I Wish, When It Matters, Politicians Will Not Listen To What The American People Have To Say

[candycorn]

There are times when the leaders we elect should go by polling data and there are times when we should let our leaders lead--there was a reason we voted for her or him after all, wasn't there?

This, to me, isn't one of those times. We spent, and wasted, 12 years fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq with partners that couldn't give two shits about our interest. We shouldn't do it again.

And now the President wants to use limited air-strikes. I can get behind that but it's not going to do any thing permanent to stop this problem. If it can't be done with drones or missiles, I don't think we should be doing it...no American soldier's lives on the line anywhere in the ME. As for civilians and reporters...they know the risks involved of being there.

 

[candycorn]

So you wish we had a dictator.

Rome did that. They would give all the power to one man to fix the problem and then he would give it back when he was done. Until the last one, when Caesar didn't give the power back.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. It just lead to over a millennium of the dark ages.

How exactly did you become a staff member? That kind of blows my mind.

Following the rules and writing common sense.

We don't need dictators to fix our problems. We need people doing their duty to themselves, their families, and their communities.

So you actually think I am proposing a dictatorship? No. What I am proposing is that when it comes to complex issues that average joe Americans do not understand, we listen to the experts, not politicians themselves.

It's all or nothing with the Cons.

 

[Billy000]

So you wish we had a dictator.

Rome did that. They would give all the power to one man to fix the problem and then he would give it back when he was done. Until the last one, when Caesar didn't give the power back.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. It just lead to over a millennium of the dark ages.

How exactly did you become a staff member? That kind of blows my mind.

Following the rules and writing common sense.

We don't need dictators to fix our problems. We need people doing their duty to themselves, their families, and their communities.

So you actually think I am proposing a dictatorship? No. What I am proposing is that when it comes to complex issues that average joe Americans do not understand, we listen to the experts, not politicians themselves.

It's all or nothing with the Cons.

Very true.

 

[JoeNormal]

So you wish we had a dictator.

Rome did that. They would give all the power to one man to fix the problem and then he would give it back when he was done. Until the last one, when Caesar didn't give the power back.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. It just lead to over a millennium of the dark ages.

How exactly did you become a staff member? That kind of blows my mind.

Following the rules and writing common sense.

We don't need dictators to fix our problems. We need people doing their duty to themselves, their families, and their communities.

So you actually think I am proposing a dictatorship? No. What I am proposing is that when it comes to complex issues that average joe Americans do not understand, we listen to the experts, not politicians themselves.

Many people (I'm thinking right wingers) take it as an affront to their freedom that they should listen to anyone more educated on a particular topic than they are.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama's plan on ISIS reminded me just how dumb the American people are. I like Obama, but anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence knows that he is bullshitting the American people on this issue. There is no way airstrikes alone will defeat ISIS. If they are to be defeated, it will require a full scale war. Whether or not we should launch a full scale war is a separate issue however. His speech was simply an attempt to placate the American people who do not want boots on the ground. The truth is Obama and the Pentagon know full well a full scale war is what would be needed.

This issue isn't really my point so much. It is a part of a broad point which is that Americans are stupid. Americans, on average, are not smart enough to understand issues like war strategy, economics, and geo politics. It pisses me off that our politicians come up with bullshit solutions to our nation's problems that simply sound good to the American people. They are solutions that the American people can easily understand but, in reality, are not good solutions.

When it comes to fixing complex problems, politicians need to stop listening to what the American people think and listen to what educated experts say about them. Let's break down some examples of solutions that work yet Americans hate so our politicians don't do them.

To pay down the debt, we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, not cut them.

To create jobs, tax cuts are not the solution. Tax cuts, especially the ones for the wealthy, do very little to stimulate economic growth. They do more to add to our national debt than they do let business grow. I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to cut taxes, but facts and reality say otherwise.

I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to enact huge and broad spending cuts, but in reality, when it comes to cutting spending (which in itself is important), these cuts must be carefully selected and analyzed. This is something the tea baggers can't seem to grasp. When it comes to cutting spending, a scapel is needed - not a lazy sledgehammer.

I think back to the 2012 election. Both Romney and Obama ran on the issue of paying down the debt. They both came up with easy to understand strategies for doing this, but experts dismissed both strategies as being unrealistic.

"To create jobs, tax cuts are not the solution... but facts and reality say otherwise."
You make the generalization without substantiation.... check the facts first!
Now for the FACTS:
First Deal with the realities of the last MAJOR tax cuts by Bush.

1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

Year	revenue(billions)	increase/ decrease	Change	Reason
2000	$1,211
2001	$1,145	-$ 66	-5.47%	-- remember Wall street closed, no flights 3 days destructions!
2002	$1,006	-$139	-12.14%	In spite of dot.com/911 losses tax writes offs..
2003	$ 926	-$ 81	-8.04%	dot.com/911 losses tax write offs
2004	$ 998	$ 73 up!	7.87% ^	Tax cuts STARTED.. in spite of tax revenues UP!
2005	$1,206	$207 up!	20.76%^	Again tax cuts in play.. REVENUES UP!!!
2006	$1,398	$192 UP!	15.95%^	AGAIN tax cuts but REVENUES UP!!!
2007	$1,534	$136 UP!	9.72%^	Again tax cuts BUT revenues UP!!!
2008	$1,450	-$ 84	- 5.45%	$500 billion pulled out of MMF on 9/18/08 in 2 hours!

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So with ALL these above FACTS substantiated with sources AGAIN...
Tell me where TAX revenues decreased BECAUSE of TAX CUTS?????
AND please once and for all why not admit the above events had a DIRECT relationship to tax revenues!

wait for it, he'll be calling you immature, childish and wail about how he is right and you are all wrong.
good post

 

[Avatar4321]

So you actually think I am proposing a dictatorship? No. What I am proposing is that when it comes to complex issues that average joe Americans do not understand, we listen to the experts, not politicians themselves.

Yes, you see a politician who is ignoring the people he represent to do what he want, is called a dictator.

The problems of our society will not be fixed by anyone but the people.

 

[Avatar4321]

There are times when the leaders we elect should go by polling data and there are times when we should let our leaders lead--there was a reason we voted for her or him after all, wasn't there?

This, to me, isn't one of those times. We spent, and wasted, 12 years fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq with partners that couldn't give two shits about our interest. We shouldn't do it again.

And now the President wants to use limited air-strikes. I can get behind that but it's not going to do any thing permanent to stop this problem. If it can't be done with drones or missiles, I don't think we should be doing it...no American soldier's lives on the line anywhere in the ME. As for civilians and reporters...they know the risks involved of being there.

Do you honestly think no boots will be on the ground? Sending "Advisors" is exactly how we started getting involved in Vietnam.

 

[Avatar4321]

Many people (I'm thinking right wingers) take it as an affront to their freedom that they should listen to anyone more educated on a particular topic than they are.

Actually, I just find it an affront to my intelligence to pretend we need to empower politicians to ignore the people and pretend there are no serious consequences to that.

And I find the people are far more educated on topics than you give them credit for. I don't think people are as stupid as you guys seem to think. There is a reason people think the President's plan for ISIL is stupid. Because it is. And people on both sides of the aisle see that.

 

[Stephanie]

Many people (I'm thinking right wingers) take it as an affront to their freedom that they should listen to anyone more educated on a particular topic than they are.

Actually, I just find it an affront to my intelligence to pretend we need to empower politicians to ignore the people and pretend there are no serious consequences to that.

And I find the people are far more educated on topics than you give them credit for. I don't think people are as stupid as you guys seem to think. There is a reason people think the President's plan for ISIL is stupid. Because it is. And people on both sides of the aisle see that.

no kidding, we should all want puke that he even suggest that. He lives in the wrong country. North Korea sounds more his speed

 

[EconChick]

There are times when the leaders we elect should go by polling data and there are times when we should let our leaders lead--there was a reason we voted for her or him after all, wasn't there?

This, to me, isn't one of those times. We spent, and wasted, 12 years fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq with partners that couldn't give two shits about our interest. We shouldn't do it again.

And now the President wants to use limited air-strikes. I can get behind that but it's not going to do any thing permanent to stop this problem. If it can't be done with drones or missiles, I don't think we should be doing it...no American soldier's lives on the line anywhere in the ME. As for civilians and reporters...they know the risks involved of being there.

Do you honestly think no boots will be on the ground? Sending "Advisors" is exactly how we started getting involved in Vietnam.

Exactly. It sickens me that so many Americans today are so ignorant of history.

 

[EconChick]

Obama's plan on ISIS reminded me just how dumb the American people are. I like Obama, but anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence knows that he is bullshitting the American people on this issue. There is no way airstrikes alone will defeat ISIS. If they are to be defeated, it will require a full scale war. Whether or not we should launch a full scale war is a separate issue however. His speech was simply an attempt to placate the American people who do not want boots on the ground. The truth is Obama and the Pentagon know full well a full scale war is what would be needed.

This issue isn't really my point so much. It is a part of a broad point which is that Americans are stupid. Americans, on average, are not smart enough to understand issues like war strategy, economics, and geo politics. It pisses me off that our politicians come up with bullshit solutions to our nation's problems that simply sound good to the American people. They are solutions that the American people can easily understand but, in reality, are not good solutions.

When it comes to fixing complex problems, politicians need to stop listening to what the American people think and listen to what educated experts say about them. Let's break down some examples of solutions that work yet Americans hate so our politicians don't do them.

To pay down the debt, we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, not cut them.

To create jobs, tax cuts are not the solution. Tax cuts, especially the ones for the wealthy, do very little to stimulate economic growth. They do more to add to our national debt than they do let business grow. I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to cut taxes, but facts and reality say otherwise.

I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to enact huge and broad spending cuts, but in reality, when it comes to cutting spending (which in itself is important), these cuts must be carefully selected and analyzed. This is something the tea baggers can't seem to grasp. When it comes to cutting spending, a scapel is needed - not a lazy sledgehammer.

I think back to the 2012 election. Both Romney and Obama ran on the issue of paying down the debt. They both came up with easy to understand strategies for doing this, but experts dismissed both strategies as being unrealistic.

it is logical that cutting spending & increasing income can pay down the debt. If there was a laser-like focus on doing that, I could probably get behind it, however, here's the problem. Both parties have shown an unwillingness to commit to harsh fiscal discipline. As a tax payer, I just don't trust the government with my money that I give them now. Why should I give them more?

SO. WELL. SAID.

 

[candycorn]

There are times when the leaders we elect should go by polling data and there are times when we should let our leaders lead--there was a reason we voted for her or him after all, wasn't there?

This, to me, isn't one of those times. We spent, and wasted, 12 years fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq with partners that couldn't give two shits about our interest. We shouldn't do it again.

And now the President wants to use limited air-strikes. I can get behind that but it's not going to do any thing permanent to stop this problem. If it can't be done with drones or missiles, I don't think we should be doing it...no American soldier's lives on the line anywhere in the ME. As for civilians and reporters...they know the risks involved of being there.

Do you honestly think no boots will be on the ground? Sending "Advisors" is exactly how we started getting involved in Vietnam.

Pfft...

Can you give me a time frame? Are you talking about from now to the end of the Obama Administration or the next 10 years or what?

I would say zero sizable boots on the ground for the rest of the Obama administration. By sizable I mean over 1,000 documented American soldiers. Documented being the most important word in that sentence. I doubt we'll ever be totally without a presence in the ME.

I will say that in the next 10 years or so, we will find "just cause" to send troops back in. Whether Clinton does it when she is President is another matter.

 

[Rotagilla]

bush did it.....

 

[candycorn]

If you want the majority to rule everything, shouldn't Obama have the power and authority to do whatever he wants then since he was elected by a plurality of voters? Otherwise...why have elections at all; just put everything up to a vote.

 

[KGB]

Obama's plan on ISIS reminded me just how dumb the American people are. I like Obama, but anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence knows that he is bullshitting the American people on this issue. There is no way airstrikes alone will defeat ISIS. If they are to be defeated, it will require a full scale war. Whether or not we should launch a full scale war is a separate issue however. His speech was simply an attempt to placate the American people who do not want boots on the ground. The truth is Obama and the Pentagon know full well a full scale war is what would be needed.

This issue isn't really my point so much. It is a part of a broad point which is that Americans are stupid. Americans, on average, are not smart enough to understand issues like war strategy, economics, and geo politics. It pisses me off that our politicians come up with bullshit solutions to our nation's problems that simply sound good to the American people. They are solutions that the American people can easily understand but, in reality, are not good solutions.

When it comes to fixing complex problems, politicians need to stop listening to what the American people think and listen to what educated experts say about them. Let's break down some examples of solutions that work yet Americans hate so our politicians don't do them.

To pay down the debt, we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, not cut them.

To create jobs, tax cuts are not the solution. Tax cuts, especially the ones for the wealthy, do very little to stimulate economic growth. They do more to add to our national debt than they do let business grow. I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to cut taxes, but facts and reality say otherwise.

I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to enact huge and broad spending cuts, but in reality, when it comes to cutting spending (which in itself is important), these cuts must be carefully selected and analyzed. This is something the tea baggers can't seem to grasp. When it comes to cutting spending, a scapel is needed - not a lazy sledgehammer.

I think back to the 2012 election. Both Romney and Obama ran on the issue of paying down the debt. They both came up with easy to understand strategies for doing this, but experts dismissed both strategies as being unrealistic.

it is logical that cutting spending & increasing income can pay down the debt. If there was a laser-like focus on doing that, I could probably get behind it, however, here's the problem. Both parties have shown an unwillingness to commit to harsh fiscal discipline. As a tax payer, I just don't trust the government with my money that I give them now. Why should I give them more?

Increasing income would do very little to pay down the debt. Not even remotely close.

increasing taxes is increasing government income.

 

[Billy000]

Obama's plan on ISIS reminded me just how dumb the American people are. I like Obama, but anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence knows that he is bullshitting the American people on this issue. There is no way airstrikes alone will defeat ISIS. If they are to be defeated, it will require a full scale war. Whether or not we should launch a full scale war is a separate issue however. His speech was simply an attempt to placate the American people who do not want boots on the ground. The truth is Obama and the Pentagon know full well a full scale war is what would be needed.

This issue isn't really my point so much. It is a part of a broad point which is that Americans are stupid. Americans, on average, are not smart enough to understand issues like war strategy, economics, and geo politics. It pisses me off that our politicians come up with bullshit solutions to our nation's problems that simply sound good to the American people. They are solutions that the American people can easily understand but, in reality, are not good solutions.

When it comes to fixing complex problems, politicians need to stop listening to what the American people think and listen to what educated experts say about them. Let's break down some examples of solutions that work yet Americans hate so our politicians don't do them.

To pay down the debt, we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, not cut them.

To create jobs, tax cuts are not the solution. Tax cuts, especially the ones for the wealthy, do very little to stimulate economic growth. They do more to add to our national debt than they do let business grow. I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to cut taxes, but facts and reality say otherwise.

I know it SOUNDS like it makes sense to enact huge and broad spending cuts, but in reality, when it comes to cutting spending (which in itself is important), these cuts must be carefully selected and analyzed. This is something the tea baggers can't seem to grasp. When it comes to cutting spending, a scapel is needed - not a lazy sledgehammer.

I think back to the 2012 election. Both Romney and Obama ran on the issue of paying down the debt. They both came up with easy to understand strategies for doing this, but experts dismissed both strategies as being unrealistic.

it is logical that cutting spending & increasing income can pay down the debt. If there was a laser-like focus on doing that, I could probably get behind it, however, here's the problem. Both parties have shown an unwillingness to commit to harsh fiscal discipline. As a tax payer, I just don't trust the government with my money that I give them now. Why should I give them more?

Increasing income would do very little to pay down the debt. Not even remotely close.

increasing taxes is increasing government income.

Gotcha. I thought you meant personal income.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So you wish we had a dictator.

Rome did that. They would give all the power to one man to fix the problem and then he would give it back when he was done. Until the last one, when Caesar didn't give the power back.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. It just lead to over a millennium of the dark ages.

How exactly did you become a staff member? That kind of blows my mind.

Following the rules and writing common sense.

We don't need dictators to fix our problems. We need people doing their duty to themselves, their families, and their communities.

Also being smarter than the average lib on here.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So you wish we had a dictator.

Rome did that. They would give all the power to one man to fix the problem and then he would give it back when he was done. Until the last one, when Caesar didn't give the power back.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. It just lead to over a millennium of the dark ages.

How exactly did you become a staff member? That kind of blows my mind.

Following the rules and writing common sense.

We don't need dictators to fix our problems. We need people doing their duty to themselves, their families, and their communities.

So you actually think I am proposing a dictatorship? No. What I am proposing is that when it comes to complex issues that average joe Americans do not understand, we listen to the experts, not politicians themselves.

It's all or nothing with the Cons.

Very true.

It is you idiot libtards who like dictators. The biggest idiot, obamashitforbrains, would love to be one.

 

[JoeNormal]

Many people (I'm thinking right wingers) take it as an affront to their freedom that they should listen to anyone more educated on a particular topic than they are.

Actually, I just find it an affront to my intelligence to pretend we need to empower politicians to ignore the people and pretend there are no serious consequences to that.

And I find the people are far more educated on topics than you give them credit for. I don't think people are as stupid as you guys seem to think. There is a reason people think the President's plan for ISIL is stupid. Because it is. And people on both sides of the aisle see that.

I'm not talking about politicians per se. They don't trust climate change experts. They don't trust social scientists. They don't trust economists. Basically, they don't trust any one who doesn't tell them what they want to hear. For some reason, they do listen to pea brains like Mitch McConnell when he says that creating complete gridlock in Congress is a good idea.