Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

My school took some time today to introduce to us our current representative... and to be honest, after not voting in the previous election, I'm severely ashamed of myself and those of us who didn't vote to let this guy into office.

...Want to tell us who this guy is so we can form an opinion?

Serves you right for not voting.

Jerk, on 26 February 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

It really does, the dude won by only 200 votes.

@Yappy: Joe Walsh of lake county. I didn't think his name was that important because Tea Party republican candidates are pretty standard regardless of where they run.

This post has been edited by Moosack: 26 February 2011 - 10:02 PM

Imagine that I'm completely ignorant to politics, then explain why he is a bad candidate.

Junior Boomer, on 26 February 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

His idea of lowering the debt and getting the United States out of this economic recession is to cut taxes (just like the Bush administration, which lead us into this horrible debt and has been particularly unsuccessful) and to lower benefits. This was technically sound in 2001-2008 in which we didn't realize that all of these bailouts and tax cuts were useless in unfreezing the economy. Granting more tax cuts increases our debt to an extent in which cutting benefits will not be the only thing needed to balance our budget. Soon, they will continue to cut education and other discretionary spending but keep the ever costly Medicare and Social Security a float by borrowing more money. Unless one of these congressmen starts to not care about getting reelected and actually strives to higher the age for Medicare and Social Security, there will a point in which we cannot borrow anymore. However, neither party seem to not want to make a politically erroneous move and choose to ignore the economically smart choice. I feel Joe Walsh is just a catalyst or a wasted vote towards this gridlock between the two parties.

Besides that, I have personal beliefs that far differ from Walsh's own beliefs. As a republican tea partier, he's standard in his moral conservatism. This means no gay rights of marriage, no abortion, no stem cells from embryos, ect. He claims to be "less gov't," but his point of view only suggests that the gov't will move from the economic sector to become the moral police in which our class gaps become more prevalent, our rights more constricted, and a turn towards the equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. To quote Orwell's 1984, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." This is the horribly extreme, over dramatic, view on moral conservative that I have.

Moosack, on 26 February 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

You know, I was just kidding but that's pretty depressing. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.

Jerk, on 26 February 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

I figured you were. It's actually kind of funny in a destructive way.

Sucks to be American.

Good news, Moose: I guarantee the Tea Party to be a flash in the pan. So your senator will probably be out of office when his term is up.

Your comment about raising the age for social security, really? That's neither economically nor morally smart. If you fart dust, you're past the point where you should be having to work to maintain a living. Neither tax cuts, raising benefit ages nor spending money we don't have is gonna help. The most economically smart and logical is to raise taxes on those who make the money to lose a few more bucks, tax corporations that outsource to other countries, raise import taxes, and cut taxes on businesses that do their work stateside. But if you're farting dust, you shouldn't have to work, so don't expect me to grin about you doing it.

For the record, the main social security problem that I see is with disability. Yes, I'm on it. I'm also legitimately disabled. But their screening is a complete joke--practically everyone is denied the first time. Don't like it? Refile. You'll probably get if, even if all you suffer from is a mild case of acne. If you still get turned down, do the one thing someone who is truly disabled doesn't have to do and can't afford to do--hire a lawyer. Fix that, audit the current beneficiaries, and you'll save a crap load of social security money. Since most people on medicaid and medicare only qualify because they are on Social Security, SSI or Disability.... well, there goes that problem too.

The Nturtanyr, on 26 February 2011 - 11:09 PM, said:

Not if you're white, male, Anglo-Saxon and protestant, like God

Jerk, on 26 February 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Are you implying there are still white people in America?

Carcharocles, on 26 February 2011 - 11:09 PM, said:

He's a representative, not a senator (albeit my senator also has similar views).

To put on record: I'm all for raising taxes to pay for our benefits. I just think that it's the American mentality to not want to have tax hikes. Because no one is willing to raise taxes in gov't, the only "economically smart" thing to do would be to higher the age. Sorry for putting out that misunderstanding.

If it wasn't clear when I explained that I like "equality of outcome," then let it be known that I personally believe that we should seriously raise taxes high enough to pay for those benefits, lower the debt, and help pay for college.

God... now I sound like a sleezy politician.

Edit: also, yes, the screening processes in Medicare/aid and SS is pretty dumbfounding.

Edit 2: Do you realize how fast the cost of Medicaid and Medicare is rising? We need to reformat our health care better than they already have as well. FUUUUUUUUU- America is giving me headaches.

This post has been edited by Moosack: 26 February 2011 - 11:39 PM

When it comes to matters about the economy all I can say is the words of a much smarter man then me.

Now Imma tell you like you told me cash rules everything around me. Singing dollar dollar bill yall dollar dollar bill yall.

Meowth, on 26 February 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

Well played sir

Rokku, on 27 February 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

Why are you guys implying that there are people living in that desolate continent?

Moosack, on 26 February 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

Exactly. He's not against government control. He's just for a different KIND of government control. Like all the others of his ilk, spitting on the Constitution in the middle of reading it on every word that starts with a B or a P, and not bothering to use a tissue and clean up after themselves.

The other thing is the Equality of Opportunity Vs Outcome, they're the types that like natural selection. "The Strong live and the Weak die, survival of the fittest. The American Dream exists for everyone, sure. But if you fail at it, screw you, you don't deserve another chance from anyone, get out." That's their prerogative.

DavCube, on 27 February 2011 - 03:49 AM, said:

You really hit the nail on the head here. "I'm not a big gov't guy" my ass.

People who don't vote have no right to bitch about what happens, stupid morons did this to yourselves.

Hope this helps people actually vote next election.

I assumed knowing a tea partier running for an office would encourage people to vote just to keep them off it. The assumption of "oh it's not like my vote will matter/it's not like the guy will get elected" is so frustrating to me it makes me feel ill.

Politics will be politics. I am surprised that they are trying to hold on to their ideals for this long, but reality will have to set in at some point. They have to realize that reducing money coming in will also reduce the money you can spend later. At least, that is what i learned in economics in high school.

The extremes on both sides will have to find some sort of middle ground, or there will be no ground to stand upon, leaving this weird cartoon physics thing where if you don't look down, then you don't fall.

Just so long we we are the roadrunner in this case.... and we are still on the cliff, then we will be safe.

Taeshi, on 27 February 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I'm really kickin' myself here because I had just turned 18 and didn't really care at the time. The odd thing though is that there was a relatively higher voter turn out in this election... so, living in a primarily republican county, it really didn't surprise me too much that the vote went towards the republican candidate. I want to move... to like Netherlands or something...

Taeshi, on 27 February 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

This is absolutely why people that don't vote shouldn't complain about politics. If you're not willing to put in the time to make your opinion known and counted, you've got no right to bitch about what happens.

Very well put, Taeshi.

Rokku, on 27 February 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

You know, just because I didn't vote in this election doesn't mean I can't be angry at my surrounding constituents, therefor voting in the next election in response. When election time came around, I was 18 and realized that I knew nothing about current politics. With no real knowledge to make an educated vote (I was considering voting for a third party because I disliked the candidates after I had registered), I felt that my vote was nothing short of a waste.

Moosack, on 27 February 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

That's not really an excuse. You're obviously mentally competent, so as far as I can tell there was absolutely nothing preventing you from researching the topic and casting an informed vote. But as you put it yourself, you "didn't care". There have been campaigns in the US for years upon years now urging kids that hit the voting age to start looking into the things that shape their country and states, and politics in general.

Sucks that the guy got elected, but as far as I can tell you didn't even attempt to lift a finger to exercise your basic rights as an American citizen to prevent it from happening.

Moosack, on 27 February 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

It makes you a hypocrite. You didn't vote. You're not even a constituent. And now the Tea Party represents you. Way to go, champ.

Yeah. I basically have no sympathy, and completely wish non-voters feel really bad about it. It's not that hard to research, maybe it'll do the brain good.

I like the excuse "oh I just turned 18" like just because you couldn't vote you didn't keep aware of politics for the other 17 years. And that you were just a fresh voter! Should get some leeway right?

No, the ability was granted. A great ability. Should have been used. No excuses.

Mannnnn why don't you Americans have compulsive voting. I love that Australia has it here. I know it can cause donkey votes, but it also gets the smarter guys to have a reason to do something rather than be complete morons and stay home.

Jerk, on 27 February 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

Uhuh. I somehow lost my citizenship?
Also, yes, I am a hypocrite. I understand that people like me get Tea Partiers elected and it's all of our fault, but it doesn't make it any less unfortunate, perhaps not to me, but I never really asked for sympathy, you all just assume I do. I also believed that I just said that I will learn from this mistake and make amends during the next election, no need for flame here. It's all shit I've heard before anyways.

Moosack, on 28 February 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

You don't have any grounds to complain about the results when you don't participate in the process.

Quote

Actually, it is all the fault of those who voted for the Tea Party.

Also, I am mildly amused by the fact that the Tea Party has absolutely no supporters here, but still they got so well out of the election.

Young people don't vote.

And everybody here is below eighteen years of age, now? ^_^

Lol we have tweede kamer verkiezingen in holland. Literal translation is 2nd room elections. Lots of people are going like omg you need to vote for this guys or omg this guy sucks. I'M FREAKIN 17 I DON'T GIVE A SHIT RIGHT NOW!!! Screw elections only ones I'm concerned about are presidential elections.

ILB, on 28 February 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Because people vote for the more exciting candidate... "Man, I could totally have a beer and shoot-the-shit with this guy..."

This post has been edited by Moosack: 28 February 2011 - 04:34 PM

Quote

Am I the only one who's Ok with that? I mean, I'm not for letting people starve or die of horrible illnesses, but to borrow a phrase from my former Soviet friends, "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" Aren't people supposed to be rewarded for their hard work? I slacked off in college, and got shitty grades one year. I have to pay for it now with a lower GS pay grade. Others worked harder, they get a better outcome... I'm getting the short end of the stick here and I think that's right. Work hard, get paid more. Don't work hard, get paid shit...that's how this is supposed to work? If I work hard a couple years, My pay grade goes up accordingly.

As far as the Teabaggers...man...fark those guys...I was blessed that none of them won around here.

This post has been edited by Daer21: 01 March 2011 - 05:14 AM

ILB, on 28 February 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Their constituency can't read.

SuitCase, on 28 February 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

I've voted in every local and national election that's come up since I turned eighteen. AW YEAH.

Hey, I have something in common with Jerk.

Oh wacko. You know you have a lot in common with me.

Of course, snugglybuns.

You have a Tea Party representative? I'm sorry.

Hey, rememver to vote in the next two years.

The thing is, tea party people are so batshit crazy and obsessed with being part of the tea party that they are GUARANTEED to go out and vote. It's like the idiot super old republicans, they will go out and vote because they have that passion.

Young adults? They might have more progressive opinions, believe in the better candidate, but they're just too goddamn lazy and assume it won't make a difference at the end of the day. Might as well stay home and get angry at Fox news again. That sure does something.

So the loudest, most insane ones go out to vote. And there you go, tea party representative.

Daer21, on 01 March 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

It's more a help towards those who really need it than an excuse for the lazy to be lazier. Whats good grades for a normal suburban kid compared to one in the ghetto? Equality of outcome would help pay college for the poor.

And the political intrigue lives on and on and on....

The young don't give two craps about what is going on until too late, then they find out they get screwed.

The older folks realize said mistakes of the past, tries to fix while pissing of younger folks (who think they have better ideas) , who can't quite figure out how to effectively organize just yet.

And twelve years down the road, we will do this dance again, with the same problems, and same attitudes.

Granted, if we are still around then and not in some sort of zombie apocalypse.... Could you imagine anything getting done then, with zombie reps and senators?

Quote

Evidently. ^_^

Quote

I'm not 100% on what you mean? Do you mean good grades for a suburban kid will more likely result in college than the ghetto kid? Or that good grades for the ghetto kid are C's whereas for the suburban kid its A's?
I'm in favor of school being subsidized for all students based on merit. That would mean more taxes, but I'm alright with that. It shouldn't exactly be cushy, but if you keep your grades up then your books/tuition and a place at the dorms+meal plan should be covered. If you want more that's fine, but that you should pay out of pocket, or with loans ect. When I heard 'equality of outcome' I think of being given the same outcome regardless of effort. It sounds like you mean more of what I guess I could call 'outcome of merit' where your rewarded for your effort in the same manner regardless of socioeconomic status. I'm all for that in education.

Then again, I could be totally off base. Set me straight.

Fuck Tea.

Red Bull is where it's at.

Daer21, on 01 March 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

Setting a merit-base subsidy college program would be nice, but it's slanted towards student's with a better education system. But if you changed the system for a more equal distribution of outcome, then we'd see more of our students go to college. What this means is that there would be lower standards set for those living in places like Chicago or Detroit in which the high school graduation rate stumble to as low as 50%. Because those students, by living in such a stressful school environment, are at a psychological and fiscal disadvantage, it could be viewed in the best interest of the country to keep these kids out of crime and financial debt and into the classroom. I'm not asking for loafers to be admitted but rather somewhat lower standards (either by ACT/SAT or some form of grades/participation).

But that what I think. I could feel you if you were to be upset that a ghetto kid could get into college with less effort.

Edit: Sorry, this is not a perfect example of "equality of outcome." It's more of "racial quota" except it's geared towards the poor.

This post has been edited by Moosack: 01 March 2011 - 11:24 PM

@Moosack: No, you can't do that, equal distribution is socialism, which is a bad word. <---sarcasm

Seriously, play on peoples fears well enough, and any cantidate can draw votes, especially if said fears aren't neccisarily rational.

This post has been edited by (nameless): 01 March 2011 - 11:30 PM

(nameless), on 01 March 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

I find it sickening that the same group of people can call Obama a socialist and a Nazi with blatant disregard for meaning and then rely on that ugly connotation as if it were an "evil" thing.

Quote

To be fair, NAZI stands for National German Socialist Workers party . That aside, I must admit skepticism to the idea of "equality of outcome" Let us assume we send more inner city kids to college... that's great...but then what? If they have poor grades in school, I'd imagine that they will be lacking in scholastic ability in college. If they end up making it into school, only to flunk out due to lack of knowledge, I feel we haven't accomplished anything. We can't lower standards in college or we debase the educational system, which is also counterproductive, and I'll be damned if I'm going to take that sitting down. I entered a program with an 80% attrition rate, out of every 10 students that came in in my major, 2 graduate in my major. We had a class where on the first day, our professor said "look to your left, look to your right, one of you will pass" I may be in the bottom third of my class, but by God I'm in it, and than more than the 350 people who dropped out of it can say. To be fair, I picked one of the toughest majors in the school. Most of those 8 who dropped out of my major still graduate. So perhaps I'm a bit biased. (I'm excessively proud of my major. I'll admit it) Regardless, I fear that simply letting in those with lower performance runs the risk of simply increasing the college dropout rate. I would ask if a more comprehensive program to improve highschool performance would be in order?

Daer21, on 02 March 2011 - 02:52 AM, said:

I'm not saying that's the end all say all, such a complex issue couldn't possibly be remedied by just sending more kids to college. Obviously you have a point in which we should attack the problem closer to the source, the high school and grade school systems. My example of objective quota was perhaps poor in thought, but I feel a similar program would produce results in conjunction to a vast amount of education programs (specifically ones that you suggested).

Anyways... if only the Nazi party were to live up to it's name...