Election Night

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

dusred wrote:Cap and tax, though it hasn't taken effect yet will "cause utility bills to necessarily skyrocket". The Bush Tax Cuts will expire.
1. It's called "Cap & Trade"
2. It's a Republican idea.
3. The only version of it we have is for Acid Rain, and that was passed by the first President Bush in 1990. I don't know why you think President Obama signed a Cap & Trade bill that fell apart months ago.

And they'll only expire if Congress doesn't vote to extend them.
dusred wrote:Do you think the day it takes full effect our taxes will just suddenly jump? No. The money has to come from somewhere and it will be gathered before the health care system takes full effect.
Again, how? What's the mechanism? Are tax rates going up? Are new taxes coming into effect? Which taxes? More fees?
dusred wrote:Are you saying that the bailouts were successful? The CEO's of those companies took millions of the money and gave themselves bonuses, and guess what, many of those huge companies who were bailed out are still in deep s***. Like GM for example.
And they're still around, aren't they? The point was to stave off disaster. You claim that we're currently in a disaster, and the people who support it say it would have been worse. You're both hypothesizing wildly.
dusred wrote:Good question. I'd say because the Repub's screwed things up so badly 8 years in a row that the people were damn tired of it and would stick to Dem's for a while. Problem is the Dems are proving to be just as irresponsible.
To you, who was never a big fan of Democrats to begin with. I don't believe anyone's trying to win you over (except me, what with my pledge about you and Tariq).


User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:Or just maybe the Repubes actually put forth some good ideas that the populous agree with, and the Dems in the Senate shoot them down, and suddenly the Repubes get the White House and Senate back in 2012 cause the Dems just lately cant help but piss the populous off.

Just another possibility....
I've yet to see an actual idea from Republicans. Lots of persuasive talking points, but not much more. I'm looking forward to what the next Congressional term looks like.

The Democrats were in the awkward position of blaming Republicans for their failures, when Republicans could just stand back and say, "Hey, we don't have any power." And they're right, if we ignore the media machine that is the right wing. Now that the Republicans have a lot more power, that criticism is going to stick a lot better.

Before, Democrats could only logically point to their own disconjointedness as their failure. I've said it many times now: the closest thing we have ever had to a viable third party is, at any given time, half of the Democratic Party.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:Its clearly a repudiation of the Left, of the socialist big government nanny state policies they push.
That many left seats were switched to right isn't necessarily about the left - it's about who was in the seat while the economy sucked. What were the numbers going the other way? How many of those seats were brought in on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment?

These are questions you need to ask.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:
stebo0728 wrote:Its clearly a repudiation of the Left, of the socialist big government nanny state policies they push.
That many left seats were switched to right isn't necessarily about the left - it's about who was in the seat while the economy sucked. What were the numbers going the other way? How many of those seats were brought in on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment?

These are questions you need to ask.
Good questions, but I have to say, im a bit preturbed by this whole sentiment that the people are just "frustrated" because of the economy and thats why they voted the way they did. They arent frustrated, they are just plain pissed. Did the economy play a part? Certainly! But only as the "canvas" that the story was painted on.

I agree that this will be an intresting phase, and I hope for once that the Repubes can get back to their roots of conservatism, conservatism with BALLS not just useless bi-partisanship. If you dont agree with an idea, dont settle for a piece of it remaining, shoot it down altogether. Will the right finally wake up to this notion? Time will tell. I am extremely skeptical of the idea, and hope that the Right can prove all us skeptics wrong.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

And that story would have been obviously false to anyone who wasn't too busy worried about the canvas.

96Qowner
Posts: 2643
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:11 pm
Car: 1996 Q45

Post

The last time Democrats held this few House seats was 1946 - worst in 64 years.

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm

The next worst was 1928.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote: I've yet to see an actual idea from Republicans.
Thats a combination of "your not looking hard enough" and "they arent advertising good enough".

Lets hope that at least the later of those 2 will change this term. The republicans, or conservatives in general, have some good private sector market driven solutions to what ails us, but they havent been diligent enough in putting the forward, hopefully that is about to change.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

That seems to be a defense across the board, from President Obama to his opposition: "We're just not selling it well, that's all."

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:That seems to be a defense across the board, from President Obama to his opposition: "We're just not selling it well, that's all."
Well the right wing ideas dont suffer from "bad" advertising, but more like NO advertising at all. I still dont get that. Maybe they felt it was useless in a completely democrat held term, i dunno. We shall see...

96Qowner
Posts: 2643
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:11 pm
Car: 1996 Q45

Post

Here's a good article on the demographics of the 2010 electorate:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/789 ... e-election

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Sort of confirms the "it's not a mandate" thing. It's not that most of Americans hate healthcare (new polling showed that 40% want it shrunk or removed and 40% want it kept or expanded) it's that the pissed off people were the only ones to show up.

Republicans beware.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Good point, and thats why those who didnt show up can STFU until this next election, show up and get b*tching rights.

When we say things like "the results show a repudiation of Obama" its the results of the voters, and the voters are pissed, we cant comment on the non-voters until they vote.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

That's the kind of thinking that produces these "wave" elections, Stebo.

"Yeah, we don't have to care about the rest of the country, only the sixth of it that showed up and voted for us! The rest of them can just stew!"
"Yeah! Nothing bad can come of this!"

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

So, how do you plan on getting the viewpoint of the others that didn't vote? Isn't voting for someone with their viewpoint the way things are supposed to work? Should we just generally give some assumed percentage of non-votes to one party or person vs. another because these people didn't vote?

How's that really going to work? Was this a non-issue in 2008 and only an issue now that the GOP has taken back the House?

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Hey Im not saying dont worry about their welbeing, all Im saying is that theres no way to definitively KNOW their wishes until they act on them. Until then their extra-electorate opinion is worth didely squat. You have to address their needs on a median basis along with the people who were patriotic enough to actually vote.

User avatar
heliochrome85
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:18 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Sport Coupe Athens Blue/Slate with Sport and Premium Packages--SOLD

Post

ill just leave this here
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_G1mGdX ... re=related[/youtube]

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

audtatious wrote:So, how do you plan on getting the viewpoint of the others that didn't vote? Isn't voting for someone with their viewpoint the way things are supposed to work? Should we just generally give some assumed percentage of non-votes to one party or person vs. another because these people didn't vote?

How's that really going to work? Was this a non-issue in 2008 and only an issue now that the GOP has taken back the House?
You'd probably know it in the same way that I was able to give you those numbers before: you can do polling. I'm not suggesting that the government be required by law to take into account the viewpoint of the 85% of the population that didn't vote for them, I'm just suggesting that, if they, the individual politicians, want to remain in the positions of power that they currently hold, it might behoove them to do so. Try not to read further into my argument than what I've given you to read.
stebo0728 wrote:Until then their extra-electorate opinion is worth didely squat.
Actually, no: it's "until the next election, their extra-electorate opinion is worth diddly squat." The reasons Republicans ought to mind the other half of the country is because they ought to be looking at the long-term. It's not about patriotism or about rewarding those who were pissed off enough to show up at the polls - it's about minimizing the number of people who are pissed off enough to come out and vote against you the next time around. Yes, the TEA party was a very vocal minority that was easy to stir to action, but they're also a very polarizing force, and riding that train for too long might bury you.

Get it yet, guys? Part of President Obama's problem was that, from day 1, he took the position that it was improper for him to advocate on behalf of his own policies - good policy should speak for itself. In a complete political vacuum, he might be right, but when there's people out there willing to start rumors about "death panels," it might just be worth it to defend yourself. I mention this because it's an exact illustration about how one can fail to account for the other half of the country, not just through over-acting, but for under-acting as well.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

I get what your saying, and I agree for the most part. Basically, to keep from having a bunch of pissed off "lefty's" from coming out in 2012 lets be cooperative now? Well my theory is, if the Republicans can stick to their conservative roots, and act accordingly, then theres simply not enough of the moocher class our there, especially when considering those moochers actually inconvenienced enough to go vote. The real problem in the wave elections lies with the independent sector's inability to perceive which of the 2 major parties has the better grasp on the economics. One party screws the pooch so the independents give the other party a shot at the target, then that party screws the pooch and the only choice is the give the other party another shot. The difference is, the left has done exactly what the left has always promised to do, and we all see how that has worked out. The right has neglected its promises and all but completely abandoned its conservative free market private sector roots, and that doesnt work out any better for anyone. Thats why I say IF, and its a hugeomungous IF, the Republicans get back to their roots and at least put forth an effort to get this massively out of control government reigned in, stop the spending, get our tax climate more favorable, then all of that will go along way to helping the job situation. I dont know how much of that they can ACTUALLY get done, but at least if they put the bills and proposals forward, then any of it shot down just facilitates the political suicide of the remaining opposition.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:I get what your saying, and I agree for the most part. Basically, to keep from having a bunch of pissed off "lefty's" from coming out in 2012 lets be cooperative now? Well my theory is, if the Republicans can stick to their conservative roots, and act accordingly, then theres simply not enough of the moocher class our there, especially when considering those moochers actually inconvenienced enough to go vote.
I hope that the Republican Party doesn't have as much of a misguided, unpatriotic perception of the other half of the country as you, but I fear that they might.
stebo0728 wrote:The real problem in the wave elections lies with the independent sector's inability to perceive which of the 2 major parties has the better grasp on the economics. One party screws the pooch so the independents give the other party a shot at the target, then that party screws the pooch and the only choice is the give the other party another shot. The difference is, the left has done exactly what the left has always promised to do, and we all see how that has worked out. The right has neglected its promises and all but completely abandoned its conservative free market private sector roots, and that doesnt work out any better for anyone. Thats why I say IF, and its a hugeomungous IF, the Republicans get back to their roots and at least put forth an effort to get this massively out of control government reigned in, stop the spending, get our tax climate more favorable, then all of that will go along way to helping the job situation. I dont know how much of that they can ACTUALLY get done, but at least if they put the bills and proposals forward, then any of it shot down just facilitates the political suicide of the remaining opposition.
Reminds me of a saying I heard as a kid: "Republicans campaign on the argument that government doesn't work, then go on win and prove it."

And I maintain: anyone that tells you that cutting spending alone is the solution to this problem is trying to buy your vote.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote: I hope that the Republican Party doesn't have as much of a misguided, unpatriotic perception of the other half of the country as you, but I fear that they might.
You can keep flinging that poop against the wall if you like, not much of its gonna stick, and the pile on the floor does start to sink after a while.
IBCoupe wrote: Reminds me of a saying I heard as a kid: "Republicans campaign on the argument that government doesn't work, then go on win and prove it."

And I maintain: anyone that tells you that cutting spending alone is the solution to this problem is trying to buy your vote.
Look Im really much more disappointed with the right than Ive ever been with the left. You know that a one-eyed one-horned flying purple creature will most likely be eating people. As I said above, the left has done everything its promised, its stuck to its socialist big government guns, but we all KNEW that about them. The right has come completely disjointed from its reality. Why that is I really dont know, my only hope is that that pimply faced rebellious phase of the right is finally over. Only time will tell.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:You can keep flinging that poop against the wall if you like, not much of its gonna stick, and the pile on the floor does start to sink after a while.
I'll be sure to stop once you stop denigrating your fellow citizens for disagreeing with you.
stebo0728 wrote:Look Im really much more disappointed with the right than Ive ever been with the left. You know that a one-eyed one-horned flying purple creature will most likely be eating people. As I said above, the left has done everything its promised, its stuck to its socialist big government guns, but we all KNEW that about them. The right has come completely disjointed from its reality. Why that is I really dont know, my only hope is that that pimply faced rebellious phase of the right is finally over. Only time will tell.
Much of the problem is that the American Right, when you get right to it, are all talk. Philosophically, they're conservative. In practice, they're liberals. I got into it last week with a coworker. He's a diehard Republican; thinks big government is per se bad government. But now his panties are in a bunch because the newly elected independent (formerly Republican) Governor of his state has a platform that promises to eliminate all sales tax exemptions, and impose at least a 1% sales tax on those formerly exempted items.

The problem? This includes a sales tax exemption for artificial limbs for injured veterans. The problem with Republicans is that they don't have the guts to follow through on their pledges to shrink government. Because the actual act of shrinking government means touching every "third rail" there is. It means cutting defense, which means fewer jobs. It means cutting medicare and social security, which means losing the mostly-Republican-leaning elderly (who came out in droves this year, compared to 2008). It means doing unpopular things that most Americans don't like.

You want Republicans to get back to their "true conservatism," but I'm betting that the Democrats would like nothing better.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote: I'll be sure to stop once you stop denigrating your fellow citizens for disagreeing with you.
My point did not denigrate those who disagree, my point was that the moochers really dont matter as much in the elections because most dont even bother to let go of the teet long enough to vote.
IBCoupe wrote: Much of the problem is that the American Right, when you get right to it, are all talk. Philosophically, they're conservative. In practice, they're liberals. I got into it last week with a coworker. He's a diehard Republican; thinks big government is per se bad government. But now his panties are in a bunch because the newly elected independent (formerly Republican) Governor of his state has a platform that promises to eliminate all sales tax exemptions, and impose at least a 1% sales tax on those formerly exempted items.

The problem? This includes a sales tax exemption for artificial limbs for injured veterans. The problem with Republicans is that they don't have the guts to follow through on their pledges to shrink government. Because the actual act of shrinking government means touching every "third rail" there is. It means cutting defense, which means fewer jobs. It means cutting medicare and social security, which means losing the mostly-Republican-leaning elderly (who came out in droves this year, compared to 2008). It means doing unpopular things that most Americans don't like.

You want Republicans to get back to their "true conservatism," but I'm betting that the Democrats would like nothing better.
And so how do you work out your personal budget? Lets say you lose your job and have to accept another that pays 5% less. Do you then say, well my budget was pretty tight already so EVERYTHING will just have to suffer 5%. I can only pay 95% or my house note, and my electric bill, and my cell phone bill, and my entertainment cut, and my clothing cut, and my savings, EVERYTHING 5%.

NO! At least I hope your answer would be NO!

You cant cut your house note 5%, aside from perhaps refinancing or changing apartments when your lease is up. You cant cut your electric bill, at least not directly, you can do things to make it less, but you cant short pay your bill. BUT, you absolutely CAN cut your entertainment spending 100%, you CAN cut your clothing spending a good bit more than 5% im sure. My point? Does cutting spending mean we will have to cut defense? Perhaps some, does it mean we will have to cut SS? Maybe, but theres sure a HELL of alot more that we can cut FIRST before we start messing with essentials. The internets are riddled with stories where we fund research on mating patterns of river otters, or whether gay rats liked Michael Jackson songs. Lets start there for Gods sake, call a moretorium on ALL research funding perhaps, or aleast glean to the absolute essential. Then the abuse of the governments virtually non-existent oversight on the goods and services it purchases. All the stories where we paid millions in shipping for 3 nuts or 6 washers. Sh*t like that needs to be fixed, and how much would that save us? Once we get all that under control, and yes that includes all the bridges to nowhere as well, then we'll get alot closer to where we need to be. Get all that fixed, get us spending just what we absolutely HAVE to spend to stay viable and defensable, then we can start a debate on where else to cut, or whether to borrow more, or whatever.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:My point did not denigrate those who disagree, my point was that the moochers really dont matter as much in the elections because most dont even bother to let go of the teet long enough to vote.
That would certainly have been a reasonable explanation had it not followed a post where you implied that the only opposition to conservative ideas is "the moocher class." That's denigration.
stebo0728 wrote: Once we get all that under control, and yes that includes all the bridges to nowhere as well, then we'll get alot closer to where we need to be.
I really think you overestimate how much there is in the government aside from Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. In 2009, "Other Discretionary" spending was $437 billion. Fraud, waste, and abuse was $98 billion. If you cut all of that, you'll have reduced the budget to 84.8% of what it was. If you take TARP out of the equation, it's still only reduced to 84.2%. We collected $2.1 trillion. We spent $3.5 trillion. You want to make that work? you need to get spending down to 60%. Even if you cut everything, including interest payments on our debt, except for Defense, Medicare, and Social Security, we still don't make it. That would involve paying our government workers (from the House of Representatives to the FBI) nothing.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote: I really think you overestimate how much there is in the government aside from Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. In 2009, "Other Discretionary" spending was $437 billion. Fraud, waste, and abuse was $98 billion. If you cut all of that, you'll have reduced the budget to 84.8% of what it was. If you take TARP out of the equation, it's still only reduced to 84.2%. We collected $2.1 trillion. We spent $3.5 trillion. You want to make that work? you need to get spending down to 60%. Even if you cut everything, including interest payments on our debt, except for Defense, Medicare, and Social Security, we still don't make it. That would involve paying our government workers (from the House of Representatives to the FBI) nothing.
Ok assuming your numbers are correct, let me ask this? Who decided what was waste and abuse? And how was it decided? Could it be that this decision was made quite liberally?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

It was the CBO - up from $72 billion.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Well how about cutting these 1 term = lifetime pensions? Or maybe even go so far as remove government pensions altogether. I dont get a pension, of course I could choose to work somewhere that does, or I could just take care of saving for myself. Im on the fence a bit on that issue, when it comes to folks who have put their whole career in to public service, but these 1 term and go guys definitely dont need pensions. Where else could we look? Lets get out the scalpel. Im convinced that these wasteful figures your showing are innacurate, not in your sourcing, but in their arrival. Largely I believe this because our government has spun so out of control its nearly impossible to keep a handle on it all. We just about have to have a budgetary official that sits there and hands out funds, and you have to make a case why you need tax money, and if you dont make a good case, no money. Thats obviously impossible, and actually quite opposite of how we should work, but the idea is the same. We have to be more stringent on where we throw money.

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

Both parties have to appease the middle when they govern.

Neither base is large enough to win national elections, you have to get swing votes, and swing votes are moderate. If this wasn't the case, per-capita Presidential Election spending wouldn't be so stratospheric in Pennsylvania and Ohio.


Also, you don't serve 1 term and get a pension, AFAIK. In order to qualify for any Congressional pension at all, I believe you need to serve for at least 5 years. It's a stepped plan, like any other pension, wherein the payout depends on years of service and the salary you received. I think they get no more than 80% of average of last 3 years salary, if eligible at all, and there's some step-up based on tenure (I think the % changes).

User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 Nissan Versa SL hatch w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

There should be no retirement benefits or pension in an way, shape or form for an elected position other than a security detail for former presidents. They choose to run, either leaving or avoiding the private sector. We pay them a generous enough salary to allow them to put part of the salary in an IRA or a non-matching 401k like the private sector. Congress will sort out financial regulation in a hurry when their own retirement is being handled by those same private firms along with the rest of us. If you are going to provide a retirement benefit, make it Social Security and Medicare only for them and see how quickly those get straightened out, too.

Until they have a personal stake in the outcome elected officials will only pay it lip service. They will continue to boot actually dealing with it down the road to future officeholders.

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

^^
I don't disagree. I certainly don't get a pension, why should they?

I was just pointing out that someone up above didn't have their facts straight.

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:
audtatious wrote:So, how do you plan on getting the viewpoint of the others that didn't vote? Isn't voting for someone with their viewpoint the way things are supposed to work? Should we just generally give some assumed percentage of non-votes to one party or person vs. another because these people didn't vote?

How's that really going to work? Was this a non-issue in 2008 and only an issue now that the GOP has taken back the House?
You'd probably know it in the same way that I was able to give you those numbers before: you can do polling. I'm not suggesting that the government be required by law to take into account the viewpoint of the 85% of the population that didn't vote for them, I'm just suggesting that, if they, the individual politicians, want to remain in the positions of power that they currently hold, it might behoove them to do so. Try not to read further into my argument than what I've given you to read.
So, you are talking about a politician polling the public as a means of determining direction vs the Gov using polling data instead of votes? I'm just confuzzored I guess.... :gotme :wavey:


Return to “Politics Etc.”