Who Do You Trust?

The poll shows the republicans have the "love" of this board. Says more about who is here than weather any of the gov
players are trust worthy. We all burn coal........not very politically correct. What party is less concerned with political
correctness? Ah......grass hopper.....

It also shows that, just like the this nation in general, this board is changing too. (I think if we had run a similar poll (Dem vs Repub) one year ago, instead of 39% vs 61% ...it would have been over 90% for the Repubs....probably over 95%)

Devil505 wrote:It also shows that, just the this nation in general, the board is changing too. (I think if we had run a similar poll (Dem vs Repub) one year ago, instead of 39% vs 61% ...it would have been over 90% for the Repubs....probably over 95%)

You assume that folks see a difference between dems/repub. I'm seeing more and more in my conversations that politicians are politicians regardless of their animal of choice.

Recent congressional approval ratings are low enough that I think it reflects overall dissatisfaciton with both parties.

OldAA130 wrote:I'm seeing more and more in my conversations that politicians are politicians regardless of their animal of choice.

There's still a pretty strong anti-Dem opinion here.

Devil505 wrote:

OldAA130 wrote:I'm seeing more and more in my conversations that politicians are politicians regardless of their animal of choice.

There's still a pretty strong anti-Dem opinion here.

For me at least it's a matter of social issues, fiscal issues, and overall level of "perceived corruption" amongst individuals in the party. The gop used to better satisfy my own positions on these items. anymore, they all pretty much melt together regardless of party affiliation. In otherwords, the differences between the parties have all but disappeared.

In this pole, I voted for the senate republicans only because of this background. After listening to what obama has said over the past year I disagree with his approach to many issues facing america (not that this really matters...). On merit though? I trust the gop about as much as obama.

OldAA130 wrote:In otherwords, the differences between the parties have all but disappeared.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. I think the differences between the two major parties this year is more stark and obvious than at any other time in my 62 year lifetime, & if you go by the national election results, so do a great majority of the American voters. Tough to "spin" the rebuke of the Republican Party on 11/6 as anything but a loss of favor/trust amongst most Americans.

Devil505 wrote:

OldAA130 wrote:In otherwords, the differences between the parties have all but disappeared.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. I think the differences between the two major parties this year is more stark and obvious than at any other time in my 62 year lifetime, & if you go by the national election results, so do a great majority of the American voters. Tough to "spin" the rebuke of the Republican Party on 11/6 as anything but a loss of favor/trust amongst most Americans.

No spin here. Most Americans are brainless sheep who didn't know they had another choice. What's different about Obama?

GWB borrows and spends, BHO borrows and spends. Two wars, "renditions", erosion of our rights, open borders, globalization, and on and on.

I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

jpete wrote:I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

One has the intelligence of a law professor the other has the intelligence of a baseball team owner with connections. Both have or had to deal with the reality of getting something done in Congress.

I was interested by the Weimar Republic refs and, to be sure, the idea of huge debt to stimulate the economy is not without its potential dangers. (But we should remember, part of Germany's problem was that their economy was being sucked dry by the Versailles reparations -- which, IMO, are the most credible reason for the rise of a demagogue like Hitler. Germany was placed in economically desperate straits by external forces. That's quite different from our situation, unless you consider the Iraq war to be our "reparations." )

In any event, the risks of the alternative of not stimulating the economy are very well-known, because that's exactly what Herbert Hoover did. Or, rather, didn't do. And we're sure not looking for that result.

So the concept is to stoke the fire of the economy to keep people working, buying things and paying taxes in order to prevent things from grinding to a halt. Of course there are risks. It will need to be managed closely (unlike last fall's bank bailout party) and not every dollar spent will be on a bridge, since that's not the only sector of the economy that's been hurt.

However, so far as I'm aware, there aren't any credible economists running around saying Hoover's method is preferable to the stimulus approach. If there were, Bush 43 would have had them standing behind him in Sept while telling us why there would be no bailout. Put another way, the "choose your poison: Hoover or the Weimar Republic" debate has been had and Hoover lost -- again. And I'm not an economist but I have to believe that the experts know what happened in the Weimar Republic and believe that can be avoided here.

jpete wrote:I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

Yeah....I guess you're right........Didn't President Obama promise to fix all our problems in FOURTEEN DAYS?!?!

What the heck is taking so long? Is the guy a slacker or what?

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

Yeah....I guess you're right........Didn't President Obama promise to fix all our problems in FOURTEEN DAYS?!?!

And if he was even remotely doing the "right" things, I'd give him credit.

But appointing 3 tax evaders in a row(so far), bringing in the entire Clinton administration, and trying to outspend 8 years of GWB inside those 14 days, frankly, doesn't impress me.

stockingfull wrote:I was interested by the Weimar Republic refs and, to be sure, the idea of huge debt to stimulate the economy is not without its potential dangers. (But we should remember, part of Germany's problem was that their economy was being sucked dry by the Versailles reparations -- which, IMO, are the most credible reason for the rise of a demagogue like Hitler. Germany was placed in economically desperate straits by external forces. That's quite different from our situation, unless you consider the Iraq war to be our "reparations." )

In any event, the risks of the alternative of not stimulating the economy are very well-known, because that's exactly what Herbert Hoover did. Or, rather, didn't do. And we're sure not looking for that result.

So the concept is to stoke the fire of the economy to keep people working, buying things and paying taxes in order to prevent things from grinding to a halt. Of course there are risks. It will need to be managed closely (unlike last fall's bank bailout party) and not every dollar spent will be on a bridge, since that's not the only sector of the economy that's been hurt.

However, so far as I'm aware, there aren't any credible economists running around saying Hoover's method is preferable to the stimulus approach. If there were, Bush 43 would have had them standing behind him in Sept while telling us why there would be no bailout. Put another way, the "choose your poison: Hoover or the Weimar Republic" debate has been had and Hoover lost -- again. And I'm not an economist but I have to believe that the experts know what happened in the Weimar Republic and believe that can be avoided here.

Government fiddling is almost never helpful. I'll point you here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.

jpete wrote:

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

Yeah....I guess you're right........Didn't President Obama promise to fix all our problems in FOURTEEN DAYS?!?!

And if he was even remotely doing the "right" things, I'd give him credit.

But appointing 3 tax evaders in a row(so far), bringing in the entire Clinton administration, and trying to outspend 8 years of GWB inside those 14 days, frankly, doesn't impress me.

& you have certainly given him enough time to fairly judge him, haven't you?

Yanche wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm not seeing any difference. Flip a coin. Pick your poison.

One has the intelligence of a law professor the other has the intelligence of a baseball team owner with connections. Both have or had to deal with the reality of getting something done in Congress.

So he's a law professor, BFD. Doesn't make him right. He just appointed an AG that doesn't believe in the second amendment. That's all I need to know.

It's easy to "get things done" the hard part is doing the "right" things. And anyone who makes it to the presidency almost automatically guarantees that they aren't going to do what MUST be done, only what will get them a second term.