The 2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Chef]

nice blog post that talks about alot of what has been discussed on this thread

Nobody wants to talk about this, it seems, but me. (Ok, that's not entirely fair, but it sure is in the political context!) So be it.

The middle class is receiving less of America's total income, declining to its smallest share in decades as median wages stagnate in the economic doldrums and wealth concentrates at the top.

A study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center highlights diminished hopes, too, for the roughly 50 percent of adults defined as middle class, with household incomes ranging from $39,000 to $118,000. The report describes this mid-tier group as suffering its "worst decade in modern history," having fallen backward in income for the first time since the end of World War II.

Three years after the recession technically ended, middle class Americans are still feeling the economic pinch, with most saying they have been forced to reduce spending in the past year. And fewer now believe that hard work will allow them to get ahead in life. Families are now more likely to say their children's economic future will be the same or worse than their own.

In all, 85 percent of middle class Americans say it is more difficult now than a decade ago to maintain their standard of living. Some 62 percent say a lot of the blame lies with Congress. A slight majority say a lot lies with banks and other financial institutions. Just 8 percent blame the middle class itself.

Let's go down just some of the abuses heaped on the middle class over the last couple of decades.

Offshoring of labor. Democrats, Republicans and the national Libertarian Party along with its Presidential candidate all trumpet "free trade" in one form or another. The truth is that multi-national corporations go where labor is cheap and environmental standards non-existent. This is not, as commonly asserted, about a "competitive workforce" -- it is about bulldozing and destroying the people's means of agrarian and small-business production, effectively forcing them into servitude, then polluting their air, land and water on top of it. That this was the intent all along (as I have asserted all along and others have claimed is poppycock) is now being proved by Foxconn and others moving plants out of China and into places like Indonesia precisely because the locals in China, despite a jackbooted government, are rising up -- willing to risk death rather than see their children poisoned and their futures destroyed. Having stripped the land bare like a pack of locusts these vulchers then move onto the next victim nation where the government can be paid off to enslave its people and destroy its resources.

Theft and bribery as a business model. What else do you call Jefferson County, Alabama? The people there were rooked raw by the banksters with crooked swap deals that were ultimately entered into as a result of actual bribery. There were convictions of local officials too. But the people still are paying the price for the crooked deals and will be into the indefinite future, while those who were on the other side of those deals were not forced to disgorge the ill-gotten gains. Why not?

State-sponsored murder as a business model. What else do you call Mr. Terry, who was shot by a gun illegally run with the permission of our own BATFE, answering to Mr. Holder as AG? Who's gone to prison for this? If I knowingly furnish a gun to a prohibited person and he shoots someone with that firearm I can be charged as an accessory before the fact to murder and must stand trial for that act. Why are Mr. Holder and the other responsible parties in the BATFE free men?

Health-care is an outright extortion racket. Think not? Perhaps you can tell me what you'd call pricing something 10x higher for one person than another simply based on their state of duress -- or whether they bought a payment system from a specific institution or party? It wasn't that long ago that health care was purchased for cash with a checkbook, and if you didn't have money then you relied on private charity. If we had that system today you could pay for a 4-day stay in the hospital and delivery of a child for $1,000, simply by looking at inflation from 1963 to today. Virtually everyone could afford that. Instead the same procedure costs 10x that much with the explicit intent of forcing you to buy so-called "insurance" -- a clear racket. Obama has made it worse but Romney and Ryan have no plan to reverse it, and neither does Governor Johnson. In fact none of them will touch this issue. Every one of these three candidates is and has been committing open fraud upon the public with their so-called "health care" plans for this nation. They are intending to and are in fact supporting big pharma and the medical industry screwing you blind and play on your fear of death along with rhetoric about "Granny being thrown down the stairs" as their stock in trade.

Education. Same deal. College was paid for with a checkbook 30 years ago. Today? You take loans as a student, and worse, the colleges and government demand that your parents disclose all their income and assets, even though you as a student are a legal adult. The result is that if you have money you are forced to pay for the student without money who sits next to you in class. This is theft. Set up an Air Conditioning business and try to demand that everyone must disclose all their assets and income, you will price your Air Conditioners based on that, and will give poor people AC units "for free" (with the richer people's money, of course.) You wouldn't survive 15 minutes in business doing this unless you could get the government to force every firm in the business to do the same thing. Well?

Housing. Who sold the middle class on the idea of housing being an "appreciating asset"? It sure wasn't the middle class' idea. It's also a lie, incidentally, willfully and intentionally promulgated by the banksters and politicians. A house is a depreciating asset. But even if you continually put into it new inputs to maintain its value without ever-expanding credit the "price" of that house cannot continue to go up; it contains the same number of bathrooms, bedrooms, kitchen(s) and surfaces. Absent your improvement of the space it remains what it was, less wear and tear. Yet for a decade the middle class was "urged" to treat houses as retirement assets that would go up in value (always) and could be tapped on a revolving basis to cover expenses. When this proved to be false (as it always was) those who touted this were not held to account even though the middle class had its wealth destroyed by this willful and intentional pack of lies. And make no mistake -- it was willful and intentional, as the underlying arithmetic simply cannot be argued with -- exponential growth on a continual basis is mathemtically impossible.

Of course it doesn't stop there. The non-union Delphi employees had their pension stolen to cover the UAW's shortfall when the Obama Administration swooped in to "rescue" GM. Over 100,000 perjured affidavits were filed by banks in foreclosure actions -- later admitted to -- and then a handslap fine was "administered" (which the banks simply pass on to their customers, victimizing the common American twice.) The same game is now being played by credit-card companies -- the very same banks -- and why not? A good part of the time the defendant doesn't show up and thus the bank gets away with it, and even if they do show up and make a stink, they know they won't be jailed for filing bogus documents.

Where does it stop?

It doesn't until you demand a better class of politician. It doesn't until you tell Mitt Romney, President Obama and Governor Johnson to all "**** off!" when they call asking for your support and money, until and unless they take these issues on and put forward actual plans to fix them, including jailing all of the guilty parties involved in the destruction of your middle-class lifestyle.

Yes, some of our challenges are structural and beyond our control. But Health Care and Education's ramp in cost could have never happened without the explicit support and acts of government.

Theft and fraud, as exemplified in Jefferson County Alabama and the Delphi workers pensions, could not go on without explicit support of and refusal to prosecute by government.

To the middle class: You did not "lose ground" due to natural forces. You had your wealth and prosperity intentionally stolen by actors both government and private, acting with the full support of our government.

Again: These were intentional acts.

Worse, there are exactly zero candidates for President who are willing to merely speak to this matter, say much less promise prosecutions and removal of the special protections that have made those abuses possible.

And that's a fact.

Wake up.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210580

[spectre]

Nice well thought out post QC. A few points:

Your example is different (to me) because of the bailout. That money should have come with stipulations and restrictions. Maybe the gov't couldn't get around those bonuses if the employees had a contract with it in there or maybe they didn't even address it. I agree though that it's galling to see OUR money being used in that manner.

It also begs the question on whether the Feds should be involved at all in bailing out any business (looking at you GM)...but that's another discussion.

If someone starts a business then they take a risk while using their money (or money they're responsible for). They provide jobs that we all desperately need...but they aren't required to be pillars of the community nor to have the community's best interests at heart. By (over)taxing them you might get some of the money they'd not so smartly spend (it is their money), but as you agreed if they can pass it on to the consumer you can bet your bottom dollar they'll do so.

In a nutshell...it's their money. If you want to make sure and tax those guys close the loopholes/tax breaks and set a flat tax. I'd warrant that the gov't would get at least as much that way as the status quo.

What they REALLY need to do is stop spending millions watching worms have sex (example). The Feds have no business spending MY money on bullshit like that.

[teej]

Gee, we're a happy bunch aren't we?

So...if we can all agree that economically both Romney and Obama are shit, and things will not get better with either one during the next four years, why not focus on the other important aspect - the social one. That's the one where they have a clear distinction, and I have yet to see anyone care about it in this thread. Romney is (now, at least) anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. while Obama is the opposite. If your economics suffer regardless, why not vote based on the social issues?

[ziggy]

I don't believe either party truly wants anything to change on social issues like abortion or gay marriage. Without their supposed differences in social issues for both sides to bitch about, they would be forced to talk about real issues like the economy.

Dubya had the senate, congress and the supreme court behind him at one point and they could have rammed all type of social stuff through then, but it didn't happen.

[teej]

Dubya had the senate, congress and the supreme court behind him at one point and they could have rammed all type of social stuff through then, but it didn't happen.

Dubya also stated a belief that same-sex couples should have full legal rights, just without the title of married. And he believed in intelligent design instead of pure Creationism, did he not? The Romney/Ryan ticket is far more socially conservative than GW will ever be...at least, now that Mitt isn't pro-choice or pro-gay anymore

[Chef]

I don't believe either party truly wants anything to change on social issues like abortion or gay marriage. Without their supposed differences in social issues for both sides to bitch about, they would be forced to talk about real issues like the economy.

Dubya had the senate, congress and the supreme court behind him at one point and they could have rammed all type of social stuff through then, but it didn't happen.

obama also had a super majority. something bush never had. obama needed zero republican support to get anything he wanted through. your premise on why they aren't changed is correct. both parties are about government controlling our lives. they are about staying in power. always have been.

the abortion thing gets blown way out of proportion. the conservative candidates are against abortion, but the whole "war on women" thing is complete shit. they are against ending public funding for groups like planned parenthood that provide abortions with that money (or can use other money to do it because of the federal dollars). the legislation that has been discussed does not close planned parenthood, just ends federal dollars for them.

[QC Thundercats]

I keep up with politics to an extent, as I feel it is my civic responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the country. But I absolutely hate the game or theater that it really is.

The all time biggest rivalry in the US isn't UNC vs duke, Lakers vs Celtics, or Yankees vs Red Sox. It is Democrats vs Republicans. I realize I have an irrational hatred of all things dook, where I can discredit and belittle coach k and their cheating, flopping, floor-slapping, histrionic ways to trick the refs and pull out victories. But who cares, its only sports, and I can get along with any alumni from the evil empire as long as it doesn't relate to college sports.

But politics is the real world, and involves people's lives. The irrational hatred and discrediting of your political counterpart is one of the most ridiculous, asinine qualities of it all, where everything is taken as a perceived slight. Everything said and done is not for the people of the country, but in order to gain political capital so you can get more votes or more funding for the next election.

I can't understand why compromise or bipartisanship are such bad words in politics. Its all "my side is 100% right about everything, your side has no good ideas and is 100% wrong about everything." Why does a party representative have to fully adopt the party platform to run? Shouldn't a Republican be free to be pro-choice, or a Democrat to be pro-life, and not fear political suicide? Each side has a different perspective and could offer different solutions to a problem if there weren't so many other political considerations attached to it.

I don't believe either party truly wants anything to change on social issues like abortion or gay marriage. Without their supposed differences in social issues for both sides to bitch about, they would be forced to talk about real issues like the economy.

Nah, I don't see it this way. I understand the constant stalemate between the parties can make one cynical of the parties' beliefs, but there is a constant push to make changes. As Romney and other Republicans have repeatedly stated, they are looking for any chance to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate abortions altogether (some may allow it for health of the mother, but not most). All the 'Defense of Marriage Acts' being put out for vote across the country also show how big a deal it is to Republicans, especially the one that passed in NC, to severely restrict the rights of same sex couples (and never realizing it went past that point to harm other citizens that aren't homosexual).

I don't declare myself a part of either party, but on social issues, I am anti-Republican on just about every issue. The GOP has allowed the super conservative fundamentalist zealots have too much influence and power to the point where they are trying to legislate based on religious principles.

I say, since every man, woman, and child was born free and equal here, then if you are not harming anyone else in any way, you should be free to live however you want without any restrictions on your lifestyle. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they formed this country under the principle of separation of church and state.

As Thomas Jefferson said himself:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'

Republicans (at least the overtly religious ones) are free to believe in the way they do, and thats fine. But they can't be allowed to impose these beliefs on anyone else, just as nobody else can impose their beliefs on the Repubs.

Dubya had the senate, congress and the supreme court behind him at one point and they could have rammed all type of social stuff through then, but it didn't happen.

It's not quite as simple as that. The president isn't as powerful as many think he is, and the checks and balances written into the constitution protects the people from total control by an individual or ideology. There is still the filibuster to stop bills from getting through. The Supreme Court was still basically equal on both sides, with a couple justices swinging both ways, and with how slow the court system works, especially to be reviewed by the SC, any legislation passed by W could still be challenged and overturned years down the line. Plus state governments still had the ability to challenge federal laws if they feel it infringes their sovereignty. So yes, they had more power, but they couldn't simply just turn the country into super-conservo world on a whim.

I really wish a 3rd party could develop to give people a better option. Because the fringes of each party have the loudest voices, and each side is so entrenched in their views, nothing will ever be accomplished. There should be a large number of moderate, middle ground people who are fed up with their own party to meet in the middle. I may be wrong, but I feel that there is a large silent majority of the country who are more socially accepting and progressive, and fiscally can agree with principles of both sides, to where a nice hybrid model could be made to deal with economic/financial issues based on the particular area or issue that comes up, instead of just one overbroad, sweeping interpretation of how all such things should go.

But as I said before, I really hate this ugly game.

[spectre]

The pols use "social issues" like abortion & gays as a mean to get money and votes...simple as that. That marriage thing we voted on last year? They put it in to get their one issue voters to the polls. North Carolina already had a law that doesn't allow same sex marriage so the whole thing was bullshit.

I disagree QC; the rivalry isn't between Pubs & Crats...it's pols vs. US. Remember the Gore v Bush thing in Florida? The two spokesmen for each was Baker and the old Dem senator (Christopher?). I found out a little later those 2 guys sat on some board together. Buds on the one hand except in front of the sheep.

The joke has always been on us.

[ziggy]

Anyone here at BCP going to go downtown next week for any of the DNC events?

[QC Thundercats]

I disagree QC; the rivalry isn't between Pubs & Crats...it's pols vs. US. Remember the Gore v Bush thing in Florida? The two spokesmen for each was Baker and the old Dem senator (Christopher?). I found out a little later those 2 guys sat on some board together. Buds on the one hand except in front of the sheep.

Well, I do agree that the political elite, or shall I say, the elite have always scratched each others' backs and did anything necessary to stay in their position of power. The trick is to divide and conquer the masses, and as long as you have one side with you, the other can't take you down.

But then again, that isn't a rivalry - the elites have been undefeated against the people since the invention of governance and/or currency. It's like if you say Clemson is going to the Dean Dome to play their rivals, when all it is is a one sided epic beat down every time.

No, the rivalry is still amongst the people, the fans, not the players. I'm sure the old guard career politicians share drinks and party together all the time, and have a good old laugh at our expense. The problem is they incite the masses when they speak to the public, and that is where the rivalry is. Using the sports analogy again, its kind of like how dook players used to always come to Chapel Hill to play ball, and vice versa - the players didn't hate each other and had no problems being friends. It is the fans that fanned the flames to keep the rivalry ever burning. And politicians know this, and like to keep everyone riled up to keep the focus off of them and onto each other.

Just take a look at the comment sections of any website, or any social media outlets. I understand there are many people trolling as anonymous bigots, but some people really put their true feelings out there. Where in sports, a Michigan fan can say Urban Meyer eats babies, and we can write that off as part of a bitter rivalry. But politics takes that up a notch, where ignorant people can say that the president is a Muslim socialist who wants to turn the country over to the UN and wants to start a civil war. That can't be written off, because unfortunately, many people believe these lies, get angry, and then go crazy and attack each other.

The pols use "social issues" like abortion & gays as a mean to get money and votes...simple as that. That marriage thing we voted on last year? They put it in to get their one issue voters to the polls. North Carolina already had a law that doesn't allow same sex marriage so the whole thing was bullshit.

Another pet peeve - one issue voters might be some of the most retarded people out there.

The joke has always been on us.

Yep