Comments on: Obama and the politics of party unity Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Wetsu Thu, 17 May 2012 19:20:14 +0000 Tom G2; Free land meant a govt. handout usually, for poor immigrants, who increased the wealth of a country. While people on both sides of the aisle are just as you describe, if you are on the right side of the aisle, you risk being labeled a RINO if you actually vote for that conviction. Heard this before; I agree,& you can add anti-intellectual, anti-career civil servant, and anti-media (except Fox).
And let me repeat jaham;
What frustrates me about the Democratic party is their negligence concerning fiscal and economic issues. While many of their initiatives sound enticing, they are not always financially and economicaly feasible.

I wish there was a party that promoted business investment and thus job creation: cut taxes across the board, remove all loopholes, effect efficient regulation and get rid of the rest, spend on infrastructure, spend on education, open free trade, get our fiscal order and prodive certainty concerning the aformentioned issues AND at the same time got it’s pesky fingers out of individuals lives: let gays marry, let people have abortions, let people use drugs, that is their perogative and not the business of the federal government

By: melgurney3 Tue, 15 May 2012 22:24:54 +0000 No doubt the anti-gay knee-jerk reaction will drag far more anti-Obama zealots to the polls than will be lured by support gay rights. I suspect it may cost him the election.

And if Obama loses, a huge number of people will wave their arms in celebration, thinking they’ve done God’s work by throwing him out of office. Then, as millionaire Romney and his gang shift business policies ever further to the right, those strongly religious supporters will learn that the party of tax-cuts-for-the-rich doesn’t care about their welfare at all.

It’s a cycle going back for decades — Republicans throw a party, crash the country, democrats come in and try to straighten things out. Repeat. Carter, Clinton, Obama — they don’t get in until things are broken by the Republicans. Guess what happens when Mitt takes over? Party and crash.

By: heardthisbefore Tue, 15 May 2012 14:04:07 +0000 Due to the inherent nature of the voting bloc amalgam called “The Democratic Party”, if the GOP were a “STATIC ENTITY” with the views and values of the time of the first Bush Administration, the 2012 Presidential election cycle would produce more gain for the GOP…But in REALITY, with the Republicans showing a nonsensical bent at pursuing a radical anti-feminist, anti-worker, anti-senior with legislation to match at the State AND the Federal Level, the GOP has WIDENED the “CHOICE GAP” for the Democrats providing a “There’s NO Alternative” condition at the Polls this November…
MY opinion is that the OVEREAGER AND OVERZEALOUS GOP blew a real chance for big gains…

By: TomG2 Tue, 15 May 2012 00:31:47 +0000 Sounds like Ms. Freeland’s evolution is not complete yet. People on both sides of the aisle recognize that minority rights are on a different plane than governance. Denying someone’s rights and personhood has no “values”. Perhaps the author should meditate on what the concept of ‘free land’ really means, now and in US history.

By: trevorh Sat, 12 May 2012 22:17:59 +0000 The fight between the left and the right can be symbolized by the fight in 2 economic schools, Keynes and Hayek.

The Supreme Keynesian Voodoo priests believe in higher inflation, tax on income, high spending and consumption, while the Zealot Hayekian Templar acolytes believe in the opposite low inflation, tax on consumption, high production and saving.

The interesting thing is that both are right and both are wrong. It depends on the situation, so whether we call on the priests or the acolytes also depends.

There are several levels just like macro and micro economics. We have economics at the global level, regional level, country level, local level and individual level.

I think the entities that are running a deficit right now needs to call on the acolytes. This applies to the US, southern Europe. The entities that are running surplus right now (Northern Europe, Eastern Asia) should be calling on the priests.

Paul Krugman was not completely wrong, but he probably should be advising Germany, Japan and China instead.

I think the way to get out of this is somehow make the people in surplus countries spend and ultimately have balance at every level. The tricky part is the saving everywhere even in surplus countries probably gets clogged up in the corporations and the rich, and it’s not easy to make these people spend while demonizing them.

To make the haves and rich spend, liberals embrace the view of confiscating them through higher tax, which is counter-productive because they will just try to squeeze it on something else. Liberal economists also combine their policy with inflation pressure to make the rich spend.

Too bad it hurts the poor more because the rich have their assets in hard capital (like land, factories, oil fields and profitable companies for ex) which will be shielded by inflation of basic consumption. This leaves the poor and the mass with even less money to spend on anything other basic consumption, now they wonder why there is no demand? There are demand! there is just no ability to pay for those demand.

[Note: oil price though increases because of no one’s fault. More wealthy people all over the world caused it. Drive smaller and live closer to your work place! Stop blaming]

We can only hope that the rich and the profitable companies understand their responsibility and spend to avoid crazy people coming out with the pitch forks. Whether it is spending on luxury items and vacations, spending on new employees or equipment or new ventures. Even spending on dividends and shares buy back would help.

While we are at it, the angry mass in the West also needs to understand good life is not a birthright because of their accident of birthplace. Don’t listen to politicians. You need to be better to live better. Most of you possess skills, labor ability and productivity that are not really in demand and are quite mediocre anyway.

By: Eideard Sat, 12 May 2012 16:21:43 +0000 When did the Right in America even produce an economic revolution? The 18th Century?

Ever since, it has been the Right who has dragged their feet holding back against any sensible economics which brought us back from depressions and recessions.

That hasn’t changed since FDR. The Right costs almost as many capitalists money as they do working people. Their dedication to the biggest extractive industries + leeches like the insurance industry are their greatest consistency. Everyone else could drop dead as far as Republicans and today’s papier mache conservatives are concerned.

By: DifferentOne Sat, 12 May 2012 16:07:15 +0000 I would like to hear the author’s analysis of Obama’s hypocritical position on the War on Drugs.

Consider all the vested interests that benefit economically from the War of Drugs: Weapons manufacturers, private prison operators, police, lawyers, judges, etc.

Is it their influence that has persuaded Obama to adopt his appallingly unimaginative resistance to change?

By: STRAIGHTMAN Sat, 12 May 2012 08:37:23 +0000 Ummmm, the author of this commentary does not seem to get it.It is not about Gay Marriage, or Gays, or anything remotely associated with this topic, the piece seems to be typical diversionary tactics, in a further attempt by media to attempt to divert the public’s attention from what is really important.No Way Democrats are not going to vote for this man in the same numbers as previously. He blew it.So now he and other assorted creatures of the political fauna are now “Adamant Gay Supporters !!!” ??
Umm….excuse me.. the train wreck is just around the bend, why can’t these same politicos pull their collective heads out of their a$$es and stop the anal obsession. For once, why can’t politicians do something right. It is pretty simple to understand right?
Massive unemployment, loss of manufacturing jobs, the mortgage default crises, continual state of war on an undefined enemy…..sheesh.
It’s The Economy Stupid !!!

By: BajaArizona Sat, 12 May 2012 07:56:26 +0000 Unfortunately, while many Americans have moved in their opinions toward equality for gay people, their enthusiasm is nothing compared with the acute emotional disgust felt by social conservatives. This combined with the poor economy and mass amnesia regarding which party is most responsible for it means that the Republicans are poised to gain the most from Obama’s newest position on gay marriage.

By: notnews Fri, 11 May 2012 19:21:33 +0000 Is voting Democrat against a wealthy person’s economic interests if they believe that government provides neccessary services and thus needs funding?