People Who Don't Vote Are The Problem

[sealybobo]

On the one hand, you have an "eat the rich" party that taxes and spends.

On the other hand, you have a "be afraid all the time" party that borrows and spends.

This will NEVER change as long as you keep playing along with them.

Barrow and spend and eat the rich, you just described a democrat. or at least as long as obama has been president. How much did he barrow from China?

Tell us about the budget surpluses of the Bush years.

Then go and turn on any right wing hack media web site or propaganda 24 hour "news" channel and tell me they aren't all about whining and being afraid all the time.

There was not any clinton surplus try again.

There was a projected surplus. There would have been a surplus. Bush destroyed that projection. What did you expect would happen when he passed all those tax breaks to the rich, spent all that money on two wars and sent all those jobs overseas?

You do realize all those high paying manufacturing employees were paying a lot of income taxes. When you got rid of their jobs you starved the treasury of those taxes those employees would have otherwise paid.

Thank God Obama is the president.

There was no Clinton surplus YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS?
As for thanking God about obama, the American voter spoke loud and clear how they feel about obama and the democrats last Tuesday

No, they spoke loud and clear in 2012. What they did this year was not show up to vote for either party. That should tell you how they feel about the GOP too, not just Obama and the Dems.

Your faithful showed up and voted. So did ours. Unfortunately the independents didn't show up.

There may not have been an actual surplus but there would have been if Bush didn't happen. And trust me, if Bush had that "surplus" you can be damn sure you'd be calling it a surplus.

 

[g5000]

With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, Obama could barely get shit done.

Then with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, he couldn't get any shit done at all.

Democratic voters realized that even if the Democrats kept the Senate, Obama was not going to get any more shit done. Obama agenda on the ballot or not, they realized he is completely incompetent at achieving any of it. So they stayed home and smoked a bowl.

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong. That's why you're a liberal. You've ignored the marketplace. Part of the marketplace is paying employees enough to keep them coming back. If you don't your competitor scoops them up and you die.

Exactly. If I cut the pay of my electricians and apprentices, they would all go to work for my competitors tomorrow morning.

Not if your competitors are all paying what you're paying.

Won't happen. You don't understand competition. If you offer better wages you will attract the best employees and kick the competition's ass. The better the market the better it is for employees, more options. With a suppressed market employees have to take what they can get. Bottom up economics work better than top down economics.

I run a music school. Many of our competitors went out of business and the ones still around aren't hiring and/or they aren't paying any better than my company pays.

And you would think that we would benefit from our competitors going out of business but the reason they went out of business is because no one can afford to send their kids to music lessons.

We have 3 locations. The one location that is having trouble is in a blue collar city. The other two are in ritzy cities and they are doing just fine. This is how I see that we have two different Americas and the middle class is disappearing.

But I guess if they won't bother to vote, I don't need to worry about them. Unfortunately for me I think their ignorance negatively affects me.

Labor scarcity drives up wages. Create labor scarcity so that employers have to compete for employees. Pretty simple stuff.

I do remember in the 90's it was an employees market not an employers market. I miss those days.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Barrow and spend and eat the rich, you just described a democrat. or at least as long as obama has been president. How much did he barrow from China?

Tell us about the budget surpluses of the Bush years.

Then go and turn on any right wing hack media web site or propaganda 24 hour "news" channel and tell me they aren't all about whining and being afraid all the time.

There was not any clinton surplus try again.

There was a projected surplus. There would have been a surplus. Bush destroyed that projection. What did you expect would happen when he passed all those tax breaks to the rich, spent all that money on two wars and sent all those jobs overseas?

You do realize all those high paying manufacturing employees were paying a lot of income taxes. When you got rid of their jobs you starved the treasury of those taxes those employees would have otherwise paid.

Thank God Obama is the president.

There was no Clinton surplus YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS?
As for thanking God about obama, the American voter spoke loud and clear how they feel about obama and the democrats last Tuesday

No, they spoke loud and clear in 2012. What they did this year was not show up to vote for either party. That should tell you how they feel about the GOP too, not just Obama and the Dems.

Your faithful showed up and voted. So did ours. Unfortunately the independents didn't show up.

There may not have been an actual surplus but there would have been if Bush didn't happen. And trust me, if Bush had that "surplus" you can be damn sure you'd be calling it a surplus.

Guess they had a change of heart and had enough of obama and democrats.

 

[sealybobo]

With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, Obama could barely get shit done.

Then with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, he couldn't get any shit done at all.

Democratic voters realized that even if the Democrats kept the Senate, Obama was not going to get any more shit done. Obama agenda on the ballot or not, they realized he is completely incompetent at achieving any of it. So they stayed home and smoked a bowl.

This is really sad. And I remember basically Romney making this very same argument. Basically the argument goes, "Hey, even though it might not be Obama's fault that the GOP are obstructing him, if you elect me they won't do that to me, so basically reward me for the GOP's bad actions.

 

[sealybobo]

Tell us about the budget surpluses of the Bush years.

Then go and turn on any right wing hack media web site or propaganda 24 hour "news" channel and tell me they aren't all about whining and being afraid all the time.

There was not any clinton surplus try again.

There was a projected surplus. There would have been a surplus. Bush destroyed that projection. What did you expect would happen when he passed all those tax breaks to the rich, spent all that money on two wars and sent all those jobs overseas?

You do realize all those high paying manufacturing employees were paying a lot of income taxes. When you got rid of their jobs you starved the treasury of those taxes those employees would have otherwise paid.

Thank God Obama is the president.

There was no Clinton surplus YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS?
As for thanking God about obama, the American voter spoke loud and clear how they feel about obama and the democrats last Tuesday

No, they spoke loud and clear in 2012. What they did this year was not show up to vote for either party. That should tell you how they feel about the GOP too, not just Obama and the Dems.

Your faithful showed up and voted. So did ours. Unfortunately the independents didn't show up.

There may not have been an actual surplus but there would have been if Bush didn't happen. And trust me, if Bush had that "surplus" you can be damn sure you'd be calling it a surplus.

Guess they had a change of heart and had enough of obama and democrats.

Bet you Hillary wins in 2016 and we take seats back because of higher voter turn out.

And at least we have the Obama veto pen. Thank GOD!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There was not any clinton surplus try again.

There was a projected surplus. There would have been a surplus. Bush destroyed that projection. What did you expect would happen when he passed all those tax breaks to the rich, spent all that money on two wars and sent all those jobs overseas?

You do realize all those high paying manufacturing employees were paying a lot of income taxes. When you got rid of their jobs you starved the treasury of those taxes those employees would have otherwise paid.

Thank God Obama is the president.

There was no Clinton surplus YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS?
As for thanking God about obama, the American voter spoke loud and clear how they feel about obama and the democrats last Tuesday

No, they spoke loud and clear in 2012. What they did this year was not show up to vote for either party. That should tell you how they feel about the GOP too, not just Obama and the Dems.

Your faithful showed up and voted. So did ours. Unfortunately the independents didn't show up.

There may not have been an actual surplus but there would have been if Bush didn't happen. And trust me, if Bush had that "surplus" you can be damn sure you'd be calling it a surplus.

Guess they had a change of heart and had enough of obama and democrats.

Bet you Hillary wins in 2016 and we take seats back because of higher voter turn out.

And at least we have the Obama veto pen. Thank GOD!

I bet you thought the democrat wouldn't have got their asses kicked this bad either?
If the bitch runs let alone wins is all up to obama and how he handles the republicans for the next 2 years.

 

[g5000]

With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, Obama could barely get shit done.

Then with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, he couldn't get any shit done at all.

Democratic voters realized that even if the Democrats kept the Senate, Obama was not going to get any more shit done. Obama agenda on the ballot or not, they realized he is completely incompetent at achieving any of it. So they stayed home and smoked a bowl.

This is really sad. And I remember basically Romney making this very same argument. Basically the argument goes, "Hey, even though it might not be Obama's fault that the GOP are obstructing him, if you elect me they won't do that to me, so basically reward me for the GOP's bad actions.

Obama is not the first President who had to deal with a hostile Congress. Far, far from it.

Other Presidents who had to deal with hostile Congresses still got shit done. Reagan faced an overwhelming Democratic House.

So you can blame the GOP all you like, they certainly deserve some. But it does not take away from the fact that Obama is a clueless impotent moron where other Presidents were not.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

People who don't vote are not a problem. Freedom also means the freedom to opt out.

Yea, but I wish kids weren't so cynical so young anymore. I was browbeating the cashier (a twenty year-old college student) up at Ralph's Supermarket a couple of weeks ago, because she told me that although she appreciated the fact that freedom doesn't come free, and that a lot of people die for concepts like ballot boxes, she was convinced nevertheless after her last two civics and political science courses, that voting was a giant waste of time.

Like 2/3 of the rest of society her age, she felt conned by Obama, and she felt her vote didn't mean anything anyway, because big money ruled both parties, not little people like her. I kind of stuttered and left. What could I say to that? The kid was mostly right. She should still vote though. A few dozen ballots can make a big difference in issues you care about...if you care enough to devote the energy to voting over them.

 

[Papageorgio]

One hardly blame people for not wanting to vote considering parties are absolute jokes. Their apathy is understandable when all you do is chase the devil out with Beelzebub.

It is not understandable.

I can tell this is probably coming from a rich person who likes it that the masses don't vote. That's their narrative. "Oh why bother voting, their all the same" Meanwhile they're voting every 2 years because they know it matters.

How else can I tell you are rich? Who starts a sentence with "One hardly blame people...." You sound like Thurston Howell 3rd. Lovie, one knows not to mix the chardonee with the grey popoun and cavier.

Lets see the next midterm if the Republicans just sit it out because "it doesn't matter who wins". Bullshit! They know better.

How much whiney ass butt hurt do you have? You lost, you party failed to motivate, its not the problem of the rich, its the Democrats issue. Playing the war on everybody, grew thin, it's Bush's fault is laughable, nobody wanted Obama around their campaigns, hell, Biden and the Clintons lost everywhere they went. The candidates message was, I'm not Obama. It didn't work.

Your cryfest is just you being a poor loser.

Maybe Democrats need to run more MTV ads begging people to vote.

 

[mdk]

If you really think either party as our best interest at heart then you are living in fantasy world. The two party system has brought us nothing but crushing debt, endless wars, rampant corruption, and crony capitalism. So yes, one can understand why more folks aren't rushing off to the polls.

Yes because Europe's multi-party system is so much better.

That isn't what I am claiming. What we need is a viable third party filled with level headed centrists that actually want smaller government and fiscal sanity. Let the blind partisans have their Democratic and Republican parties. Two peas in a horrible horrible pod.

Even that doesn't work because those that want smaller government never seem to want to cut the programs that they like, they just want to cut programs that other people like and in the end there is no program which the majority is willing to cut.

Until people abandon the notion of "what government can do for me" and willingly step forward to take a hit on their own favored government spending, the system is on auto-pilot at best and steered by politicians divorced from the people at worst.

What we really need is a dictator to impose cuts on nation, someone immune from the wailing and hair pulling which will result as spending junkies are denied their fix of government spending. A regular politician is not immune from such angst and so he does what is expedient for HIS SURVIVAL and not what is in the best long term interests of the entire nation.

It isn't going to be easy. Nothing worth fighting for ever is though. Their should be no sacred cows when trimming our budget, all areas must be cut. The problem is petty partisan politics. When the GOP suggests cuts for the social safety net they get accused of hating the poor, when the Democrats suggest cuts to the defense budget they get accused of gutting military. It's nonsense and therefore nothing gets done. Frustrating to say the least.

It's not the politicians, it's the people. Actually, the problem is Democracy - when people find out that they can use their vote to enrich themselves, then good governance and fiscal prudence evaporate.

The people share some of the blame as well. No doubt. We need candidates that proudly state that they are going to make these cuts and do so despite the howls of their opponents.

 

[Borillar]

If it weren't for us liberals minimum wage would be $1 a hr, there would be no middle class and we would not only still be in Iraq we'd still be in Viet Nam. LOL.

Wrong. That's why you're a liberal. You've ignored the marketplace. Part of the marketplace is paying employees enough to keep them coming back. If you don't your competitor scoops them up and you die.

Exactly. If I cut the pay of my electricians and apprentices, they would all go to work for my competitors tomorrow morning.

Unless they hire Mexican electricians for $1.00 an hour

I've always said that other than the vote, the rich completely own our country and government. The only thing we have is our vote. But only 40% of the voting population voted on Tuesday. You can bet that every rich person in America voted on Tuesday. You can bet that all the Republicans that voted in 2012 and 2008 showed up to vote in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Clearly. Look at how Republicans win every midterm with low turnout but lose the general elections. You can even count 2000 and 2004 because those years were close enough for Bush to steal. But that's another conversation. Point is, basically the richest Americans are all voting every 2 years and the masses only vote every 4 years in the general elections. The blacks. The under 30's. You only have yourselves to blame. I'm done caring about you if you don't even care enough to show up and vote every 2 years. You don't think it makes a difference? It makes all the difference in the world. Stupid fucking Americans.

More excuses by Democrats. Sure...people NOT voting cost them election. Trend shows that if they would have showed up...they would have voted Republican and Democratic defeat would have been worse.

Got a link to prove that "trend" is real? I think we all know when more people not less show up, you lose.

No, that's not true. Romney would have beat Obama in 2012 if the missing blue collar white voters, who were Republican voters, had showed up. They stayed home and inflicted Obama on us for another 4 years.

Maybe blue collar workers didn't like a guy who like to fire people, outsource their jobs overseas, and owns freaking dressage horses. Country club guys who sit around the pool and collect dividend checks don't have much appeal to ordinary folks who have to work for a living.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yes because Europe's multi-party system is so much better.

That isn't what I am claiming. What we need is a viable third party filled with level headed centrists that actually want smaller government and fiscal sanity. Let the blind partisans have their Democratic and Republican parties. Two peas in a horrible horrible pod.

Even that doesn't work because those that want smaller government never seem to want to cut the programs that they like, they just want to cut programs that other people like and in the end there is no program which the majority is willing to cut.

Until people abandon the notion of "what government can do for me" and willingly step forward to take a hit on their own favored government spending, the system is on auto-pilot at best and steered by politicians divorced from the people at worst.

What we really need is a dictator to impose cuts on nation, someone immune from the wailing and hair pulling which will result as spending junkies are denied their fix of government spending. A regular politician is not immune from such angst and so he does what is expedient for HIS SURVIVAL and not what is in the best long term interests of the entire nation.

It isn't going to be easy. Nothing worth fighting for ever is though. Their should be no sacred cows when trimming our budget, all areas must be cut. The problem is petty partisan politics. When the GOP suggests cuts for the social safety net they get accused of hating the poor, when the Democrats suggest cuts to the defense budget they get accused of gutting military. It's nonsense and therefore nothing gets done. Frustrating to say the least.

It's not the politicians, it's the people. Actually, the problem is Democracy - when people find out that they can use their vote to enrich themselves, then good governance and fiscal prudence evaporate.

The people share some of the blame as well. No doubt. We need candidates that proudly state that they are going to make these cuts and do so despite the howls of their opponents.

The opponents are not the problem, it's the supporters that are the problem.

A heroin addict can have good intentions about kicking the habit, but as soon as he freely and willingly misses a fix, then the withdrawal starts and principle gets thrown out the window and he scrounges up a new fix. The only way to help that addict is to lock him in a room and impose withdrawal on him. You can bring him down slowly with methadone but he can't be in control, you have to impose the regimen on him.

Heroin addict = voter.

 

[the_human_being]

The OP is kinda right. The people who didn't show up to vote are the problem.

That's because when they do show up to vote they demonstrate a complete lack of political understanding. They're voting for who's popular, not who's policies will be productive. It's because the NO information voters stayed home 2 days ago that the democrooks were so thouroughly trounced. There was no cult of personality, no rock stars.

They even trotted out that whore Abortion Barbie as if she was in anyway qualified or even had some charisma about her. She couldn't even get the percentage Tony Sanchez got Vs. Rick Perry in 2002.

The best thing that can happen from now on is for the NO information voter to stay home and let the adults pick who's managing the country so that we don't get another psuedo-intellectual rockstar golfer in the WH.

Even the GOP admits with such low voter turnout they do not have any kind of mandate from the people. All that happened on Tuesday was the Democratic incumbents were voted out because the masses didn't show up and the GOP base was fired up and did show up.

The highest turnout is during presidential years, but that turn out is only about %60 compared to %40 in mid terms. That has been a fairly consistent trend.

Since my point is that the %20 who only show up half the time aren't as engaged in the process and clearly aren't paying as much attention. They're the problem because when they do show up, we end up with shitbags like ovomit.

I mentioned nothing about "a mandate", but obviously if the motivated voter is rejecting democrooks at this percentage, the problem isn't the republicrats.

And by the way dummy. The only way the GOP wins elections is by fooling dumb poor and middle class "independents" into voting with them by using bullshit social issues like god gays and guns as wedge issues.

Literally all over America we have stupid poor Christians voting GOP because of abortion and gays.

Strange to me that I didn't hear a word about guns or gays in any of the debates I heard. I did hear a couple of Democrats play the tired old race card and war against women card. They didn't work this time. People already heard them over and over in past elections.

 

[Rikurzhen]

People who don't vote are not a problem. Freedom also means the freedom to opt out.

Yea, but I wish kids weren't so cynical so young anymore. I was browbeating the cashier (a twenty year-old college student) up at Ralph's Supermarket a couple of weeks ago, because she told me that although she appreciated the fact that freedom doesn't come free, and that a lot of people die for concepts like ballot boxes, she was convinced nevertheless after her last two civics and political science courses, that voting was a giant waste of time.

Like 2/3 of the rest of society her age, she felt conned by Obama, and she felt her vote didn't mean anything anyway, because big money ruled both parties, not little people like her. I kind of stuttered and left. What could I say to that? The kid was mostly right. She should still vote though. A few dozen ballots can make a big difference in issues you care about...if you care enough to devote the energy to voting over them.

For people coming into political awareness it's like walking into a fog bank. You can see what's immediately in front of you, and for most people that's as far as they get, but for others they start going deeper and clearing some fog away and they see more. That girl is seeing something but not yet the whole picture, she doesn't understand that the society she knows, like being a fish in water, is structurally reinforcing the problems that harm her. A politician can't fix the problem while keeping the structure of society intact.

 

[mdk]

No thanks, I'll stick with building a viable 3rd party instead. Both parties can go to hell.

They are here to stay, third parties run against those closer to them and hand the election over to the other guy. Real smart.

Neither party is entitled those votes. They vote for what they feel is the best candidate. I am glad I don't have to put a bag over my head when I head down to polls. Who cares if the other guy gets elected instead? Blaming their 3rd party candidate because the candidate you likes loses is weak sauce. If your candidate losses they have no one blame but themselves. Personal responsibility and whatnot.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No thanks, I'll stick with building a viable 3rd party instead. Both parties can go to hell.

They are here to stay, third parties run against those closer to them and hand the election over to the other guy. Real smart.

Neither party is entitled those votes. They vote for what they feel is the best candidate. I am glad I don't have to put a bag over my head when I head down to polls. Who cares if the other guy gets elected instead? Blaming their 3rd party candidate because the candidate you likes loses is weak sauce. If your candidate losses they have no one blame but themselves. Personal responsibility and whatnot.

Look at what happened in Canada. Their conservative party had a revolt, much like our TEA Party movement here. Their revolt party was the Reform Party. They split off because of the RINO aspects of Canada's conservative party which was called the Progressive Conservative Party. That civil war on the right resulted in successive elections of the Liberal Party. Finally the PC Party was driven to near extinction and the remnants merged with the Reform Party to become the Conservative Party of Canada.

When you have a split vote on one side then you, in effect, help the unified opposition come to power.

 

[mdk]

That isn't what I am claiming. What we need is a viable third party filled with level headed centrists that actually want smaller government and fiscal sanity. Let the blind partisans have their Democratic and Republican parties. Two peas in a horrible horrible pod.

Even that doesn't work because those that want smaller government never seem to want to cut the programs that they like, they just want to cut programs that other people like and in the end there is no program which the majority is willing to cut.

Until people abandon the notion of "what government can do for me" and willingly step forward to take a hit on their own favored government spending, the system is on auto-pilot at best and steered by politicians divorced from the people at worst.

What we really need is a dictator to impose cuts on nation, someone immune from the wailing and hair pulling which will result as spending junkies are denied their fix of government spending. A regular politician is not immune from such angst and so he does what is expedient for HIS SURVIVAL and not what is in the best long term interests of the entire nation.

It isn't going to be easy. Nothing worth fighting for ever is though. Their should be no sacred cows when trimming our budget, all areas must be cut. The problem is petty partisan politics. When the GOP suggests cuts for the social safety net they get accused of hating the poor, when the Democrats suggest cuts to the defense budget they get accused of gutting military. It's nonsense and therefore nothing gets done. Frustrating to say the least.

It's not the politicians, it's the people. Actually, the problem is Democracy - when people find out that they can use their vote to enrich themselves, then good governance and fiscal prudence evaporate.

The people share some of the blame as well. No doubt. We need candidates that proudly state that they are going to make these cuts and do so despite the howls of their opponents.

The opponents are not the problem, it's the supporters that are the problem.

A heroin addict can have good intentions about kicking the habit, but as soon as he freely and willingly misses a fix, then the withdrawal starts and principle gets thrown out the window and he scrounges up a new fix. The only way to help that addict is to lock him in a room and impose withdrawal on him. You can bring him down slowly with methadone but he can't be in control, you have to impose the regimen on him.

Heroin addict = voter.

Damn, I typing on the fly and I meant type opponents/supporters in my post. lol

What solutions do we have before us then? What can be done about our debt if no one has the stones to tackle the problem? It does seem like a damned if we do and damned of we don't type scenario. I am not ready to throw in the towel.

 

[the_human_being]

With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, Obama could barely get shit done.

Then with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, he couldn't get any shit done at all.

Democratic voters realized that even if the Democrats kept the Senate, Obama was not going to get any more shit done. Obama agenda on the ballot or not, they realized he is completely incompetent at achieving any of it. So they stayed home and smoked a bowl.

This is really sad. And I remember basically Romney making this very same argument. Basically the argument goes, "Hey, even though it might not be Obama's fault that the GOP are obstructing him, if you elect me they won't do that to me, so basically reward me for the GOP's bad actions.

You wouldn't admit the truth if you had to. The Republican House sent over 370 Bills, many with bi-partisan support over to the Senate. Harry Reid would not even assign them to committee. Harry Reid was the obstructionist and everyone knows it. Even the Democrat Senators know it. Harry protected Obama's butt. Obama and Harry Reid lost the Senate to the Republicans. At least show enough integrity to speak the truth.

 

[Iceweasel]

When the economy is scarce and jobs are not plentiful you have a scared work force who will put up with anything. They're just glad to have a job.

Yes, that's what I said.

In a bad economy, you and your competitors aren't even hiring.

Well duh.

In the last great recession of 2007 if you were lucky you survived it and your competitors went out of business. So their employees are not all asking you for a job. You can take your pick and you don't have to pay top dollar because this is a buyers market, not a sellers market. You don't have any leverage. You think your resume is impressive? So do the 50 other people who applied who are more qualified than you.

That was my point, the better the economy the better the option for employees. The employer does better too. So does the government, etc. Tax and spend is not how we build a strong economy, so what sounds like fairness ends up being a ball and chain.