How Fox News is helping Barack Obama's re-election bid-Page 3: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2 3

Dec. 22, 2011 3:11 p.m. Capt Slow Dork

In reply to JohnGalt:

I firmly believe we need to stop being the world's police, we cannot afford it, it is bankrupting our country. A little isolationalism might actually be a good thing right now.

He is running as a republican since no third party really has a snowballs chance in hell.

I really see little to no difference between Newt, Romney or Obama. They are all owned by the various lobbying intersts. Hell if you wanted expand the scope a little the only difference I see between Obama and G. W. Bush is a E36 M3ty health care program.

It scares the crap out of me that the current generation of politician is increasing looking to circumvent the rule of law in our government. Obama and GW have both been absolutely horrible in this respect. It is completely abhorrent that by merely classifying somebody as a terrorist our government thinks it has the power to drag them off to a foreign land and detain them for as long as they like.

I stand by my statement that ron paul is the most electeble one. Against obama he has been polling the best.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/cnn-poll-obama-gains-strength-in-2...
Furthermore he appeals to moderates, which is something none of the others can really claim.
Dec. 22, 2011 5:41 p.m. JohnGalt Reader

Capt Slow wrote:

In reply to JohnGalt:

I firmly believe we need to stop being the world's police, we cannot afford it, it is bankrupting our country. A little isolationalism might actually be a good thing right now.

He is running as a republican since no third party really has a snowballs chance in hell.

I really see little to no difference between Newt, Romney or Obama. They are all owned by the various lobbying intersts. Hell if you wanted expand the scope a little the only difference I see between Obama and G. W. Bush is a E36 M3ty health care program.

It scares the crap out of me that the current generation of politician is increasing looking to circumvent the rule of law in our government. Obama and GW have both been absolutely horrible in this respect. It is completely abhorrent that by merely classifying somebody as a terrorist our government thinks it has the power to drag them off to a foreign land and detain them for as long as they like.

I stand by my statement that ron paul is the most electeble one. Against obama he has been polling the best.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/cnn-poll-obama-gains-strength-in-2...
Furthermore he appeals to moderates, which is something none of the others can really claim.

If you feel like doing a little heavy reading, read up on the Hegemonic stability theory sometime. It is the theory that most reflects the current state of the words power structure and is the one I subscribe to. It gives a multitude of reasons about why we are drawn into most of the worlds conflicts and why it is almost inevitable that we will continue to do so.

Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)

Also you need to understand some things about lobbing. Every industry,interest group, and government agency does it and its not such a horrible thing as some people make it out to be. Lawmakers are asked to vote on laws and regulations pertaining to things they know nothing about every day. A lobbyist's primary job is to provide information and serve as an information source about issues they represent and inform the member. Interestingly, lobbing is only about to shift the opinion of a U.S. congressman about 15% of the time and only on issues that they have little personal interest in and their constituency doesn't feel strongly about. A congressman can not be a policy expert on everything they vote on and lobbyists do an important job of informing and providing information. Is it perfect? No, but its not as evil as most make it out to be.

As far as differences in candidates ANYONE who spends five minutes looking objectively at them can't say with a straight face that they are anything alike. Economically the Bamster has a Keynesian view of the economy but he is not a TRUE Keynesian. It is a theory that assumes a centrally planned economy and the government as the primary economic driver but the long and the short of it is that it doesn't work. It has been tried and it just doesn't work. It also requires a top down planned economy which has been the (American) liberal dream since WWII and Obama has shown that he favors this approach. You could call him a socialist (nothing wrong with that) but his economic approach is more like economic fascism (don't freak about the F word) where the government allows private ownership and production but exerts such a strong influence through laws, regulations, policy, etc that the direction of the economy is effectively controlled. If you care about the distribution of wealth in an economy (I don't) this approach results in a more even outcome but severely limits the total ability to produce.

Both Newt and Romney (and everyone else accepted in the GOP) believe in supply side/Reaganomics/the Austrian School of economics which do work and result in the highest degree of economic freedom and the greatest production of wealth. It also results in the highest average living standard.

It you boil it all down it really becomes an issue of what you value more, fairness of outcome or opportunity.
Dec. 22, 2011 8:49 p.m. Capt Slow Dork

I found this article pretty interesting: http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Re: John Galt

Thanks for the link on HST, The wikipedia page was pretty interesting, I hopefully I will get a chance to read a bit over the Christmas break.

Your comments on lobbyists are a tremendous white wash. With Presidential fund raising targets of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the lobbyists being the chief agent funneling funds to these campaigns, I don't see how you can say that there are there "Just to advise" a candidate who can't be an expert in everything. When expert advice is needed, the president has a board of advisers, and congress can call hearings on the matter within which congress can summon subject matter experts to testify at said hearings.

With the advent of unlimited donations and a very broken system of campaign finance laws congress has effectively legalized corruption. As long as we continue to allow this (bi-partisan) corruption to entrench itself within the halls of our government our status as a world power continues to erode.

The reason I say that Obama, Newt, Romney, Bush are largely the same is that they seem to have a similar group of finances paying for their campaign. All talks of economic theory aside, what they are actually doing in office and who they are appointing to important positions is not all that different. None of them are really willing to regulate the banks as they need to be. None of them are interested in reducing the power or oversite (i.e. shrinking) the federal government. And they are certainly not making any major shifts in economic policy, we have been supply side since Regan. Which coincidentally is about the time our wages stagnated.
Dec. 22, 2011 9:37 p.m. Rufledt HalfDork

Cone_Junky wrote:

Never thought I would say this- Thank you Fox "News"

I've been thanking Fox for years. Because of them, the Daily Show and Colbert Report will always have plenty of material!
Dec. 22, 2011 9:44 p.m. JohnGalt Reader

Capt Slow wrote:

I found this article pretty interesting: http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Re: John Galt

Thanks for the link on HST, The wikipedia page was pretty interesting, I hopefully I will get a chance to read a bit over the Christmas break.

Your comments on lobbyists are a tremendous white wash. With Presidential fund raising targets of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the lobbyists being the chief agent funneling funds to these campaigns, I don't see how you can say that there are there "Just to advise" a candidate who can't be an expert in everything. When expert advice is needed, the president has a board of advisers, and congress can call hearings on the matter within which congress can summon subject matter experts to testify at said hearings.

With the advent of unlimited donations and a very broken system of campaign finance laws congress has effectively legalized corruption. As long as we continue to allow this (bi-partisan) corruption to entrench itself within the halls of our government our status as a world power continues to erode.

The reason I say that Obama, Newt, Romney, Bush are largely the same is that they seem to have a similar group of finances paying for their campaign. All talks of economic theory aside, what they are actually doing in office and who they are appointing to important positions is not all that different. None of them are really willing to regulate the banks as they need to be. None of them are interested in reducing the power or oversite (i.e. shrinking) the federal government. And they are certainly not making any major shifts in economic policy, we have been supply side since Regan. Which coincidentally is about the time our wages stagnated.

When i am speaking about advising i am really talking about congressmen rather than the president because the president, or at least this one has a very hands off policy when writing actual bills. In fact this president stays away from capital hill altogether which has not been the trend in recent years. I also said that their main job is to advise candidates. As for calling hearings and calling on experts that takes months to set up and nothing is ever really learned at these hearings. They are mostly chances for a congressman to A: get on TV B: get on record saying something C: embarrass X from the other party D: set perjury traps
They are about 80% political theater.

Lobbyists are often the only people who have information on certain subjects. I have a friend who lobbies for Peach Care. A government funded privately run low income healthcare service in the great state of Georgia. He has more information on tap about the program than ANYONE in the state and is called by congressmen all the time for information about this and that when the issue comes up. SEMA is another example. I doubt Steny Hoyer knows anything about aftermarket car parts or the laws that affect them. SEMA can throw encyclopedias of info at him on request if the issue comes up or inform him that some boneheaded law he is tiring to pass will affect the aftermarket parts market. Also common sense would tell you that some lobbies donate almost exclusively to one party or another like big oil for example. But you would be wrong, 80% of lobbying donations go to the party in power and much of that to committee chair members. Right now big oil is poring money in to the Obama admin. in hopes of getting this new pipeline. Green groups are doing the same in hopes it doesn't happen. His current indecision lets him collect from both groups because when he finally decides one of the streams will shrink.

Personally I believe that my political donation is an extension of my first amendment rights and no one should be able to prevent me from doing what i will with my money. I do not mind reporting what i give to the government IRS etc but would rather not.

As far as regulating the banks Dodd-Frank anyone? Anyone?

And if you want to reduce the size of the federal government well you might as well strike all Dems off your list FOREVER. Several GOP candidates are running on that platform. Granted Bush said he would do that as well and never did but at least the GOP doesn't run on the platform of bigger govt and the redistribution of wealth.

As far as wage stagnation since 1980 i think you need to check on that. Now the wage GAP has increased but it is an utterly meaningless number because wealth is not a zero sum game. If some fat kat gets paid more there is not suddenly less for everyone else. In fact odds are he will buy an additional car for his 19 year old mistress that i can sell him making me a richer man.

Seems like you are more of a conservative than you thought Capt Slow.
Dec. 22, 2011 9:49 p.m. fast_eddie_72 SuperDork

JohnGalt wrote:

Both Newt and Romney (and everyone else accepted in the GOP) believe in supply side/Reaganomics/the Austrian School of economics which do work and result in the highest degree of economic freedom and the greatest production of wealth. It also results in the highest average living standard.

You scare me. Believe. All will be well. Oceania Has Always Been At War with Eurasia. Mine is the last voice that you will ever hear. Don't be alarmed.
Dec. 23, 2011 8:44 a.m. Xceler8x SuperDork

JohnGalt wrote:

As far as wage stagnation since 1980 i think you need to check on that. Now the wage GAP has increased but it is an utterly meaningless number because wealth is not a zero sum game. If some fat kat gets paid more there is not suddenly less for everyone else. In fact odds are he will buy an additional car for his 19 year old mistress that i can sell him making me a richer man.

The first part of what you say is questionable at best. The second part is true.

The wage gap does exist and is a meaningful number because all the wealth created in the last decades has gone to the top 1%. None has "trickled down" which is why Fast Eddie is making fun of your ridiculous statement on trickle down economics. Check out any graph on wage increases or lack thereof for the middle class.

The second part of your statement about the economy not being a zero sum game is true. But if all the growth and new wealth go to a small percentage of the population then you have a problem. The problem being a stalled economy because no one has money to spend on cars, houses, appliances etc. Then starts recession as we are a consumer driven economy.

I'll break it down for you. Put $100 in a millionaire's pocket and he's going to sit on it. Put $100 in a lower middle class family's pocket and it's as good as spent on various items of necessity. It's no accident our nation was the strongest when the middle class was the largest and most stable.

btw - Ayn Rand was on welfare when she died. She did it to pay for treatment of her lung cancer at the end of her life. Source. Ironic doesn't even come close to having someone who railed against public assistance be forced to utilize it. Yes Virginia, even the great Ayn Rand needed a government handout.
Dec. 23, 2011 8:59 a.m. Otto Maddox Dork

In reply to Xceler8x:

Says SS and MC, not welfare.
Dec. 23, 2011 9:19 a.m. Brett_Murphy Dork

Social Security and Medicare are both forms of "welfare" when the term is being used to describe any government supplied assistance.

Welfare can include: health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance.

Now you know.
Dec. 23, 2011 11:03 a.m. oldsaw SuperDork

Xceler8x wrote:

What don't YOU like about the Republicans right now? In the interest of peace making I'll state I extremely dislike Obama's stance and action on civil liberties and civil rights. He needs to step up and stop NDAA and SOPA. . I dislike it so much that if a Republican candidate would say he would work towards stopping the drug war (threat to civil liberties/militarization of the police), abolish or reform the TSA (police state in the making), and further protect civil liberties I would vote for him.

This deserves a response, so here goes:

Right now, the only thing I like about the Republicans is their way-too-late stance towards federal spending. It took a ballot box beatdown in '08 and '10 to make the party get back on target. Love em or hate em, the Tea Party's influence drove the change because otherwise the country wouldn't be having a conversation about fiscal responsibilities.

I don't like the too-close affiliation with the "religious right", but that was a mistake committed a few decades ago. The (remote) possibility of further infringement on civil liberties is almost enough to sway me against them, but not enough - for now. I want a party focused on creating a business-friendly environment that leads to millions of jobs generating revenues going used for paying down the national debt; I don't see the Democrats as capable of that goal.
Dec. 23, 2011 11:13 a.m. Otto Maddox Dork

Brett_Murphy wrote:

Social Security and Medicare are both forms of "welfare" when the term is being used to describe any government supplied assistance.

Welfare can include: health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance.

Now you know.

Well, that's a can of worms. I guess social security and medicare could be considered welfare once you've received benefits in excess of all your prior contributions. But that isn't quite the same as being "on welfare" as we know it in the US.
Dec. 23, 2011 12:22 p.m. JohnGalt Reader

As far as trickle down economics lets assume that some fat cat did get 100 million dollars. They only way that you can sit on money is to actually get it in cash and put it in your mattress. If he spends it, it trickles down. If he puts it in a bank, in trickles down. If he does anything other than burning it or hiding it in a hole it trickles down.

Senior Fat Kat is going to be investing/spending/using that money for other things and producing more wealth with that capital. Rich people don't just sit on their money, they use it.