Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- DrBombay0
Also I am unsure how you are connecting capital gains and job creation. Capital gains is for income stocks, bonds and real estate. Not exactly job creating sectors of the economy.
- ukit0
Slash the estate tax! That'll fix the economy!
YARRR!
- utopian0
Just send the neocon, right-wing nut jobs to fight their own war in Iraq, this would certainly fix the broken Bush economy.
- ********0
Why is the right wing generally full of people who don't think a problem through properly?
- Replace right-wing with "world" and your answer is: because we're all human.ismith
- doc pretty leftwing and what he jsut said up there has little to no thought********
- just supporting ismith********
- ukit0
What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) is a book written by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank, which explores the rise of conservative populism in the United States through the lens of his native state of Kansas. Once a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement of the late nineteenth century, it has become overwhelmingly conservative in recent decades.
According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites".
Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.
Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (what he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hotbutton cultural issues.
Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.
Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.
The book also details how then Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat who is a native of Ohio, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care and school funding, and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.
He says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. His theory is that while the two halves may not dislike each other, they have fundamentally different interests. The economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.
- < This is actually a pretty good explanation of current American politicsukit
- wow thats some hardcore rabble babble saying it proved this without a proof type jazz....quality fool talk for sure though grade A********
- grade A********
- ********0
Cutting taxes worked for job growth for jfk, Reagan, bill Clinton and bush 2!
If you don't understand why having the govt take less money out of peoples pockets is a good thing, nothing I can say will change your mind!
Cutting the captital gains tax will create jobs by investors, investing in new stocks...New stocks = new companies, small business, large business, will put people to work!
Gotta create an environment where people arent afraid to invest!
Bill clinton cut the cap gains tax in 94, ...94 to about 99-2000, was some amazing job growth!!!!!! Mostly in new technolgy companies for the interwebs!!!!- All of the countries debt was accumulated during those presidencies as well.DrBombay
- Reagan and G W Bush didn't increase employment. They both did the opposite actually.Mimio
- if there is less smaller functional gov there is more wealth amongst its peoples. shortest distacne between 2 lines in a nutshell********
- points. and on stock market. i hate that field. too much law and bs in the way. makes it impossible to do your own diligence in a proper manner. i like safe bets********
- due diligence.********
- what the hell are you on about?spifflink
- ********0
And now, for your entertainment, ladies and gentlemen, a little "soul-searching"...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100…
- ********0
- Not much story there...it won't pass, but there also won't be a U.S. cap and trade law anytime this decade.ukit
- DrBombay0
The freshman senator from Mass is going to have a tough time. He was elected by hardline conservatives in an extremely liberal state. Good luck with that. He is going to alienate a ton of people and probably will never be re-elected.
- You mean independents elected him. Independents. Yes, there are more registered independents in MA than (R) & (D) combined.********
- (D) combined.********
- Call it what you want, my premise is still correct.DrBombay
- You mean independents elected him. Independents. Yes, there are more registered independents in MA than (R) & (D) combined.
- ********0
^ Untrue
- Josev0
Brown endorsed a "Birther" for Congress
http://www.dankennedy.net/2010/0…"Sen.-elect Scott Brown has endorsed a candidate for Congress who has asserted that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than the United States, and who drew complaints from his neighbors during the 2008 presidential campaign for putting up signs on his property depicting Obama as Osama bin Laden."
- ********0
- ********0
By the way, the Supreme Court just killed the last vestiges of American Democracy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2…
All your argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic now.
- ukit0
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/…
BOOM
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
- Gotta love that quote by Kennedy, almost George Bush-ianukit
- ********0
Yeah, one man, one vote. One corporation can own how many politicians now?
Next person who tells me "government doesn't work" and "free market iz da awesome" while saying they love the ideal of constitutional limits on power gets my doc martin down their fucking throat.
- ukit0
I'm sure this decision giving corporations and unions unlimited power to bribe politicians will really help the middle class...it will trickle down.
Right guys???
- ukit0
Part of John Paul Stevens dissent:
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.
The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Also the Supreme Court blog reports:
"The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:
** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.
** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements."
LMFAO that Thomas thought no one even needed to KNOW who is paying for the bribes.
Not that it will matter, BTW. The ads won't say "this message brought to you by Exxon, Chevron and Saudi Oil Money" They'll say, "This message sponsored by Citizens United For Responsible Energy" or similar BS.
