Friday, August 13, 2010

Partisanship as an Issue

I had another blog set to go here but something arose in my 'main' blog which made me change my mind. It is about partisan politics and although I had thought this blog could stick to issues, partisanship is an issue, an important one today. For years I voted for the person as well as for the principles they said they believed in. If somebody, say a Newt Gingrich claims certain things are true, that Americans need to hear them, that he's to be the messenger, but that person's personal life makes a lie to that, they won't get my vote. I don't trust those who claim one thing and live another. They call that hypocrisy and who knows what such believe. It's why Clinton got a pass from many people like me as he didn't claim to be someone he wasn't. He would not get that pass though when he did things I felt were detrimental to the country even if his personal life wasn't the issue.

But despite my past voting, right now I am voting straight ticket and I don't like it. There is a reason. It's because the Republican party seems to have a lock on their politicians. Most of them vote in lockstep. The ones that claim to be independent only vote that way when their vote is not needed; so they can look independent. In the clinch, they vote with their party. AND what their party claims to support is not only wrong (to me) but they don't even follow that (ie small government when they enlarge it every chance they get but just in different ways than Democrats). Currently the offical Republican party supports things I consider to be abhorrent in many cases and what they do behind the curtain is even worse.

Now I can say that and still see that many Republican people are good and are voting their conscience. I know too many right wingers to think any other way. Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of righties don't feel that way about people like me who generally support the left (and generally means what it says-- generally).  IF we could discuss what is wrong with each party here, without any of us taking it personally, then we might get somewhere with the conversation that began in the other blog and which I am bringing here-- minus the names. I don't like to use people's comments with their names unless I have asked and I didn't ask.

Ah, cows aren't traitors in any real sense, They're just like the usual Republican, living in a reality devoid, herd-like dream work of sweet clover and denial. lol :)

you had to get political? And not even close to accurate. Unless Obama is a Republican because he is the one who is telling us how wonderful things are going with the economy when in reality it is still getting worse and will be for a few more years. And with his policies maybe more like 5 years before we see real recovery.

Obama is a Republican, certainly doesn't behave like a Democrat.

No he does not. At least in the old school Democrat way. And he is certainly not a Republican. We believe in limited government and self determination. He is more like a totalitarianist. He wants a strong central government to control every aspect of everyones lives.

... you are wrong about what Obama has done or wants to do. You are drinking the kool-aid and whether you admit it or not, you are getting it from radio, websites and TV because that's what they want you to believe. ... What you on the right have to understand is that Obama was elected to do what he has done by a majority and if the majority changes their mind, then the country will go back to Bush's way where the rich get all the tax advantages and corporations have no rules and we fight wars with no logic behind them while we don't pay for them. You can have what you want. You just have to convince enough Americans your way is right.

So what do you think about partisanship today? Necessary? Bad? And by partisanship, I don't mean just the two main parties but whatever party someone would vote for no matter who ran...

Colors of text in the conversation represent different individuals in the original comments. I'm green *s*


Dion said...

I sometimes enjoy a good partisan throw down. It can be an outlet for aggression without any physical violence.

Partisanship in Jersey.

HMBabb said...

And you started this blog to depoliticize Rainy Day Thoughts, but the nature of the partisan - somewhat like an evangelical - is that it's all partisanship. They can't not try to relate everything to their agenda, and they have no interest in listening to other ideas and opinions. I feel sad for them that they've lost their rationality, and I'm sorry they've mucked up your post.

Ingineer66 said...

I am offended by your blanket statement HMBabb. You know nothing about me and my "agenda" or lack thereof.

Back to the original statements. I knew that Obama was going to be what we are getting out him. I did not vote for him because of that. Many other people that did vote for him believed the campaign hype that he was a moderate and would unite the nation and govern from the middle and would include Republicans and would post new bills on the internet and close Git-mo and on and on. Those old school democrats that believe in the working man are the ones that are rethinking their vote. Obama's insane spending and power grab and further stifling of the economy is not what most Americans want from a President.

As for Republicans only caring about the rich, the Bush tax cuts gave the lowest income tax payers the biggest percentage tax cut. Obama is about to give those people the largest tax increase in the history of the country. And like I have said before, how many poor people create jobs? I mean other than police and judges and welfare case workers. The rich business people are the ones who create jobs. So just keep dumping on them and watch the economy keep declining.

mandt said...

I stand by my statement that cows are way cool!

Robert the Skeptic said...

I know a former political science professor, now a president of a university. When he was teaching PS he told me that he didn't vote. Surprised that he of all people would not vote, I asked his reasons.

He said that the vote gave the appearance of democratic process to the system, but that the policies our actual representative republic was influenced mostly by lobbyiests and corporate interests; the "military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned about. Voting just makes the people feel as though they have some effect.

I honestly believe that people expected the economy to turn around and to get a job two weeks after Obama was elected. The Obama Administration did not create the economic mess we are in right now. Everyone wants quick fixes - there are no quick fixes, not extending unemployment or giving tax cuts to businesses. (By the way, I worked in banking for 12 years; nobody ever explained to me how tax cuts to businesses creates jobs - demand creates jobs.)

Ingineer66 said...

I agree Robert. For what we have spent in the last 18 months we could have suspended all personal income taxes. Just think how much that would have stimulated the economy if people did not have income taxes taken out of their checks. People would have bought cars, TVs, appliances, gone out to dinner more, taken vacations etc.

Kay Dennison said...

Get annoyed by all of it, too. And yeah, these days I'm mostly voting a straight ticket and that bothers me a lot.

Robert the Skeptic said...

Oh yes, Ingineer66, it would be great to have no income tax to pay. Although I must admit, it is kind of nice to have highways and bridges, air traffic control, customs agents and assorted federal law enforcement, coast guard, channel dredging (so those container ships with TV's from China can get ashore to Wal-Mart), NASA, medical for veterans, border patrol, mine safety, college student aid, special education for developmentally disabled children, forest management, national parks, geologic survey, weather service, airport development and security, dam and levee maintenance, international intelligence information, national academy of sciences... just to name a few - not to mention assistance to those unable to work and children so, you know, we aren't stepping over people starving in the street while on our way to pick up our new TV's. It would be nice if somebody else paid for all the stuff I benefit from. Hmmm Who, ya think?

Ingineer66 said...

Robert you missed my point. I am not against paying taxes for services that a government should provide. But, for what we increased the National Debt in the last 18 months we could have still had all those things you mentioned and not wasted all the money on the additional feel good spending and instead suspended the taxes. All of that stimulus money that is being spent for studies of voting patterns in Nigeria and such is not coming from taxes, it is being borrowed from the Chinese. And for the same amount of indebtedness we could have still had all the normal Federal spending and no income taxes for a year. That would be some real stimulus to the economy.

Rain said...

Ingineer, where did you find a chart showing where the stimulus went? I went looking and have yet to see anywhere that tells specifics, lots of right wing sites finding a million here or there but hard to say if those were even part of the stimulus.

When it began, the talk was 1/3 would go the states directly for what were to be shovel ready projects. Now how do we know if the states used it that way. 1/3 was for tax cuts to the middle class, something you should have approved. Some went for extending unemployment the first time which might matter more to you if you lost your job; and 1/3 was supposedly about new technology.

I know first hand that some has been out there in the business world supposedly to develop that new technology. I don't know how much or how successful it has been. There is talk that GM is having big improvements and we know some went there to keep it working. But anyway the gist of my question is how do you know where it went? And how do you know that letting you not pay taxes for a year might be better than say a program helping the impoverished? What is your criteria for deciding that?

Don't remotely tell me that it would automatically go into the economy if you did not have to pay taxes for a year. What do you need that you cannot buy now if you want it?

I know from my own experience that when we have enough money to live on, the likeliest way to use extra money is save it.

Ingineer66 said...

Well I can tell you right now that if I had my taxes suspended I would have bought a new car. And it would not have cost the Federal Government $35,000 to give me $8,000 like the Cash For Clunkers cost.
How does a program for the impoverished stimulate the economy?
Much of the stimulus money went to University professors for research. There are many examples of millions of dollars going to pay for studies conducted by just a few interns that are making $20,000 a year. So I guess a few lucky professors got their economy stimulated.
And I know the states did spend some of the money on infrastructure projects. But those projects were scheduled to happen anyway. The money was just shifted to other programs and replaced with stimulus founding. And the contractors did not hire new people, they just hired the regular seasonal employees that they have always hired. About 4% of the stimulus went to infrastructure. Not bad for a bill that was advertised as an infrastructure bill.

I am saying that if we would have suspended taxes instead of what we did, there would not be 14.5 million Americans out of work right now. It would be less. If for no other reason than the people that are sitting at home refusing to take jobs that are offered them or even look for work because they are getting 99 weeks of unemployment would be working now.

Rain said...

well, obviously we disagree, ingineer and I have already voiced my opinion on it; so won't say more. I do wonder though if everybody stopped paying taxes for a year, whose salaries would not be covered in government?

Ingineer66 said...

Yep we disagree. That is what makes America great. We can disagree and do it publicly. I just think there are much better ways to create jobs and stimulate the economy than what we have done the last 18 months.