BS: Fantasy Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 07:10 PM

The Judicial branch interprets cases, with imperfect information, in the context of the constitution. A political fantasy would be sore losers finding out how the system works rather than complaining that it doesn't work as they would like it too. How these people seem able to sustain an entire ideology, not to mention Republican majorities which rob them blind, on wishful thinking and sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 06:44 PM

The major problem with Samuelson's op-ed is that he is wrong about McCain cutting taxes on the rich... The Bush tax cuts are supposed to be sunsetted in 2010 meaning that they will end... McCain has said he would move to make the tax cuts perminent and I take him at his word on that... By making them perminent he, in essence, is cutting the rich folks tax again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM

Political fantasies:

1. That the American people finally understand the fine distinction between "inauguration" and "coronation".
2. That we forever have a Democrat in the White House and a 60% Republican majority in the Legislature.
3. That we forever have a Judicial branch that interprets the Constitution as written -- not a judicial that writes the Constitution as it wishes it written.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 06:05 PM

My big scary fantasy was years ago..... do you realize it was at one time possible that Spiro Agnew could have been president in **1984**?

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:40 PM

"All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."

Yes. Of course it's fantasy politics. It's simply the usual marketing we see of everything in a commercially dominated marketing-based society. It's all fantasy. People are sold cars and deoderants on the basis of fantasy too.

If any politician attempts to campaign on the basis of real policies, real substance, and on the basis of serious comment...he can't get elected. He will be dismissed as "boring" by the pundits and the majority of the public. Whoever runs for office is thus trapped, in effect, and must engage in fantasy politics that wins appause, sounds good, and pleases the voters (and the media).

It's entertainment. It's fantasy. It's mass marketing of superficial impressions. One must simply hope that someone fairly reasonable and responsible gets elected in spite of all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM

It literally is perpetually now.

Clinton's people invented the idea of the perpetual campaign. Turdblossem Rove perfected it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:23 PM

How about all Primaries on August 15, followed by all Conventions in the first week of September, followed by a mandatory two weeks of shutting the hell up, and electioneering from about September 15 to October 31? On November 1 all signs come down, all ads go off the air, and the people get to think about it in relative silence until Election Day?

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 09:51 PM

"And mine is that BOTH parties picked Leiberman as VP... Then BOTH the presidential candidates dropped out..."


                   Now that's a scary thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM

"How long do your geedee elections go on down there anyway"

Perputally! I'm not kidding really!

How about max limits of 3 months for Primaries; 2 months max for the actual election. And ALL Primaries on the same day. That MAY just be achievable - Preferential & Compulsory Voting I doubt will EVER happen...

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 09:19 PM

My fantasy is that they'll shut up about it soon.
How long do your geedee elections go on down there anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM

Yes
Surfing the debt has been a fantasy game that profits people who are now dead or will soon be dead but curses the children today and tommorrow.


I just spent 6 hours watching the Republican Platform commitee propose and vote on their ammendments.
The ludricrous unconstitutional proposals, ignorance and hate filled ammendments even made my jaw drop.

They follow their hate mostly on what they call "coloration" (aka niggras, spics & Jews) All the faces were WASP except for one lady from PR.


It is no fantasy, we get the real goverment we deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

I think that Lieberman could run on the "Country First" ticket. But he would not be talking about this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 03:41 PM

Seriously , is there any dividing line between politics and Fantasy ??

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 03:31 PM

And mine is that BOTH parties picked Leiberman as VP... Then BOTH the presidential candidates dropped out.

Subject: RE: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 03:20 PM

My political fantasy is hearing that John McCain has invited Bill Clinton to run as his Veep.


A

Subject: BS: Fantasy Politics
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 03:18 PM

My opinion: This article makes a valid point.

from Washington Post:
The Rise Of Fantasy Politics

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, August 27, 2008; Page A13

What we have here -- to borrow a line from the old movie "Cool Hand Luke" -- is a failure to communicate. By all rights, we should be having a fierce debate over the role of government. What should it do, for whom and why? What can we afford? Who should pay? These questions would suggest a campaign that seriously engages the future. Instead, we have a bidding war between candidates to see who can promise the most appealing package of new spending programs and tax cuts.
As we watch the conventions, we should recognize that we've entered an era of fantasy politics. Like fantasy football and baseball, fantasy politics is an exercise in make-believe that is intended to keep its players occupied and to make the winners feel good. Barack Obama and John McCain emit pleasing slogans and programs that, as often as not, are disconnected from the problems they'd encounter in office.
Last week, I viewed "I.O.U.S.A.," an 87-minute documentary exploring the grim budget outlook. In many ways, unbalanced budgets define the political deadlock. The persistence of deficits over so many years (42 of the past 47) can have only one basic cause: Politicians of both parties prefer spending to taxing. As everyone knows, the disconnect will worsen, because aging baby boomers will bloat outlays for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs already total nearly two-fifths of the $2.9 trillion federal spending in 2008.
The mismatch between the government's existing spending commitments and the present tax base is so great that we cannot simply tinker a little with government. By 2030, federal taxes could rise 50 percent if all spending programs are kept on automatic pilot, Andrew Yarrow notes in his book "Forgive Us Our Debts."
That would be, I think, an unconscionable burden on workers (the main taxpayers) and a huge threat to the economy. Over the years, I've suggested changes to minimize these dangers. Eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare should gradually rise to 70; people now live longer and should work longer. Medicare premiums for middle-income and richer retirees should increase; the young shouldn't bear most of the expense of growing health-care costs. Government programs that have outlived their usefulness or are wasteful should end: farm subsidies and Amtrak, for instance.
But "I.O.U.S.A." barely mentions choices and solutions. Ideally, of course, our political leaders would assume the task of choosing. Unfortunately, they don't.
The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.
Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq war. Okay, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq war -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.
McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. Okay, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.
Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers, retirees and others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.
All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose.