EPTI hope this has been vaguely informative if you were unaware, hopefully correct if you are smarter and more well versed in this subject then me, and hopefully it has come across without a party bias, as that was not intended.
Republican nominations - Page 313
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Darkhorse
United States23455 Posts
I hope this has been vaguely informative if you were unaware, hopefully correct if you are smarter and more well versed in this subject then me, and hopefully it has come across without a party bias, as that was not intended. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:40 Krikkitone wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On January 20 2012 07:36 Derez wrote: That's not a general problem, that's an implementation problem. It says nothing about the viability of the idea as a whole. It's true that no country ever does what Keynes tells them to do in the good years, but the other side is just as bad, look at how every neo-liberal promises to cut taxes and spending. Cutting taxes usually happens, cutting spending never ever does, and look, there's the deficit. Republicans have a track record just as bad (if not worse) when it comes to the US debt. Even Reagan never managed to cut spending, neither were both Bushes. If a candidate is serious about paying back the debt, no matter how you spin it, you need higher taxes. Which is why all those guys that signed the 'I won't raise taxes pledge' are complete hypocrites. Actually US debt wise it depends on who you look at, President or Congress,,, under Clinton the budget was balanced for 1 year (2000) but it was under a Republican Congress. Also, you don't necessarily need higher taxes, you need higher taxes OR lower spending. And Higher taxes don't necessarily mean higher tax rates.. it means higher revenues. The problem is (generally) Republicans want to cut tax rates/raise military spending more than they want to cut social spending. And Democrats want to raise social spending more than they want to raise tax rates/cut military spending. Either approach (low tax-low spend or high tax-high spend) will balance the budget if done. The problem is democracies tend towards low tax-high spend, since there are different philosophies, and the most appealing part is what gets through. Applies to all democracies that are not awash in cash and without an unusually strong anti-debt culture. It can be done. All it needs is a cultural shift. That is part of the reason why people scratch their heads when seeing the way congress is acting right now. Both sides want strong deficit reduction. Hell the entire US wants long term deficit reduction. The fact that congress can't find some agreement just shows how out of touch they are. The US has become a consumer nation, this can change but it will take some political will. Keynes' idea of paying down debt when you can, works. Arguably one the reasons that Australia is doing alright is because of exactly this philosophy. The US can do it, you guys have been through worse. It just takes a congress with a little spine. Here's to hoping. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:35 DoubleReed wrote: Do you blackout for months at a time? Most of those things took months of painful media spinning and bullshit to get through. You don't get to claim now that that never happened. The policies may not be what America had in mind or whatever, but don't try to claim they never happened. So xDaunt, do you agree that he fulfilled his campaign promises or not? I never said that he didn't fulfill his campaign promises. In fact, I've said numerous times in this thread that he did fulfill or work to fulfill his domestic policy promises. I also have said that the promises that he broke are his foreign policy promises. Unsurprisingly, Obama is taking shit for the promises he kept and gets lauded (or at the very least, grudging admiration) for the promises he broke. EDIT: And let's be clear on one thing. Obama was not elected on his proposed campaign policies. Sure, liberal democrats were on board with them, but that's it. Obama was elected on the promise that he'd be a transcendent, post-racial president. He painted this larger than life image of himself that took the country by storm. His inevitable failure to live up to that image is what disaffects people the most. | ||
|
Xivsa
United States1009 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:29 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: And let's be clear on one thing. Obama was not elected on his proposed campaign policies. Sure, liberal democrats were on board with them, but that's it. Obama was elected on the promise that he'd be a transcendent, post-racial president. He painted this larger than life image of himself that took the country by storm. His inevitable failure to live up to that image is what disaffects people the most. That's completely false and you know it. Obama did present a 'new' politician type for his campaign, but who doesn't. He has followed through on many of his pledges given such a recalcitrant Republican Congress and has not been the ineffectual, inept leader-from-behind you keep describing. The supposed disaffection still won't be enough to give a victory to Romney or whoever else the Republicans nominate. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:41 Xivsa wrote: That's completely false and you know it. Obama did present a 'new' politician type for his campaign, but who doesn't. He has followed through on many of his pledges given such a recalcitrant Republican Congress and has not been the ineffectual, inept leader-from-behind you keep describing. The supposed disaffection still won't be enough to give a victory to Romney or whoever else the Republicans nominate. I have no idea how you can argue with a straight face that Obama has been even remotely effective as a leader. He hasn't led on anything. He turned healthcare and the stimulus bills over to Pelosi and Reid. He admittedly led from behind on Libya as with Egypt. He was largely AWOL during the debt ceiling debates and the following super committee negotiations. He hasn't managed to pass one bipartisan bill of significance. Blame republicans if you want, but don't you think that it's a two-way street? Are you willing to assign ANY blame to him? Regardless, I don't think anyone credible has ever confused Obama with being a leader. But whatever -- doubt me all you want. I've said multiple times in this thread that Obama is going to lose as badly as Carter did in 1980 unless there's a dramatic turnaround in the economy (which isn't coming). I stand by that prediction. The polls aren't going to show it until the week before the election, but that's what's coming. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
3) Obama has clearly failed to live up to his campaign. In fairness, though, no one can lower the seas and heal the planet as he promised. But I guess you were just being sarcastic about the whole Hope campaign thing. Unsurprisingly, Obama is taking shit for the promises he kept and gets lauded (or at the very least, grudging admiration) for the promises he broke. Oh come on. Obama is taking shit for everything. Because he's president, and that's exactly what should happen to all presidents good or bad. I don't want people agreeing on everything in this country, especially not these controversial issues. When everyone starts agreeing is when things get scary. Romney is uninteresting and bland. If Obamacare is the biggest potshot that the Republicans have, then Romney obviously can't pull it off. He's too similar to Obama in that respect, kind of like Kerry in 2004. Santorum's a crazy person, and Gingrich is an asshole. The only one that could give Obama a run for his money is Ron Paul, and most people probably think he's too extreme, so he's not likely either. It's going to be Obama for 4 more years. I think you're just doing some wishful-thinking xDaunt. But hey, I've been wrong before. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:49 DoubleReed wrote: Oh I'm sorry, I took this statement as Obama not living up to his promises: But I guess you were just being sarcastic about the whole Hope campaign thing. Oh come on. Obama is taking shit for everything. Because he's president, and that's exactly what should happen to all presidents good or bad. I don't want people agreeing on everything in this country, especially not these controversial issues. When everyone starts agreeing is when things get scary. Romney is uninteresting and bland. If Obamacare is the biggest potshot that the Republicans have, then Romney obviously can't pull it off. He's too similar to Obama in that respect, kind of like Kerry in 2004. Santorum's a crazy person, and Gingrich is an asshole. The only one that could give Obama a run for his money is Ron Paul, and most people probably think he's too extreme, so he's not likely either. It's going to be Obama for 4 more years. Do you really think that 2012 is going to be any different than 2010 was in terms of anti-democrat (re: anti-Obama) sentiment? I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that anything other than a political rout of democrats is coming. If you have any doubts, just look at the unusually high number of democrat incumbents that have decided not to run for reelection, the latest of which is Barney Frank. That should tell you all you need to know. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:53 xDaunt wrote: Do you really think that 2012 is going to be any different than 2010 was in terms of anti-democrat (re: anti-Obama) sentiment? I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that anything other than a political rout of democrats is coming. If you have any doubts, just look at the unusually high number of democrat incumbents that have decided not to run for reelection, the latest of which is Barney Frank. That should tell you all you need to know. Sure. Everyone hates Congress, but not everyone hates Obama. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:53 xDaunt wrote: Do you really think that 2012 is going to be any different than 2010 was in terms of anti-democrat (re: anti-Obama) sentiment? I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that anything other than a political rout of democrats is coming. If you have any doubts, just look at the unusually high number of democrat incumbents that have decided not to run for reelection, the latest of which is Barney Frank. That should tell you all you need to know. This is what I'm seeing tho: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html I'm not expecting a heated race. Romney will steer middle the moment the primaries are over, and in races where noone really cares, the incumbent wins. Congressional dem's might get punished harder then Obama, but its not like the GOP congress members are any more popular. Generic ballots still give the edge to the dems. | ||
|
Xivsa
United States1009 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:48 xDaunt wrote: I have no idea how you can argue with a straight face that Obama has been even remotely effective as a leader. He hasn't led on anything. He turned healthcare and the stimulus bills over to Pelosi and Reid. He admittedly led from behind on Libya as with Egypt. He was largely AWOL during the debt ceiling debates and the following super committee negotiations. He hasn't managed to pass one bipartisan bill of significance. Blame republicans if you want, but don't you think that it's a two-way street? Are you willing to assign ANY blame to him? Regardless, I don't think anyone credible has ever confused Obama with being a leader. But whatever -- doubt me all you want. I've said multiple times in this thread that Obama is going to lose as badly as Carter did in 1980 unless there's a dramatic turnaround in the economy (which isn't coming). I stand by that prediction. The polls aren't going to show it until the week before the election, but that's what's coming. He is at the very least 'remotely' effective as a leader. Laws have been passed, execution orders issued, and troop withdrawals begun. I don't know how his handling of Libya and Egypt are actual criticisms - in both instances, the leaders were toppled with minimal US losses and, most importantly, without starting another ground war in the Middle East a la Bush's style. He was far from absent on the debt ceiling talks - remember the near deal with Boehner that your hero abruptly called off for fear of his own political life? The lack of bipartisan support is unfortunate but not Obama is not the primary person to blame. In any event, practically all of the bills passed have had some Republican support, such as the stimulus and extending the payroll tax cuts and Republicans even voted to repeal DADT. As for Obama's failures, sure he hasn't been a godsend of a president by any stretch. One of the biggest failures is his foot-dragging over Guantanamo, especially given how often he harped on it during the campaign. The economy is still anemic, and surely some of that fault falls on Obama. He could have done, or be doing more, for the environment arguably. Financial reform, while started, isn't nearly at the level it ought to be to prevent a similar recession in the future. But these faults do not define his administration as the worst ever, or even worse than Bush's. It will be fun to see Romney's campaign against him and watch the reelection. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
AUGcodon
Canada536 Posts
On January 20 2012 09:48 xDaunt wrote: I have no idea how you can argue with a straight face that Obama has been even remotely effective as a leader. He hasn't led on anything. He turned healthcare and the stimulus bills over to Pelosi and Reid. He admittedly led from behind on Libya as with Egypt. He was largely AWOL during the debt ceiling debates and the following super committee negotiations. He hasn't managed to pass one bipartisan bill of significance. Blame republicans if you want, but don't you think that it's a two-way street? Are you willing to assign ANY blame to him? Regardless, I don't think anyone credible has ever confused Obama with being a leader. But whatever -- doubt me all you want. I've said multiple times in this thread that Obama is going to lose as badly as Carter did in 1980 unless there's a dramatic turnaround in the economy (which isn't coming). I stand by that prediction. The polls aren't going to show it until the week before the election, but that's what's coming. Yea but the thing is that the economy is currently improving. Historically the state of the economy is not as important as the trajectory of the economy. As long as the trend continues, it doesn't matter who the republican run. So short of a total European meltdown within the next year, I actually say Obama's chances are pretty good. Romney has bet himself that the economy is going to continue to be shit since his entire strategy revolves around the failure of the Obama administration to combat the recession. Granted, this is probably the only way that Romney can actually beat Obama so im not really surprised. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 20 2012 10:15 acker wrote: Ron Paul: Income Tax to zero? I don't know, I fell asleep during the answer. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
