OT: Both parties are the same

[Arraya]

[quote=harvey]Yeah, right.

The purchase of political influence is the core problem in our government today. There’s plenty of it on both sides: corporations on the right, unions on the left.

[/quote]

Well, the unions have been getting weaker for about 4 decades. How come the democrats are such failures?

[ucodegen]

[quote=Arraya][quote=harvey]Yeah, right.
The purchase of political influence is the core problem in our government today. There’s plenty of it on both sides: corporations on the right, unions on the left.
[/quote]
Well, the unions have been getting weaker for about 4 decades. How come the democrats are such failures?[/quote]
Not supported by facts at hand. If guards @ prisons in California can exceed $100k/yr with full benifits, GM Union Autoworkers can almost do the same, San Diego Port Authority fork lift operators get nearly $140k/yr.. seems to contradict the statement.

An interesting side note: Union contributions to Political Parties do not show up as a large contribution from the Union. It shows up as individual contributions from the Union members, even if the Union member is not a member of the political party selected by the Union. There was an attempt to pass a law that allowed Union members to select out of the political contribution.. but last I remember, it had not been passed.

A little follow-on:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/rep-darrell-issa-investigating-union-political-speding/

[briansd1]

Just to show what religious nuts some ranks of the Republican party have become, they are now accusing Huma Abedin for being part of an effort of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the government.

She’s married to a Jewish guy for God’s sake!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/john-mccain-defends-huma-abedin-against-accusations-shes-part-of-conspiracy/2012/07/18/gJQAFpxntW_blog.html

[livinincali]

Both parties want to spend money they don’t have. The only difference is who they want to give the money to and who they want to take it away from.

I’ll “throw away my vote” on a 3rd party or independent candidate because I already know that smart democrats and republicans think they know all the answers but aren’t smart enough to know that they don’t.

We could give free reign to the democrats or free reign to the republicans and the country will still be bankrupt 10 years from now. The only difference will be how we get there.

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]Just to show what religious nuts some ranks of the Republican party have become, they are now accusing Huma Abedin for being part of an effort of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the government.

She’s married to a Jewish guy for God’s sake!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/john-mccain-defends-huma-abedin-against-accusations-shes-part-of-conspiracy/2012/07/18/gJQAFpxntW_blog.html%5B/quote%5D
You have nuts in both parties.. take off the rose colored glasses. Remember, the article even points it out, McCain, a Republican is defending her by striking back at those claims and stating they are “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman”.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=briansd1] they are now accusing Huma Abedin for being part of an effort of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the government.

She’s married to a Jewish guy for God’s sake!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/john-mccain-defends-huma-abedin-against-accusations-shes-part-of-conspiracy/2012/07/18/gJQAFpxntW_blog.html%5B/quote%5D
You have nuts in both parties.. take off the rose colored glasses. Remember, the article even points it out, McCain, a Republican is defending her by striking back at those claims [/quote]

What amuses me about this article is that Michele Bachmann can question someone’s patriotism (with no evidence whatsoever) while she herself applies to become Swiss citizen and never discloses her dual citizenship to anybody while running for president.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76072.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76142.html

Why Did Michele Bachmann Flip-Flop on Being a Swiss Citizen?

[ocrenter]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem is that it opens the whole thing to a fishing contest. Romney makes most of his income from Investments. 2008 was a very bad year for investments and any smart tax planner would use the losses of 2008 to cancel any gains in 2009 and after if possible. I think the Obama campaign is trying to bring up that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2009 (because of investment losses). This is likely to play well people who don’t understand saving and investing, and will make a good ‘sound bite’ and diversion from the facts and presidential performance. The problem is that the previous election, very few Democrat Presidential hopefuls revealed their tax returns. Almost all of the Republican hopefuls revealed 2 years. One needs to ask: What is the real point of this requirement?

I would have to disagree with you on these. The statement that gov policies don’t matter in the developed world does not stand up to facts nor is supported by evidence. A simple change in government policies and create or destroy entire businesses in the developed world. NOTE: Creation of all of the security businesses, TSA etc. NOTE: The overturn of standard business bankruptcy rules in the GM BK, and how it has now caused lenders to not want to pick up corp bonds… [/quote]

There’s been plenty of fishing expeditions on oth sides. Just like most presidential candidates didn’t hav to be subjected to fishing expeditions in regard to birth certificates and college transcripts.

Of course, one can say, hey, we got a guy with a Muslim name, of course we need to check his birth place with a fine tooth comb. And then one can say, hey, this guy prob didn’t earn his spot in Harvard since he is black. Since these were valid reasons, then assuming Romney may have benefited from tax loopholes and tax havens is also a valid concern. Of course, most likely everything was perfectly legit, which means releasing the tax records is not a big deal.

As for select businesses that may be affected by various policies from government, of course. But that’s on a micro level. I’m referring to the natural cyclical macroeconomic trend, unless there’s sudden shift in type of government, you are unlikely to see much difference. (but then the right would have us believe Obama is leading us to Communism, so perhaps they truly do fear this).

[svelte]

[quote=ucodegen]
You have nuts in both parties.. take off the rose colored glasses. Remember, the article even points it out, McCain, a Republican is defending her by striking back at those claims and stating they are “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman”.[/quote]

I like McCain. I may have voted for him had he picked a better vice prez.

[Anonymous]

McCain also voted against the disclosure bill linked in the OP.

He talks a good game about reform, but when it counts, he chooses to party loyalty over progress.

[Anonymous]

[quote=ucodegen][quote harvey]My original post is actually about congress and the senate. The fact that Republican legislators consistently vote as one single mind. [/quote]Not supported by facts in evidence and both parties are presently trying to force their elected members to vote along party lines – Democrat and Republican both.[/quote]

That response would have been a little more substantial if it had some…um, facts.

Of course party members generally vote along the same lines – that’s what political parties are all about, advancing a platform.

What’s unique about the Republican party we have today is that their only purpose is to obstruct. Their agenda is “Defeat Obama at any cost.” (and perhaps the lower taxes for the wealthy.) And the American people are bearing that cost.

The facts show that the Republican congress and senate are unwilling to compromise even if it means total gridlock. They should change their name to the “filibuster” party:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem is that it opens the whole thing to a fishing contest. Romney makes most of his income from Investments. 2008 was a very bad year for investments and any smart tax planner would use the losses of 2008 to cancel any gains in 2009 and after if possible. I think the Obama campaign is trying to bring up that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2009 (because of investment losses). This is likely to play well people who don’t understand saving and investing, and will make a good ‘sound bite’ and diversion from the facts and presidential performance. The problem is that the previous election, very few Democrat Presidential hopefuls revealed their tax returns. Almost all of the Republican hopefuls revealed 2 years. One needs to ask: What is the real point of this requirement?
[/quote]

John Stewart’s reply to this line of argument –

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-18-2012/mystery-finance-theater-2012
[quote]
“You can’t release your returns because if you do the Democrats will be mean to you,” Stewart said, in an apostrophe to Romney. “I see your concern. These Obama people, whatever you release, it’ll never be enough. They’ll just keep hounding you and hounding you with frivolous transparent demands like this.”

Stewart then played a reel of clips showing conservative pundits and commentators insisting that Obama release everything from his college grades to Michelle Obama’s Princeton senior thesis to the President’s long-form birth certificate.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-romney-tax-returns-conservatives-video-2012-7#ixzz215NNHEPM
[/quote]

[Anonymous]

It seems the only rebuttal to the tax-return issue is to hand-pick points of comparison, like candidates from 20 years ago or party “hopefuls” running in the primaries.

Releasing tax returns isn’t a rule, but it is a convention, and conventions change. The modern standard is to basically full disclosure once a candidate is on the ticket:

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

Kennedy and Johnson may have not released their tax returns, but that was a different time. In those days people actually had respect for the office of the President also. Things have changed.

Romney’s tax returns are particularly important because they will likely expose the extent of his various offshore investment havens and tax-avoidance strategies.

There’s nothing wrong with being a successful businessman (although businessmen have had a horrible track record as presidents historically.) But to many, Romney is the wrong kind of businessman. If he had obtained his wealth by growing a business and creating jobs along the way, he’d be in a very strong position. However his success as being effectively a business broker just won’t sit well with the American people in a time where business “hustlers” are perceived as the source of many of the country’s woes.

There’s an Obama commercial out there now that plays on this quite well, the tagline is something like “Romney: he’s not the solution, he’s the problem.”

I believe the questions about Romney’s past, whether they are answered or not, will decide the outcome in the presidential race.

[briansd1]

[quote=harvey]
There’s nothing wrong with being a successful businessman (although businessmen have had a horrible track record as presidents historically.) But to many, Romney is the wrong kind of businessman. If he had obtained his wealth by growing a business and creating jobs along the way, he’d be in a very strong position. However his success as being effectively a business broker just won’t sit well with the American people in a time where business “hustlers” are perceived as the source of many of the country’s woes.[/quote]

Romney was trying to make the point that Cayman Islands and Bermuda accounts were necessary to allow foreign businessmen to invest in America without paying US income taxes.

The LA Times has an article about Bain started with help of offshore investors.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bain-creation-20120719,0,5698366,full.story

Nothing wrong with all of that, at face value.

But average Americans don’t live a world of globalized capitalists. They may find it hard to understand the financial calculus of leverage buyout artists (now called venture capitalists).

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem is that it opens the whole thing to a fishing contest. Romney makes most of his income from Investments. 2008 was a very bad year for investments and any smart tax planner would use the losses of 2008 to cancel any gains in 2009 and after if possible. I think the Obama campaign is trying to bring up that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2009 (because of investment losses). This is likely to play well people who don’t understand saving and investing, and will make a good ‘sound bite’ and diversion from the facts and presidential performance. The problem is that the previous election, very few Democrat Presidential hopefuls revealed their tax returns. Almost all of the Republican hopefuls revealed 2 years. One needs to ask: What is the real point of this requirement?[/quote]
I seriously doubt this is the reason for Romney’s hesitance. I actually think he made a LOT of money in 2008. He probably profited off of bets against America. Smart bets in hindsight, but the kind of stuff gets even Tea Partiers mad.

[Arraya]

[quote=ucodegen]Not supported by facts at hand. If guards @ prisons in California can exceed $100k/yr with full benifits, GM Union Autoworkers can almost do the same, San Diego Port Authority fork lift operators get nearly $140k/yr.. seems to contradict the statement.

[/quote]

Not sure how this contradicts anything. Democrats have been replacing union dollars with corporate money for a long time – hence in a battle for power – capital has been eroding union power(which also comes through money), for decades. This will continue.

I really hope unions get slaughtered in the next couple years including police pensions. This would be very helpful.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/unions-businesses-vie-to-fill.html
Even as many Democrats have stood in solidarity with workers whose collective bargaining rights have come under fire in Wisconsin and elsewhere across the country, at the federal level, Democratic candidates and groups have increasingly relied on the business community for support.

A decade ago, during the 2000 election cycle, labor unions accounted for about 40 percent of all money Democrats collected from political action committees, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics.

That figure has steadily declined since.

[Author]

Posts