein here. My patience is worn thin from trying to deal with these teabaggers and faux conservatives on a daily basis. (I live in TN...) Logic, Reason, or facts do not work on these people. They could argue that the Earth was flat, and no matter how much you show them they're wrong they'll never accept it. Their idol worshiping of our founding fathers is disgusting, mostly because the founders would find modern conservative policies abhorrent (At least, I believe they would. Could you imagine what Thomas Jefferson's reaction would be to that one ((admitedly good)) painting where everyonein DC is cowering before the messiah? Not that they'd approve of dems' policies either...)

Yet people are VOTING THESE MOUTH-BREATHERS IN. Why!? Do they not see they are completely incompetent, even compared to the DNC and GOP? As a man of reason and logic, it confounds me to no end. Why... why can't they see reason!? Just look at the facts, that's literally all I ask them, but it doesn't make a difference!!! ARGH. I'm so god damned mad! NERDRAGE POWER ACTIVATE. And here on the other side of the aisle? We have a bunch of pussified democrats afraid to play politics like the big boys and getting their hands dirty. I don't like it, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. All the hope I had when Obama was elected is now completely replaced by anxiety and anger towards these morons who don't even know who they're supporting. Do they know how the GOP defines "small business?" Do they know taxes are actually low? Why do they always vote against their own interests? It makes me wonder how much the judges got paid off to declare corporations an actual "person." Did they not see how that would be abused? Now the Astroturf Party gets funded by the Fed Reserve and their corporate allies and set loose the lemmings that make up the rank and file of the conservative bloc.

But hey, where are all the freethinkers and liberals who believe in the principals that this country was founded on? Why is everyone still so apathetic? Is it laziness? I KNOW there are people out there just as angry as I am about all this. Why don't they ever stand up and say something!? Mother fuckers, open up your mouths and raise your fists! Declare that that they'll never turn this country into a theocratic, police-state, plutocracy! Make them see that WE'RE the ones in the right, that we represent the freedoms that symbolize the American ideal! That we'll never disappear and even though they have the money, we have the power! Because we do, fuckers! Let the media ignore us, let them discount us and tell us we're not "real americans" because we grew up in an urban area, or because we dared to call for compassion, and want to use the government to help our fellow man. Because Karma is a bitch.

So they're the new "Great Awakening", then fuckers, let's be the new "Enlightenment!" We CAN do it! Show them that this is a country of reason, logic, pragmatic solutions, AND compassion, not demagoguery, jingoism, nationalism, xenophobia, or fascism! We have the fucking internet you neckbeards! All we have to do is organize! If those morons can, then we certainly can! Even if we don't have the money, if we have enough people we can direct this country back on the proper course!

All we need is a name. "The (New?) Liberty Party." There fuckers, that sounds good. Now let's spread the word.





God dammit, this won't do a bit of fucking good, will it?

Gigazombie Cybermage on
steam_sig.png
«13

Posts

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    you're arguing to a room full of obama votes.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You know you can't just yell "Do something!" and get it done, right?

    The political process is messy because it's hard to keep a society of 300+ million people all relatively happy at the same time (especially when they get to pick whoever they want to enter the death pit of Congress and jump right into the fracas)

    Picture1-4.png
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited September 2010
    YEAH! YOU FUCKERS DO SOMETHING, I'M BUSY PLAYING THE NEW HALO!

    309151-1.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nope probably not.

    Then again given the performance out of the Democratic Party over the last 2 years given a majority in all 3 branches of government I question why anyone would vote for them in the coming elections. When the best excuse you have for why you are unable to enact your agenda is "Well the other side who diametrically opposes our ideal refuses to compromise so we are completely worthless without 60 guys."

    I mean seriously, you do not walk into a room full of Republicans and say "Ok guys, we are in charge. Now I know you are opposed to baby killing. However we need dead babies. Lets compromise, how does 8 dead babies sound? Now either play ball or the government will appear completely ineffective and you can use that as a tool to regain power." Hell it does not even help that the Democratic party has to start negotiating with its own base. Hell they pretty much walk into the room saying "Ok our party will agree on a maximum of 4 dead babies. Any more and we lose votes. So how can we get you guys on board the dead baby express?"

    Moreover it does not help that as much as everyone wants to rant and rave about how horrible the Republicans are in ramming 8 years of crap down our throats when you ask them why they were not as obstructionist toward all this horrible shit as the Republicans are toward the current batch of horrible shit all you get is a bunch of hand wringing, and half hearted mumbles of compromise.

    The reality is we do not have a two party system. We have a one party system solely concerned with keeping itself in power, and two talking heads playing red vs blue and using Capitol Hill as Blood Gulch. The democrats can barely get along with their own members which all to often seems to ideologically be based around nothing more than being pissed at the republicans. The republicans on the other hand seem hell bent on hating everyone while thumping the bible at everything and working extra hard to driving themselves into being the retarded christian extremist party.

    Want something that blows my mind? There are republicans out there, right now, who honestly believe if you do not worship Jesus then you cannot possible be republican. Fiscal conservancy, states rights, smaller government. All this crap takes a back seat to Imaginary Sky Dad and his list of shit not to do.

    And yet they are STILL more effective as a party than the Democrats.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    I completely agree. That's why we need to create another party, a true grassroots effort to create a moderately liberal party (But not call it liberal... Most people agree with liberal policies unless you actually call it "welfare" or "liberalism" or "socialism.")

    Toss the dems away since they're so ineffective.

    steam_sig.png
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I was watching some coverage of the GoP speaches yesterday and I actually laughed a couple of times.(good natured, haha, how can he even say that with a straight face? laugh.)
    Then I remembered that their main opponent's platform is "We'd do that, except, no, we can't do that because X...."...good luck with the election US!

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    the answer isn't another party

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You know you can't just yell "Do something!" and get it done, right?

    The political process is messy because it's hard to keep a society of 300+ million people all relatively happy at the same time (especially when they get to pick whoever they want to enter the death pit of Congress and jump right into the fracas)

    I think that's a marginal part of it at best. The organizational structure of the legislative branch is fucking insane, with an incredibly bad incentive structure. That's why politics is fucked up. That why you can have (rationally ignorant) Obama voters know that "their people" got in and "those other guys" lost, and yet still nothing gets done.

    Of course, part of this is that the GOP knows how to play politics--even as they are grossly unfit to govern--while the Democrats obsess about procedure. The GOP is persistently willing to play the hell out of a weak political hand, while the Democrats aren't.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA




    Also, no matter how incompetent you may think the Democrats are, that does not make them worse then the competently evil.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The answer is accountability, and unfortunately the American people no longer care enough to educate themselves enough to hold those they elect accountable.

    Right now the Dems are pushing a platform and is incompatible with the ideals of the republican voter base. By fighting tooth and nail to stop it from passing they not only do the Republicans please their voter base, but also demoralize the Dems voter base who seem to expect Obama to wave a magic wand and fix everything. Sadly it also appears at times that Obama expected to wave said wand and the republicans would fall in line. Yeah good luck on that one.

    Really though the problems of the democrats seems to stem from the fact that as the Republicans become more hard line they are bleeding moderate members. Who then join the Democractic party while maintaining their centrist, and right leaning ideals. The hard line approach to membership is serving the republicans well, whereas the Dems at time could often seem to be two parties fighting to get along.

    Really though until the American people begin to demand more from their elected officials in actually working to address their concerns nothing is really going to change. My biggest fear is that people will demand accountability before educating themselves enough to understand exactly what they do want, and how it actually effects them.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Really, the Democrats should be campaigning on four things:

    1) Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top brackets.
    2) The pretty awesome elements of the health care bill that kicked in today.
    3) Fuck off, Citizens United
    4) Senate reform.

    1 they failed already.
    2 they might bother with.
    3 not a chance in hell
    4 even less of a chance

    SIGH.

    That said, it's better than the alternative, as the alternative is 2000-2006.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    It's understandable as long as they are too lazy to end their ignorance.

    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats not trying hard enough".


    Really, the Democrats should be campaigning on four things:

    1) Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top brackets.
    2) The pretty awesome elements of the health care bill that kicked in today.
    3) Fuck off, Citizens United
    4) Senate reform.

    1 they failed already.
    2 they might bother with.
    3 not a chance in hell
    4 even less of a chance

    SIGH.

    That said, it's better than the alternative, as the alternative is 2000-2006.

    1) is sadly not as easy as it sounds, since in many peoples minds the top bracket you are referring to are middle-class peolpe just like them! http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/22/is-250000-a-year-wealthy-only-if-you-are-a-democrat/

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Oh, I know, but it's still got majority support (ranges between 54 and 62% based on what I've seen) and as a "fuck the rich" move it's a pretty smart one.

    The real problem is that most of the Congresspeople are in that bracket and they're greedy, short sighted assholes.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    It's understandable as long as they are too lazy to end their ignorance.

    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats not trying hard enough".

    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The fundamental problem is that we as a society are hugely deficient in basic knowledge of the systems by which we govern ourselves. And there seems to be if nothing else a strong correlation in individuals between this deficiency and the critical faculty necessary to address it.

    This isn't the individual's fault. Education in this country has been steadily repurposed as daycare and then a jobs training program that ultimately leaves many students unable to meet any qualification of citizenship other than place of birth.

    So it isn't really surprising when people like the tea partiers in the videos linked in the other thread turn out to have literally no idea whatsoever what the policy they are protesting against actually does or what they would change about it.

    Or that people like our OP, who have educated themselves well enough apparently to recognize the problem, can't come up with any better solution than raising their fists and taking back the means of production (which is a solution I might even endorse if I thought everyone who ever advocated it would actually come along) or possibly attending a poorly organized and usually nonspecific protest.

    Which is not to oversimplify things or minimize the challenge in front of us, but god damn let's try to address it more seriously than this.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Okay, I can't be the only "liberal" starting to become extremely pissed off can I?
    No way. You just gave me a political aneurysm. Thanks. :)

    Spoiler:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    It's understandable as long as they are too lazy to end their ignorance.

    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats not trying hard enough".

    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    Those people with other shit to do wouldn't be posting here though. If they've gone through the trouble of coming here to post about a subject they obviously are partially educated in, I will point out the areas where they don't know WTF they are talking about.

    Per your second paragraph, the Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    It's understandable as long as they are too lazy to end their ignorance.

    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats not trying hard enough".

    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    Those people with other shit to do wouldn't be posting here though. If they've gone through the trouble of coming here to post about a subject they obviously are partially educated in, I will point out the areas where they don't know WTF they are talking about.

    The Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

    I'd argue that it was previously due to a lack of ideological coherence in either party more than tradition. But the point stands, it's a new thing.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    Those people with other shit to do wouldn't be posting here though. If they've gone through the trouble of coming here to post about a subject they obviously are partially educated in, I will point out the areas where they don't know WTF they are talking about.

    Per your second paragraph, the Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

    I think we might be talking about different groups of people.

    Well, good for the Republicans. I just wish their agenda wasn't so awful. They certainly know how to fight for it, and by "know how to fight" I mean they use tactics that actually work. Their tactics have changed with the political and media environment, and I would argue largely successfully so.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    Those people with other shit to do wouldn't be posting here though. If they've gone through the trouble of coming here to post about a subject they obviously are partially educated in, I will point out the areas where they don't know WTF they are talking about.

    Per your second paragraph, the Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

    I think we might be talking about different groups of people.

    Well, good for the Republicans. I just wish their agenda wasn't so awful. They certainly know how to fight for it, and by "know how to fight" I mean they use tactics that actually work. Their tactics have changed with the political and media environment, and I would argue largely successfully so.

    For some definition of their "goals" I guess that's true. But those goals and what their voters say they want don't seem to match up so it gets a little weird here.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Most people have shit to do during the day, most of which is more relevant to them and gets more visible and important returns than does paying attention to the nuances of politics.

    I don't think it's a matter of Democrats "not trying hard enough" and I didn't say that it was. I do think they're playing a game of process though, whereas Republicans are more concerned with using that process as a means to an end. I'm not sure what what Democrats "trying harder" would look like, but I think it would just be more of the same.

    Those people with other shit to do wouldn't be posting here though. If they've gone through the trouble of coming here to post about a subject they obviously are partially educated in, I will point out the areas where they don't know WTF they are talking about.

    Per your second paragraph, the Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

    I think we might be talking about different groups of people.

    Well, good for the Republicans. I just wish their agenda wasn't so awful. They certainly know how to fight for it, and by "know how to fight" I mean they use tactics that actually work. Their tactics have changed with the political and media environment, and I would argue largely successfully so.

    For some definition of their "goals" I guess that's true. But those goals and what their voters say they want don't seem to match up so it gets a little weird here.

    I think that's true. They're largely serving their moneyed interests and poking minorities with sticks to signal that they're the only people willing to stand up for the interests of scared white people.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    The Republicans have simply stopped playing by the "rules" (ie- traditions) of the political system. Turns out the system wasn't set up to stop people from shutting the entire thing down. The reason it's worked before now is because neither side was interested in grinding it to a halt, not because it couldn't be done.

    I'd argue that it was previously due to a lack of ideological coherence in either party more than tradition. But the point stands, it's a new thing.

    Well, sorta. It's more they lacked the desire to enforce a strict ideological coherence to the expense of everything else.

    Here's an interesting article I read recently on the subject: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/09/broken-washington-201009

    It's about Obama trying to deal with these issues, but alot of it is focused on the changes that have happened in DC to create this situation.

    And the main one is that before now, there was still a belief in actually DOING SOMETHING. It was expected that when you were the minority, you'd push for as much as you could get, but in the end you'd give in and let the majority have some of what they wanted.

    And mostly this was kept up by a sort of ... comradely among the political players. They may have been opponents on the Senate or House floor, but outside that they still talked and were even friends. They didn't just see each other as "the other evil guys" and thus they were willing to cooperate.

    But the past decades have seen political and demographic shifts and shit loads of gerrymandering that have essentially cut all ties between the 2 sides. Democrats are from here, Republicans are from there and never the two shall cross paths except on the floor. They don't come from similar or close together places and thus don't need to ever work with the other guys.

    Alot of these guys don't even live in DC anymore. They don't communicate with one another. They don't see one another as people beyond the political position. They don't see each other as anything but "the other guys".

    Now the other guys are the enemy and there's nothing to temper that. The GOP whips it's members like no ones business and the members see no reason to fight back just for the faceless amorphous other guys who are their "enemy".

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I would agree with most of that, but I think that kind of party unity is only an option when they all believe one thing, you know? With the Confederation (yeah, I said it) of the Republican Party, they're finally unified.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I would agree with most of that, but I think that kind of party unity is only an option when they all believe one thing, you know? With the Confederation (yeah, I said it) of the Republican Party, they're finally unified.

    Yeah, I think it's more like the process I was talking about above has been waiting like an unarmed bomb. It's sitting their, just waiting for someone to flip the switch.

    And the Republicans have flipped it by switching to caring about ideological purity over everything else.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    I would agree with most of that, but I think that kind of party unity is only an option when they all believe one thing, you know? With the Confederation (yeah, I said it) of the Republican Party, they're finally unified.

    Yeah, I think it's more like the process I was talking about above has been waiting like an unarmed bomb. It's sitting their, just waiting for someone to flip the switch.

    And the Republicans have flipped it by switching to caring about ideological purity over everything else.

    I think that's largely a tactic. They do it because it works. (Though the Tea Party thing seems to be a bit out of control.)

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You know you can't just yell "Do something!" and get it done, right?

    The political process is messy because it's hard to keep a society of 300+ million people all relatively happy at the same time (especially when they get to pick whoever they want to enter the death pit of Congress and jump right into the fracas)

    I think that's a marginal part of it at best. The organizational structure of the legislative branch is fucking insane, with an incredibly bad incentive structure. That's why politics is fucked up. That why you can have (rationally ignorant) Obama voters know that "their people" got in and "those other guys" lost, and yet still nothing gets done.

    Of course, part of this is that the GOP knows how to play politics--even as they are grossly unfit to govern--while the Democrats obsess about procedure. The GOP is persistently willing to play the hell out of a weak political hand, while the Democrats aren't.

    You're right in a long-term view, the fact that it's so hard to get things passed compared to other countries with a single sovereign legislature is a good thing. While on the one hand good policies are harder to pass, so are bad policies. We get to use other countries and individual states as testing grounds for the viability of new policy, and end up with (for the most part) what works for us.

    There's this assumption that every progressive policy idea (carbon trading, stem-cell research, any of the various systems of public healthcare, etc.) with any modicum of public support is worth passing. The world is a lot more volatile than you think, and situations can and do change rapidly.

    I could Godwin this thread so easily right now...

    Picture1-4.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats worrying too much about keeping their jobs".

    Fixt.


    How many different Tea Party candidates this cycle got on the ticket because they weren't afraid to loudly shout their bat-shit crazy ideology?

    Dems need to sack up, stop worrying about losing votes in the center, and be proud of what they've accomplished and want to accomplish.

    And the base needs to quit mincing around, whining about the weak effort put forth by their local congressmen. Their reluctance doesn't mean that you gotta let the horrible bastards on the other side win, does it? Go out and vote, if for nothing else than to cancel out a Tea Partier's vote.

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats worrying too much about keeping their jobs".

    Fixt.


    How many different Tea Party candidates this cycle got on the ticket because they weren't afraid to loudly shout their bat-shit crazy ideology?

    Dems need to sack up, stop worrying about losing votes in the center, and be proud of what they've accomplished and want to accomplish.

    And the base needs to quit mincing around, whining about the weak effort put forth by their local congressmen. Their reluctance doesn't mean that you gotta let the horrible bastards on the other side win, does it? Go out and vote, if for nothing else than to cancel out a Tea Partier's vote.

    It's a little early to credit the Tea Party with any kind of success. Being on the ballot just means they get to run. From what I've heard seats the GOP thought they had in the bag are now tossups because a teapartier knocked off a mainstream republican for the election.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats worrying too much about keeping their jobs".

    Fixt.


    How many different Tea Party candidates this cycle got on the ticket because they weren't afraid to loudly shout their bat-shit crazy ideology?

    Dems need to sack up, stop worrying about losing votes in the center, and be proud of what they've accomplished and want to accomplish.

    And the base needs to quit mincing around, whining about the weak effort put forth by their local congressmen. Their reluctance doesn't mean that you gotta let the horrible bastards on the other side win, does it? Go out and vote, if for nothing else than to cancel out a Tea Partier's vote.

    It's a little early to credit the Tea Party with any kind of success. Being on the ballot just means they get to run. From what I've heard seats the GOP thought they had in the bag are now tossups because a teapartier knocked off a mainstream republican for the election.

    Yeah, maybe, but the Tea Party definitely has the media attention and the momentum right now. The narrative on the Left is mostly negative carping about how they're not campaigning enough, and while that's largely true, negativity is just going to suppress turnout.

    Oooh, the Dems are acting spineless and shy during an election . . . what's new about that exactly? Go vote. We've got an opposition party that's openly telling voters they're going to make things as draconian as possible . . . . there's your motivation.

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats worrying too much about keeping their jobs".

    Fixt.


    How many different Tea Party candidates this cycle got on the ticket because they weren't afraid to loudly shout their bat-shit crazy ideology?

    Dems need to sack up, stop worrying about losing votes in the center, and be proud of what they've accomplished and want to accomplish.

    And the base needs to quit mincing around, whining about the weak effort put forth by their local congressmen. Their reluctance doesn't mean that you gotta let the horrible bastards on the other side win, does it? Go out and vote, if for nothing else than to cancel out a Tea Partier's vote.

    It's a little early to credit the Tea Party with any kind of success. Being on the ballot just means they get to run. From what I've heard seats the GOP thought they had in the bag are now tossups because a teapartier knocked off a mainstream republican for the election.

    Yeah, maybe, but the Tea Party definitely has the media attention and the momentum right now. The narrative on the Left is mostly negative carping about how they're not campaigning enough, and while that's largely true, negativity is just going to suppress turnout.

    Oooh, the Dems are acting spineless and shy during an election . . . what's new about that exactly? Go vote. We've got an opposition party that's openly telling voters they're going to make things as draconian as possible . . . . there's your motivation.

    Not much of a sales pitch.

    I'm not your target audience though... For a number of reasons.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »

    1) is sadly not as easy as it sounds, since in many peoples minds the top bracket you are referring to are middle-class peolpe just like them! http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/22/is-250000-a-year-wealthy-only-if-you-are-a-democrat/

    Also, I've encountered a number of people who don't seem to understand how tax brackets work. I find it baffling. I mean, they do pay taxes every year don't they?

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Putting aside all the ideological hand-wringing, let's look at the reality of why the Democrats are about to be slapped around like a red-headed step-child come November: They're the party controlling the White House and both houses of Congress during the worst economy in a generation or two.

    That's pretty much it. The economy sucks and people are out of work. And George Bush is back on his ranch clearing brush, so blaming him (and the out of power Republicans) comes off as a pathetic case of passing the buck.

    All of the other stuff discussed in the OP? Maybe it's of interest to political junkies and other nerds. But the average voter doesn't care- he's pissed off and he's going to punish the party in power.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • MplsOsirisMplsOsiris Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think we're forgetting that the Dems have actually gotten a good amount of stuff done since the 2008 election. I'll be the first to admit that while the healthcare legislation wasn't the best, it's a great deal better than what we had before. For instance, children will no longer be denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions - something that went into effect yesterday. Getting most of our troops out of Iraq, trying to establish some semblance of control in Afghanistan, the New START Treaty signed with Russia, increasing the budget for the Peace Corp, and rebuilding diplomatic ties across the world are all a part of a major shift in foreign policy that those on the left had been pushing for years.


    People who voted for Obama need to understand that the president can't summon lightning bolts from on high. If there's a cause out there that you're passionate about, you have to be the one to go out everyday and fight for it. Don't expect things to just happen because you cast a vote. If you thought that voting for Obama would cause the clouds to part, rainbows to emerge, flowers to sparkle with morning dew, and unicorns to reemerge from hiding, you were sadly mistaken.

    A while back I hated where my life was and where my life was going. Now I'm happily engaged, in the best shape I've been in since high school, have a bunch of wild stories and most importantly I enjoy my life! You can check out what I'm up to next at http://coolbyintent.com/blog
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It's not enough to get shit done, people have to know and acknowledge that you've gotten shit done. Dems are the worst salesmen ever. The goddamned tax cuts should've been dealt with MONTHS ago rather than allowed to linger and then falter a month before the elections.

    I'm angry about ineffectual Dems and Republicans getting away with murder as much as anyone else (probably more so), so the question is what to do about it? To their credit, the teabaggers got off their asses, started making angry noises and rattling cages, and got out to vote. Yes, they were ginned up by moneyed interests and slick salesmen, but they managed to direct their anger to a constructive end for their cause. Why can't we do the same on the left? We keep standing on principle and refusing to resort to the tactics that the GOP are successfully using against us. The right saw the good shit that the activist left did right and emulated it; when are we going to get off our high horse and do the same?

    One thing I'll admit is that, as a supporter of the Democratic platform and the progressive movement, I dropped the ball these last two years. We all did. We got the Dems into office and thought we could sit back and they would solve everything. We forgot that their spines are flexible and that the opposition was pissed. We got complacent and disconnected. We complained on the sidelines but didn't get out there to counter the teabaggers. We failed to remember what got us the majority in the first place. So now we're at a point where all that hard work will probably be undone. I, for one, don't plan to let that be the end of the story. And I have no qualms with taking the right's tactics and shoving them back in their face. It's past time for us to stop playing nice and to start playing to win.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Damn old spice commercials, every time I read this thread title I expect to find a large ripped black guy yelling in the op, maybe with an american flag shopped in over the old spice bottle.

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    There are two problems. No accountability and we have gotten to the point where nothing gets done, even less gets done than before.

    Personally I would like to see us go to a parliamentary system, where the executive is chosen by parliament. It forces compromise in many cases and allows things to get done. Our system is so arcane that it is near impossible for anything to happen ever. I say fix it. Unfortunately that would take probably multiple constitutional amendments and good luck getting half of congress to vote themselves out of existence.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ITT many people ignore and/or are unaware of the realities of trying to pass legislation in the USA

    That's a problem of the convoluted system. Peoples' ignorance is understandable and rational.

    It's understandable as long as they are too lazy to end their ignorance.

    In reality, most of the problem is not "Democrats not trying hard enough".


    Really, the Democrats should be campaigning on four things:

    1) Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top brackets.
    2) The pretty awesome elements of the health care bill that kicked in today.
    3) Fuck off, Citizens United
    4) Senate reform.

    1 they failed already.
    2 they might bother with.
    3 not a chance in hell
    4 even less of a chance

    SIGH.

    That said, it's better than the alternative, as the alternative is 2000-2006.

    1) is sadly not as easy as it sounds, since in many peoples minds the top bracket you are referring to are middle-class peolpe just like them! http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/22/is-250000-a-year-wealthy-only-if-you-are-a-democrat/

    On being one of the rich:
    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-responds-to-someone-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html
    In Which Mr. Deling Responds to Someone Who Might Be Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx

    September 18, 2010


    I had published a link and a long excerpt from Michael O'Hare's rant after reading University of Chicago Law Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx .

    And now somebody purporting to be University of Chicago Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx writes:
    I'm shocked and saddened at the personal nature of these attacks. Wow.

    As for Mr. Deling' attacks...
    I would like to note for the record that I have not made any attacks, or indeed comments at all--that all I did was to republish pieces of Michael O'Hare's attack. And I was thinking if I had any comments worth reading or any time to write them down, and deciding that I did not.

    But being called "Deling" makes me think I have no choice.

    So here is the rest of the comment by Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx (or the guy purporting to be him):
    let me make just two observations. First, according to several tax sites, my taxes will go up by thousands, not down. I'm not a tax lawyer, so I'm not sure why.

    Second, his [i.e., Michael O'Hare's] attempted budget leaves out a large category--education and daycare. This year, they will come close to $60,000, which is about $165 per day. Subtract this from the crude budget and that leaves $80 per day for five people.

    But all this avoids the question of why we think the government will better allocate some part of whatever my income is.
    So here is what I have to say:

    Back in 2000, the U.S. government's long-term budget was out of balance--although not by all that much. The government had, you see, made promises--very popular promises--for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without proposing sufficient funding streams to pay for those promises. So back in 2000, looking forward, we had a choice: raise taxes, or "bend the curve" by cutting the growth of spending.

    Instead of doing either of these, we elected George W. Bush. Two wars. A big (and ill-advised) defense buildup that is very unsuited to protecting us from Al Qaeda and company. A huge unfunded expansion of Medicare. Plans for the unfunded expansion of Social Security that came to nothing. However, instead of raising taxes George W. Bush reduced them.

    This simply does not work. As Milton Friedman liked to say, to spend is to tax. If the government spends somebody will pay for it. And if you don't levy the taxes to pay for it now all that means is that the person who owes the taxes does not know it yet.

    So unless Professor Xxxxxxxxx (or whoever) has plans for serious cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and National Defense--and I see none on offer--his last point about government allocation is simply moot. George W. Bush has already allocated it with his defense buildup and Medicare Part D. Taxes are going up over the next decade--barring cuts of 1/3 to Medicare, etc. They can either go up smartly or we can pretend they don't have to go up, in which case they go up stupidly. The argument for small government was lost long ago, and was lost again and anew in the past decade with Medicare Part D and the wars of George W. Bush. I believe Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx was a deserter in that war--a supporter of George W. Bush, and of his unfunded Medicare Part D expansion, and of his wars of choice. So I don't think he has standing to make the small government argument--some people do, but he does not.

    But Mr. Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx's (or whoever's) comment and his post were, overwhelmingly, not an argument for a small government.

    They were an argument that whatever taxes were paid, he should not have to pay more than he is currently paying because it is unfair: he is not "rich".

    As best as Michael O'Hare could determine (and Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx or whoever it is does not challenge him), the Xxxxxxxxx annual family budget is this:

    $455,000 a year of income, of which:

    * $60,000 in student loan payments
    * $40,000 is employer contributions to 401(k) and similar retirement savings vehicles
    * $15,000 is employer contributions to health insurance
    * $60,000 is untaxed employee contributions to tax-favored retirement savings vehicles
    * $25,000 building equity in their house
    * $80,000 in state and federal income taxes
    * $15,000 in property taxes
    * $10,000 for automobiles
    * $55,000 in housing costs for a $1M house (three times the average price in the Hyde Park neighborhood
    * $60,000 in private school costs for three children
    * $35,000 in other living expenses

    And of this budget, Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx (or whoever) writes:
    Like most working Americans, insurance, doctors’ bills, utilities, two cars, daycare, groceries, gasoline, cell phones, and cable TV (no movie channels) round out our monthly expenses. We also have someone who cuts our grass, cleans our house, and watches our new baby.... [W]e have less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income. We occasionally eat out but with a baby sitter, these nights take a toll on our budget. Life in America is wonderful, but expensive. If our taxes rise significantly... the (legal) immigrant from Mexico who owns the lawn service we employ will suffer, as will the (legal) immigrant from Poland who cleans our house a few times a month. We can cancel our cell phones and some cable channels, as well as take our daughter from her art class at the community art center...

    Now it is time for a reality check on this "most working Americans." The median household income in the United States today is $50,000. Half of all households make more than this. Half of all households make less. The big expenses in the Xxxxxxxxx family budget--their $60,000 a year in contributions to tax-favored retirement savings vehicles, their $25,000 a year savings building home equity, their $55,000 for housing, their $60,000 in private school costs, even their $10,000 a year for new cars--are simply out of reach for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Half of all households make less than $50,000 a year--the Xxxxxxxxxs make nine times that. 90% of households make less than $100,000 a year--the Xxxxxxxxx's make 4.5 times that. The Xxxxxxxxx's are solidly in the top 1% of American households, in the select 1% group that receives more than $350,000 a year.

    By any standard, they are really rich.

    But they don't feel rich. They have a cash flow problem. When the bills are paid at the end of the month, the money is gone--and they feel that they have to scrimp.

    I know how they feel. My household income is of the same order of magnitude than theirs (although somewhat less) and we too had to juggle assets quickly when it developed that an error in Reed College's housing system had caused them not to charge us $5,000 that we owe. We too have chosen to put our income in places (tax-favored retirement savings vehicles, building equity, housing, private college costs) where we think it is better used than $200 restaurant meals, $1000 a night resort hotel rooms, or $75,000 automobiles. But I don't think that I am not rich.

    Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx's problem is that he thinks that he ought to be able to pay off student loans, contribute to retirement savings vehicles, build equity, drive new cars, live in a big expensive house, send his children to private school, and still have plenty of cash at the end of the month for the $200 restaurant meals, the $1000 a night resort hotel rooms, and the $75,000 automobiles. And even half a million dollars a year cannot be you all of that.

    But if he values the high-end consumption so much, why doesn't he rearrange his budget? Why not stop the retirement savings contributions, why not rent rather than buy, why not send the kids to public school? Then the disposable cash at the end of the month would flow like water. His problem is that some of these decisions would strike him as imprudent. And all of them would strike him as degradations--doctor-law professor couples ought to send their kids to private schools, and live in big houses, and contribute to their 401(k)s, and also still have lots of cash for splurges. That is the way things should be.

    But why does he think that that is the way things should be?

    And here is the dirty secret: Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx thinks that that is the way things should be because he knows people for whom that is the way it is.

    Cast yourself back to 1980. In 1980 a household at the bottom of the 1% rich households in America had an income equivalent in today's dollars $190,000 a year. They know of 1000 people--900 of them poorer than they are in income brackets 90-99% and 100 people richer than they are in the top 1% income bracket. The 900 people poorer than them back in 1980 had incomes from $85,000-$190,000 a year. Those are, if you are sitting at the bottom of the top 1%, the middle class who are not as successful as you. You don't look downward much. Instead, you look upward. Of the 100 above you, 90 in 1980 had incomes less than three times their incomes. And they would have known of 1 person of that 100 who was seven times as rich as they were.

    Thus Professor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx in 1980 would have known who the really rich were, and they would on average have had about four times his income--more, considerably more, but not a huge gulf. He would have known people who were truly rich, and he would have seen himself as one of them--or as almost one of them.

    Now fast forward to today. Today a household at the bottom of the 1% rich households in America has an income of nearly $400,000 a year--the income of that slot in the labor market has more than doubled, while the incomes of those at the slot at the bottom of the 10% wealthy has grown by only 20% in two decades. The 900 people he knows in the 90%-99% slots have incomes that start at $110,000 a year. Compared to Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx's $455,000, they are barely middle class--"How can they afford cell phones?" Xxxxxxxxx sometimes wonders.

    But he wonders rarely. He doesn't say: "Wow! My real income is more than twice the income of somebody in this slot a generation ago! Wow! A generation ago the income of my slot was only twice that of somebody at the bottom of the 10% wealthy, and now it is 3 1/2 times as much!" For he doesn't look down at the 99% of American households who have less income than he does. And he looks up. And when he looks up today he sees as wide a gap yawning above him as the gap between Dives and Lazarus. Mr. Xxxxxxxxx doesn't look down.

    Instead, Mr. Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx looks up. Of the 100 people richer than he is, fully ten have more than four times his income. And he knows of one person with 20 times his income. He knows who the really rich are, and they have ten times his income: They have not $450,000 a year. They have $4.5 million a year. And, to him, they are in a different world.

    And so he is sad. He and his wife deserve to be successful. And he knows people who are successful. But he is not one of them--widening income inequality over the past generation has excluded him from the rich who truly have money.

    And this makes him sad. And angry. But, curiously enough, not angry at the senior law firm partners who extract surplus value from their associates and their clients, or angry at the financiers, but angry at... Barack Obama, who dares to suggest that the U.S. government's funding gap should be closed partly by taxing him, and angry at the great hordes of the unwashed who will receive the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments that the government will make over the next several generations.

    Do I wish that Professor Xxxxxxxxx had a little more self-knowledge? Yes. Is it pathetic that somebody with nine times the median household income thinks of himself as just another average Joe, just another "working American"? Yes. Do I find it embarrassing that somebody whose income is in the top 1% of American households thinks that he is not rich? Yes.

    Do I hope to educate him so that he has a better grasp on reality and better understanding of America and of public policy? Yes.

    Here is Xxxxxxxxx's original post:
    We are the Super Rich « Truth on the Market: The rhetoric in Washington about taxes is about millionaires and the super rich, but the relevant dividing line between millionaires and the middle class is pegged at family income of $250,000. (I’m not a math professor, but last time I checked $250,000 is less than $1 million.) That makes me super rich and subject to a big tax hike if the president has his way.

    I’m the president’s neighbor in Chicago, but we’ve never met. I wish we could, because I would introduce him to my family and our lifestyle, one he believes is capable of financing the vast expansion of government he is planning. A quick look at our family budget, which I will happily share with the White House, will show him that like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t.

    I, like the president before me, am a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and my wife, like the first lady before her, works at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she is a doctor who treats children with cancer. Our combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for the super rich (but not by that much), and the president plans on raising my taxes. After all, we can afford it, and the world we are now living in has that familiar Marxian tone of those who need take and those who can afford it pay. The problem is, we can’t afford it. Here is why.

    The biggest expense for us is financing government. Last year, my wife and I paid nearly $100,000 in federal and state taxes, not even including sales and other taxes. This amount is so high because we can’t afford fancy accountants and lawyers to help us evade taxes and we are penalized by the tax code because we choose to be married and we both work outside the home. (If my wife and I divorced or were never married, the government would write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Talk about perverse incentives.)

    Our next biggest expense, like most people, is our mortgage. Homes near our work in Chicago aren’t cheap and we do not have friends who were willing to help us finance the deal. We chose to invest in the University community and renovate and old property, but we did so at an inopportune time.

    We pay about $15,000 in property taxes, about half of which goes to fund public education in Chicago. Since we care the education of our three children, this means we also have to pay to send them to private school. My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too, although becoming a lawyer is significantly cheaper. We try to invest in our retirement by putting some money in the stock market, something that these days sounds like a patriotic act. Our account isn’t worth much, and is worth a lot less than it used to be.

    Like most working Americans, insurance, doctors’ bills, utilities, two cars, daycare, groceries, gasoline, cell phones, and cable TV (no movie channels) round out our monthly expenses. We also have someone who cuts our grass, cleans our house, and watches our new baby so we can both work outside the home. At the end of all this, we have less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income. We occasionally eat out but with a baby sitter, these nights take a toll on our budget. Life in America is wonderful, but expensive.

    If our taxes rise significantly, as they seem likely to, we can cut back on some things. The (legal) immigrant from Mexico who owns the lawn service we employ will suffer, as will the (legal) immigrant from Poland who cleans our house a few times a month. We can cancel our cell phones and some cable channels, as well as take our daughter from her art class at the community art center, but these are only a few hundred dollars per month in total. But more importantly, what is the theory under which collecting this money in taxes and deciding in Washington how to spend it is superior to our decisions? Ask the entrepreneurs we employ and the new arrivals they employ in turn whether they prefer to work for us or get a government handout.

    If these cuts don’t work, we will sell our house – into an already spiraling market of declining asset values – and our cars, assuming someone will buy them. The irony here, of course, is that the government is working to save both of these industries despite the impact that increasing taxes will have.

    The problem with the president’s plan is that the super rich don’t pay taxes – they hide in the Cayman Islands or use fancy investment vehicles to shelter their income. We aren’t rich enough to afford this – I use Turbo Tax. But we are rich enough to be hurt by the president’s plan. The next time the president comes home to Chicago, he has a standing invitation to come to my house (two blocks from his) and judge for himself whether the Xxxxxxxxxs are as rich as he thinks.

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    how about you summarize that for us, sport

    cuz i'm not going to waste my beautiful mind reading what looks like a chain letter

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm sorry, but when I look at that, I see the $10k annual upkeep for cars, $55k (!!) annual upkeep on the house (not even counting the mortgage!!) and the $60k for private school and think to myself "How in God's name in this essential spending?"

    ezek1t.jpg
«13
This discussion has been closed.