Che'_Moderator Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I have a couple key issues why I think Mitt would have been a better choice. 1. At the core of it all, is perception. He would have helped the economy if nothing else through perception. Its the same reason the Dow dropped 300 points within minutes of Obama winning. Based on nothing, but the economy needs an ORGANIC stimulus. 2. On a lesser level the diplomatic front with foreign nations. Shit like Iran firing on US aircraft is BS. I am not saying it is grounds for war, but it needs to be addressed. FOUO and TS there is even more BS going on. Its getting stupid, but any president would have had to deal with it. Just personally I do not think Obama is ever gonna nut up. 3. Mitt had some out there ideas. That said he would never do them in the first 4 years. The same reason Obama has not said word one about gun control or closing GETMO. Now that he is second term all bets are off. I mean why not. 4. The healthcare issue is a bigger deal than people think. It will bankrupt most private insurers, so the whole line about not having to use the GOV one is BS. Short term its a good thing, but mark my words, it will be a major issues in 5-10. 5. Lastly is the general "socialist" direction. I do not think BO is a socialist, but some of his ideas, are not appropriate for the US at this point. IE when the economy is booty. As for the whole out of touch deal, I tend to agree but placed economics over social. When you hire any c-level position you do not care about how touchy feely they are. As long as they are ethical and make money they make sense. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I told you, I'd suck you into this thread lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think this article sums it up pretty well, particularly the final paragraph. http://www.economist...ake-white-house I'm impressed with how closely you follow the US politics, and disappointed to say that you probably follow it more closely than well over 70% of our population. But I also wonder why you follow it so closely? Just a hobby? I know earlier you talked about global economics, but seems like you do it for more than just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) I'm impressed with how closely you follow the US politics, and disappointed to say that you probably follow it more closely than well over 70% of our population. But I also wonder why you follow it so closely? Just a hobby? I know earlier you talked about global economics, but seems like you do it for more than just that. I follow politics globally, but US politics are by far the most entertaining! lol Also, doesn't make much sense for me to start talking to you good American folks about the Communist party of the People's Republic of China. I have a subscription to the Economist so I get quite a lot of this material dropped into my lap. US politics are also somewhat related to my fascination with (and general disapproval of) organized religion. Edited November 9, 2012 by JCviggen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Religion is not nearly as tied to US politics as media would have it seem. That tends to be spin. The right wing especially has been type cast. Saying right wing are all bible thumpers is like calling all the left wing pot smoking hippies. Granted those are issues both parties are struggling with. Alden nails it though. Most americans are under informed. They go with prevailing trends and do not think for themselves. Its sad but a lot of Gen Y have taken the axiom "question everything" way too far. I have fired my share of people for questioning everything. In general I will not hire grads fresh out of school. I usually spec in 4-8 years experience. By then they have had that idea beaten out of their heads. Question everything belongs in science, and philosophy. Keep that crap out of the administrative environment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Agreed Chuck and that is one of my greatest frustrations with how people characterize the political parties, especially the Republican party. There is an over focus on the idea that the Christian Right are the key drivers of the Republican agenda and while they do have an influence and are very vocal about their social policies they don't own the party. Face it, we are a fairly religious society when compared to Europe. 73% of our population identify themselves as Christian, believe in God, and ~38-40% of the population attend religious services at least weekly. If you contrast that to European countries like France and Belgium where I have lived, the trend is vastly different. In France, there has been a sharp drop from ~80% identifying as Catholic in the 1960s to 51% in the last decade. And of those, only half of them believe in God. But only ~10% of them attend mass weekly. That trend follows pretty closely elsewhere in Europe. So there's a broad demographic difference between the Continent and the US. A large percentage of those Progressive minded individuals in the US don't identify so closely with the Left leaning minds in Europe on the matter of God and religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 when you have major Political figures saying religion should play a factor in their policy decisions(RYAN), they will reinforce the stereo type. right or wrong, i circle back to my early comments, Religion shouldn't be involved period, and you don't have these problems. POLICY IS POLICY. JOBS ARE JOBS. PAYING BILLS ON TIME IS PAYING BILLS ON TIME, why do BELIEFS need to be injected in any of that. I shouldn't know what religion my politions are. Great they believe in a higher power. Use it to be a better person, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Like it or not religion is the ethical yard stick. Religion may be a poor choice of wording, but without some form of guidelines we would be nomadic raping pillaging, barbarians still. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Like it or not religion is the ethical yard stick. Religion may be a poor choice of wording, but without some form of guidelines we would be nomadic raping pillaging, barbarians still. Agreed, and when I made the same statement certain people here seemed to believe I was taking a far right stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Like it or not religion is the ethical yard stick. It certainly isn't. You have to do a heck of a lot of picking and choosing in "holy books" to get to something approaching a moral yard stick. Not to mention everybody's interpretation tends to differ. Basic morality is something all of us (minus a few psychopaths) have, and the rules of morality are anything but static unlike religion. What could be considered ethical 100 years ago can very well be unethical or immoral today. The holy books haven't changed a letter meanwhile. But religion does like to take credit for it, that much is true. In the meantime it's fascinating to watch some of the more "enthusiastic" practitioners of the Christian religions rail against government policies that aid the poor. There's plenty of quotes to find in their good book that would suggest the Jesus character was rather fond of the idea of the rich giving to the poor, if they wanted to be truly "blessed". Selective reading I suppose. Edited November 9, 2012 by JCviggen 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think a tax credit for religious donations is crazy when the main stream churches are tax exempt also You want to give, go right ahead. When we are looking to cut virtually every social program, but no way that tax right off will be touch. Again BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 So you're against faith based charity essentially Mike? You realize how big a portion of the charitable support for the homeless, the abused and mentally challenged is provided by faith based services, don't you? If you want to encourage support of these efforts rather than having all of it come from tax dollars (which people work very hard to avoid paying) then you encourage donations through tax breaks. It certainly isn't. You have to do a heck of a lot of picking and choosing in "holy books" to get to something approaching a moral yard stick. Not to mention everybody's interpretation tends to differ. Basic morality is something all of us (minus a few psychopaths) have, and the rules of morality are anything but static unlike religion. What could be considered ethical 100 years ago can very well be unethical or immoral today. The holy books haven't changed a letter meanwhile. But religion does like to take credit for it, that much is true. In the meantime it's fascinating to watch some of the more "enthusiastic" practitioners of the Christian religions rail against government policies that aid the poor. There's plenty of quotes to find in their good book that would suggest the Jesus character was rather fond of the idea of the rich giving to the poor, if they wanted to be truly "blessed". Selective reading I suppose. Funny, but the morality on which this country was based comes directly from a sense of general Christianity that provide a moral guide to every citizen. You read this directly in the writings of the Federalist Papers where the call out is that a moral guide exists and it is inculcated through a faithful attitude. Those principles aren't taught in schools. They should be taught in homes but where the standards of morality are declining within a society it is because the general citizenship is abandoning its moral moorings. (I think Bork nailed this in his Slouching Toward Gomorrah - I don't entirely agree with the source he places the blame upon, but I do agree that radical individualism coupled with egalitarianism - economically speaking - are driving it) Your reading on this Jan tries to post reactively extract that reality from the truth that history defines. Like I said before, America is inherently different from the Netherlands and most of Europe specifically because we don't see that issue the same way you do. Religion came first. These philosophical principles you call modernity are simply dark shadows on a cave wall built as interpretations of Man lacking enlightenment and trying to figure things out for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I'm out of pocket so bear with that. If want to tithe, are you only tithing for a tax credit? No. If you are compelled to give, you still will. Agreed churches etc are great at helping. My point is they want to take away my home tax credit, but won't touch donation credit, BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Mike if they strip the Mortgage interest / tax deduction, I guarantee they'll strip the charitable giving one as well. But one lens to look at this as to why they are different: The first one only enriches and reinforces the status of a group of people who are doing well enough economically to own their own home. The second one motivates the donations of money to provide for those who are worse off and quite possibly without a roof over their heads or who don't know where their next meal will come from. The government has an incentive to encourage the kind of activity that the latter delivers.And in reality, it's not even about faith based organizations but instead nonprofit tax exempt organizations. That's where the donation status happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 If we are going to cut, let's cut But it's the blending of church and state again that I find offensive. Maybe I'm a libiterion after all llol The home deduction was to help people get that roof over their head If you are donating to church, you are still going to if you lost a small percent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts