|
|
On November 08 2012 11:27 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:11 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 11:04 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 10:57 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 10:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 10:32 Joedaddy wrote:Everyone said this election was going to be about the economy. Mitt Romney still won on the economy. He lost on social issues and he lost on foreign policy due to the continued hangover from Bush. Yeah, this is the most surprising thing I took away from the election. People care more about social issues than economic issues. I whiffed on that one completely. In fairness it's not like Obama's economic plan was to set fire to the country and claim the insurance, he does have a legitimate track record on the economy. Jobs are being created, it is growing. Whether it's as much as you believe Romney would do is another matter but I don't think people voted for Obama because they didn't care at all about the economy. Incomes declined every year during his first term. down by $4,300. for middle income families. 32 million on food stamps when Obama took office. Now 47 million on food stamps. 10 trillion dollars in debt when Obama took office. Now16 trillion in debt. Unemployment is down, but there are also less people being counted that still remain unemployed. I need to dig up the details about this, but there is a lot of concern that un-employment is being understated as a result in the way unemployment is being counted. In essence, being willing and able to work yet remaining unemployed does not mean you are being counted in the unemployment numbers. "Setting fire" seems a bit extreme, but I'm not seeing how Obama's policy are anything short of failure. Unless of course, you paint the doomsday picture that Obama saved us from. The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1][2] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[3][4] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007 when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing "a complete evaporation of liquidity".[5]
The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[6] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[7][8] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[9][10][11][12] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[13] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[14][15][16] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[17][18]
Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[19] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[20] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[21] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[22] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[23]
In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[24] Paul Krugman, author of End This Depression Now! (2012), argues that while current solutions have stabilized the world economy, the world economy will not improve unless it receives further stimulus.[25] Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith argue that fiscal and monetary policy are ineffective, failing to reignite residential investment and construction as they have in past contractions. The current type of contraction requires balance sheet repair via currency depreciation and export-driven growth. Fiscal stimulus extends a current account deficit and retards export growth.[18][26] If the world economy does not improve, many economists fear sovereign default is a real possibility in several European countries and even the United States.[27] SourceHow's that for painting? Get real, we suffered MASSIVE economic hits, and the damage could have been far worse, all thoughts given print by the likes of Krugman and similar minded economists. The mere fact that you mention a sub-20 million dollar increase in food stamps shows how loaded your hand is; that number is not only tiny but also very likely indicative of something most average people can see very clearly; shit got bad, and people needed assistance. Now is where you pretend that most of those who receive these benefits are lazy, horrible, likely minority citizens, and use that intellectually dishonest label to justify lionizing anyone who wants to cut government spending. Guess what, voters didn't buy the bullshit, so I'd stop selling it like it's a well informed opinion. There's a reason why no college campus in the country accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jus sayin. There's a reason why it is an incredibly useful means of sourcing information when prompted via impromptu online message boards, something I'd think a 1000+ poster would know. In fact, amongst pretty much anyone who knows how wikipedia goes about maintaining their high traffic pages, when someone says "oh mah gawd wikipedia so bad", it means they either lack the evidence or the will to actually support a position. Jus sayin. Edit: I apologize if I appear hostile, I'm only trying to play my doomsayer role. I wish I could pretend to understand all the intracacies that propel the economy in a positive or negative direction. There is enough speculation out there to evidence a position for and against the necessity of Obama's economic policies during the last four years. What I do understand are simple facts. Those are easy. We're making less money than we were before Obama took office. We're paying more for everyday goods. Unemployment remains way to high. Our national debit has increased by 6 trillion dollars. More people are on food stamps today than they were four years ago. I'm not sure any amount of spin can paint these things as a success. "Hey, it could have been worse" doesn't seem like much of an argument to me. I do look forward to hindsight regarding this matter.
The simple fact is that unlike what the Republican party was trying to sell Obama was not the root of all evil in regards to the economy. Yes the recovery is happening very slowly, but be honest with yourselve after the election is over, it could not have happened any faster.
The complete collapse of the housing market wiped out a significant portion of the middle class (you know, those guys who actually bear the tax burden), banks were falling left and right and without a significant bailout you'd have 3% more without jobs from the auto industry alone.
Almost everyone remembers that this crisis started before Obama even entered office. Maybe he didn't make the right calls, maybe he did, fact is almost no one understands the economy on that level so it is a matter of trust. Someone tells the voters something and they decide if they can trust him.
Obama says he did his best and things are looking better and will continue to improve (something backed by the numbers and trends).
Romney flip flopped quite a few times in regards to how he would have dealt with the bailout and he did not go into any detail on what he was planning to do, instead he says he will do better. His plans were ripped apart left and right in the media as impossible. What exactly did you expect would happen?
|
On November 08 2012 11:37 JinDesu wrote:
People supported Romney cuz they wanted things too you know.
Like that tax cut. And the military funding. And the tough stance on Iran. Etc.
Wanting to put $2 trillion into the military when the military never asked for it......
|
Everyone nevermind that Obama received the endorsement from The Economist despite its long, long history of supporting neo-liberal economic policies. And this whole "Obama did nothing" thing is such a tired claim that has been repeatedly proven false for so long now that it's not even worth replying to. You can continue to live in your imaginary fantastical universe that xDaunt lived in for the past year if you want to. Your loss.
|
1019 Posts
On November 08 2012 11:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:28 darthfoley wrote:On November 08 2012 11:23 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Maxyim wrote:Looks like the Republican party is done; left-wing voters resoundingly outnumber right-wing voters now within the USA; the election was not even close, yet Republicans were the party with the momentum! Hillary will win in 2016 after another "slow recovery" period by positioning herself as a more moderate Democrat than Obama. Pretty soon, the moderate Democrats will be running against the liberal Democrats. Europe, here we come!!! On a brighter note, America just voted to re-elect a minority president after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Perhaps we can finally stop talking about racism now. MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS, ESP. THOSE PLANNING TO RUN FOR POTUS / CONGRESS, OR ADVISE SAID CANDIDATES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM:/rant, profanity alert + Show Spoiler +It's time for a serious, and I mean FUCKING serious attitude adjustment. We know now (although some of us already knew before, but you were too fucking STUPID to listen), that, even when we are in the RIGHT (pun intended) on all key issues pertaining to fiscal and foreign policy, we will get RAPED UP THE ASS in elections if we utter a peep against abortion or gay marriage. These subjects are NOT RELEVANT. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP about them. Who are you to decide whether two people can be in a relationship? Do you have a vagina? If not, why the FUCK are you talking about what someone can or cannot do with one? You realize that there is almost NOTHING that you will ever have a chance to do regarding these issues within the Legislative and Executive branches of Federal government? That's right, they are decided on a STATE level, unless there is a perceived injustice against a minority, in which case the Supreme Court gets involved, not YOU, DUMBASS. READ the Constitution that you all lie through your teeth about being so in love with. STOP falling for TROLOLOL at every possible opportunity!
After another term of Obama and two terms of Hillary, and this country is going to be a very different place. There will be no room for 19th century politics. There will be no room for bigoted ignorance. We need to be able to offer a clear contrast to the left-wing without giving them ANY opportunity to discredit our entire platform with crap that IS NOT RELEVANT. We are the LAST HOLDOUT of conservatism. There IS NO GALT'S GULCH. If there were, do you think that the welfare state would leave it alone? Class warfare is here to stay, and God help us that we can pull together enough votes to keep it at bay every now and then; it will be difficult enough without all of your MORONIC DISTRACTIONS! /endrant http://www.boortz.com/Player/101701171/ - (listen to the whole thing, TL) Obama had less then one percent more of the population vote for him then romney. You're really blowing this out of proportion. There was this one election a little while back where the republican candidate won all but one state in the union. did the democrats die out because of that? Quite literally nothing changed from the election and its looking like thats going to stick. Republicans are holding more gov seats then ever and have a redistricting advantage in the house. Like literally bachmann is still going back to Washington. If that doesn't say anything to you then you need to reexamine your view of politics in america. My friend, you forget that Obama was running for reelection after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. He won IN SPITE of his record. He has literally accomplished nothing in four years. Obamacare is a perceived failure by over 50% of the electorate. The economy was rated as the top area of concern by something like 75% of the electorate. Women and minorities decided this election, for reasons specifically stated above. Bachmann survived by the skin of her teeth; West and Love are out...I don't see where you are going with your argument. On November 08 2012 11:22 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 11:18 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 10:54 babylon wrote:On November 08 2012 10:52 Wuster wrote:On November 08 2012 10:42 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
You guys keep saying that but I'm not seeing that. I saw Arizona gunman dressed up on a Friday night calling themselves a militia and George Bush condoning it. I saw his own brother running wet foot dry foot and treating immigrants as second class citizens.
All I ever see is Republicans with jingoism in their eyes. Maybe I'm wrong but it's what I've experienced in my life.
Republicans have been pretty divided on the issue of immigration, but they haven't always been so hawkishly against it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007This is the bill that Bush supported and co-authored by *both* Arizona Senators. To illustrate the upheaval within the Republican Party over immigration, just think the *Republican* author of another immigration reform bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2006switched parties after literally a lifetime as a Republican moderate. Edit: Both bills failed, largely from right-wing opposition. After hearing Fox News say, on air, that they think they lost this election because Romney was too moderate ... I don't know what to think. They said the same thing about McCain too. Sigh. Independents need a choice. Independents were given a choice in 2010. They came out in droves. The choice was very clear, a more limited government, more fiscal responsibility, vs. expansive government, obamacare, etc. When independents don't see a clear difference between the candidates, they stay home. When Mitt Romney or McCain try to come across as moderate, when they don't distinguish themselves from Obama with a clear and articulated philosophy, then they are making it a pure popularity contest, a beauty contest. McCain and Romney are not going to win a beauty contest with Obama. The only chance they could possibly have is to articulate a philosophy so that people can vote philosophy and not vote popularity contest, which they are doomed to fail. There is a market for the ideas, 2010 proved that. When the ideas are push aside, Republicans lose. When ideals are championed, as they were with Reagan, with Rubio, with Rand... You can see victory. Of course, I need to be clear which ideas I'm talking about. I'm not talking about gay marriage, or abortion, or any social issue. I'm talking about individualism and limited government. We talk and think too much of Democracy itself and too little of the values which it serves. I disagree with you 100%. We lost the election because of the superfluous crap that taints Republicans. Romney offered a clear fiscal and foreign policy alternative to Obama. Obama already had a poor track record in these areas. Yet none of that could stop the 5% margin from increased turnout by pissed-off women, gays and Latinos. GG, no re for 12 years; can we try something different then? Do you honestly think Republicans could ever win anything playing the "we're less liberal than they are" game? That's a death sentence. It makes no sense at all to say that the way to beat Democrats is to be more Democrat. Unless the country is.....you know.......more Democrat. This. There is no other explanation. Obama has accomplished things in his first term, don't really know what you're talking about. He went into his first term with a super majority in the senate a soundly defeated enemy and the most super charged and connected populace the country has ever seen. Then he managed to fuck up the first thing he did in office (obamacare) and things went downhill from there when he lost control of the house and lost his super majority in the senate. I hope to god that a president does something with the kind of advantage that obama had in his first term. He did nowhere near what he said he was going to do
Boy it really drives me mad when people talk like this. Ok Mr. Armchair Warrior, how much do you know about what obama could do or the political and economic situation that he was given? Probably close to nothing. And yet you are talking as if you know obama so well to conclude that he just sat around when he was free to do whatever he wanted. If obama really could get everything he wanted to do done...he probably would have.
Part of the reason why he couldn't get things done was because of the republicans in congress whose only goal was to prevent obama from doing anything. Mitch mcconnell famously said (I believe this was in 2010) that his goal was to make obama a one-term president. How can you expect anyone to get anything done when there are people alongside you with an attitude like that?
|
On November 08 2012 11:41 Wuster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:27 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 11:11 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 11:04 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 10:57 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 10:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 10:32 Joedaddy wrote:Everyone said this election was going to be about the economy. Mitt Romney still won on the economy. He lost on social issues and he lost on foreign policy due to the continued hangover from Bush. Yeah, this is the most surprising thing I took away from the election. People care more about social issues than economic issues. I whiffed on that one completely. In fairness it's not like Obama's economic plan was to set fire to the country and claim the insurance, he does have a legitimate track record on the economy. Jobs are being created, it is growing. Whether it's as much as you believe Romney would do is another matter but I don't think people voted for Obama because they didn't care at all about the economy. Incomes declined every year during his first term. down by $4,300. for middle income families. 32 million on food stamps when Obama took office. Now 47 million on food stamps. 10 trillion dollars in debt when Obama took office. Now16 trillion in debt. Unemployment is down, but there are also less people being counted that still remain unemployed. I need to dig up the details about this, but there is a lot of concern that un-employment is being understated as a result in the way unemployment is being counted. In essence, being willing and able to work yet remaining unemployed does not mean you are being counted in the unemployment numbers. "Setting fire" seems a bit extreme, but I'm not seeing how Obama's policy are anything short of failure. Unless of course, you paint the doomsday picture that Obama saved us from. The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1][2] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[3][4] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007 when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing "a complete evaporation of liquidity".[5]
The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[6] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[7][8] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[9][10][11][12] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[13] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[14][15][16] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[17][18]
Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[19] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[20] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[21] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[22] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[23]
In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[24] Paul Krugman, author of End This Depression Now! (2012), argues that while current solutions have stabilized the world economy, the world economy will not improve unless it receives further stimulus.[25] Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith argue that fiscal and monetary policy are ineffective, failing to reignite residential investment and construction as they have in past contractions. The current type of contraction requires balance sheet repair via currency depreciation and export-driven growth. Fiscal stimulus extends a current account deficit and retards export growth.[18][26] If the world economy does not improve, many economists fear sovereign default is a real possibility in several European countries and even the United States.[27] SourceHow's that for painting? Get real, we suffered MASSIVE economic hits, and the damage could have been far worse, all thoughts given print by the likes of Krugman and similar minded economists. The mere fact that you mention a sub-20 million dollar increase in food stamps shows how loaded your hand is; that number is not only tiny but also very likely indicative of something most average people can see very clearly; shit got bad, and people needed assistance. Now is where you pretend that most of those who receive these benefits are lazy, horrible, likely minority citizens, and use that intellectually dishonest label to justify lionizing anyone who wants to cut government spending. Guess what, voters didn't buy the bullshit, so I'd stop selling it like it's a well informed opinion. There's a reason why no college campus in the country accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jus sayin. There's a reason why it is an incredibly useful means of sourcing information when prompted via impromptu online message boards, something I'd think a 1000+ poster would know. In fact, amongst pretty much anyone who knows how wikipedia goes about maintaining their high traffic pages, when someone says "oh mah gawd wikipedia so bad", it means they either lack the evidence or the will to actually support a position. Jus sayin. Edit: I apologize if I appear hostile, I'm only trying to play my doomsayer role. I wish I could pretend to understand all the intracacies that propel the economy in a positive or negative direction. There is enough speculation out there to evidence a position for and against the necessity of Obama's economic policies during the last four years. What I do understand are simple facts. Those are easy. We're making less money than we were before Obama took office. We're paying more for everyday goods. Unemployment remains way to high. Our national debit has increased by 6 trillion dollars. I'm not sure any amount of spin can paint these things as a success. "Hey, it could have been worse" doesn't seem like much of an argument to me. You should know that middle class income has been dropping since 2000. You should also know that Obama is actually a net-job creator (more jobs have been created than lost during his term, raw numbers not the unemployment / underemployment / work force participation numbers; actually payroll figures). Things were terrible in 2007/8. It's really easy to forget that, but just think how unpopular those things Obama did? Bail out the banks? Release a stimulus? Pander to the auto unions by rescuing GM/Crystler from bankruptcy? *All* of that was started under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress. That's how dire the situation was. Not only did those programs get bipartisan support, they survived virtually intact under Obama and the Democrats. Bush signed the first stimulus in 2008 early enough so it could take effect for tax day. That summer they started working on TARP, signing it into law in the fall. Then they started holding hearings about Detroit, eventually sending them an emergency bailout that was to take effect under Obama (which he did). The funny thing is, Romney kept hammering Obama on his followup stimulus plans and famously opposed the Detroit bailout. There wasn't really any point there except to revise history to forget how everyone saw these things as vitally necessary. Well I guess, since the programs ended up being so fully associated with Obama, that it let Romney prove his conservative bonafides.
Its been dropping since Reagan........
Some blame globalization, some blame Reagan. I think its a combination of both tbh.
|
On November 08 2012 11:32 Derez wrote:You're forgetting that nobody with half a brain gives anything about what Bill O'Reilly says. Who cares if the 'white establishment' is no longer in control?
What is even funnier is that if you watch the Stewart Oreilly debate that happened not too long ago it is pretty clear that O'Reilly himself doesnt believe what he says. I dont doubt that he is a conservative but in reality he is much closer to one of those Ivy league northeast ivory tower conservatives who kicks dust at rappers going to the whitehouse to make easy money off of scared white people.
|
@White Horse:
You can't ignore the fact that Obama went into 2009 with a super-majority in the Senate, meaning no filibuster and a majority in the House, meaning that yes he had more political power than just about any president could ask for going into the White House.
Obama didn't get everything he wanted because he didn't get all the Democrats to go along with him, like those Blue Dog Democrats (fiscal conservative Democrats).
I agree that he couldn't do anything he wanted, but it wasn't all due to the Republicans. They basically smelled blood in the water and went after him once they won the house (it's not like they were being disingenuous in opposing things like Obamacare or the stimulus).
I do hope that a lot of the posturing drops over the next four years. The tea party has been rebuked, Obama is a lame-duck president. Both sides have something to be happy about and hopefully less reason to gridlock each other.
@Sadist
I didn't realize it'd be declining for so long. Chrystia Freeland has a new book out that blames it on globalization changing the relationship between the rich and the middle-class leading to the growing income gap. It's a pretty complicated subject, probably a combination of factors like you said though.
|
United States24565 Posts
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right.
|
On November 08 2012 11:55 micronesia wrote:
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right.
I think there is significant pressure to not be "too left" hence politcians go center/center right. Fox has demonized "liberal" so much that people don't want to be associated with it.
|
On November 08 2012 11:55 micronesia wrote:
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right.
I wouldn't be so sure; 2 states outright legalized weed, the first lesbian senator was elected in Wisconsin, and a state is now entirely represented nationally by women (NH). And on a state by state basis, issues more or less "in favor" of big government saw far more favor than anyone expected. Then again, it is always a troublesome game to establish political trends; the nature of what "right" and "left" mean is always up for debate, especially if we're talking 30-40 years ago.
|
Northern Ireland23747 Posts
On November 08 2012 11:58 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:55 micronesia wrote:
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right. I think there is significant pressure to not be "too left" hence politcians go center/center right. Fox has demonized "liberal" so much that people don't want to be associated with it.
There's also an underlying ignorance over what the actual terms themselves mean. Wish I could find it but I remember seeing a great study done, over political identification. The people were asked to define themselves as conservative or liberal, but also given a lot of positions that they were to define themselves on. People overwhelmingly didn't want to describe themselves as liberal, but a lot of them adopted liberal positions on a whole swathe of issues. Was pretty interesting, I think it feeds neatly into your post where you claim even the world liberal is used as a pseudo-insult nowadays.
|
On November 08 2012 12:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:55 micronesia wrote:
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right. I wouldn't be so sure, with 2 states outright legalizing weed, the first lesbian senator, a state entirely represented by women (NH). And on a state by state basis, issues more or less "in favor" of big government saw far more favor than anyone expected. Then again, it is always a troublesome game to establish political trends; the nature of what "right" and "left" mean is always up for debate, especially if we're talking 30-40 years ago.
Socially more liberal, economically more conservative.
At least that's how I see it.
|
It's not Fox News, it's the Communist scare post WW2 and the Cold War scaring people (every war we fought from 1946 - 1990 was with a Communist nation).
There used to be American socialist parties after all, Fox News commentators grew up in the environment and are just keeping up the drumbeat.
|
1019 Posts
On November 08 2012 11:54 Wuster wrote:
You can't ignore the fact that Obama went into 2009 with a super-majority in the Senate, meaning no filibuster and a majority in the House, meaning that yes he had more political power than just about any president could ask for going into the White House.
most of that time was spent towards creating obamacare and then actually passing it.The difficulty in getting something like that done is nearly impossible to do unless you had ideal conditions, like the ones you stated. Whether or not obamacare is good or bad or well made is not the point. The point that obama was able to do something that nearly every modern democratic president has wanted to do is significant enough. So he didn't do "nothing". He had to deal with so much shit and so for him to do his best to do actually do something what he thought was good for the country is something people should be congratulating him and wishing him better in his second term. Instead of complaining that he didn't do enough like little babies. I'd like to see how well you whiners would have done had you been in his shoes.
Also, obama was given an economic meltdown and two unpopular wars to deal with the moment he walked into the white house. I think he could have done many more positive things in domestic policies had he come into office if things had been better.
|
On November 08 2012 12:01 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 12:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:55 micronesia wrote:
Someone was just telling me that Obama's position today is roughly equivalent to a moderate republican of ~30-40 years ago. It seems like there is a shift in the USA towards the right. I wouldn't be so sure, with 2 states outright legalizing weed, the first lesbian senator, a state entirely represented by women (NH). And on a state by state basis, issues more or less "in favor" of big government saw far more favor than anyone expected. Then again, it is always a troublesome game to establish political trends; the nature of what "right" and "left" mean is always up for debate, especially if we're talking 30-40 years ago. Socially more liberal, economically more conservative. At least that's how I see it.
The tax increases/bond issues passed in states like California, New Mexico, Washington and New Jersey speak differently, along with Illinois making state pensions harder to touch and even Georgia passing a variety of government expanding issues. Just look at it state by state. Voters are passing liberal economic issues by their own hand.
|
On November 08 2012 11:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:28 darthfoley wrote:On November 08 2012 11:23 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Maxyim wrote:Looks like the Republican party is done; left-wing voters resoundingly outnumber right-wing voters now within the USA; the election was not even close, yet Republicans were the party with the momentum! Hillary will win in 2016 after another "slow recovery" period by positioning herself as a more moderate Democrat than Obama. Pretty soon, the moderate Democrats will be running against the liberal Democrats. Europe, here we come!!! On a brighter note, America just voted to re-elect a minority president after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Perhaps we can finally stop talking about racism now. MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS, ESP. THOSE PLANNING TO RUN FOR POTUS / CONGRESS, OR ADVISE SAID CANDIDATES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM:/rant, profanity alert + Show Spoiler +It's time for a serious, and I mean FUCKING serious attitude adjustment. We know now (although some of us already knew before, but you were too fucking STUPID to listen), that, even when we are in the RIGHT (pun intended) on all key issues pertaining to fiscal and foreign policy, we will get RAPED UP THE ASS in elections if we utter a peep against abortion or gay marriage. These subjects are NOT RELEVANT. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP about them. Who are you to decide whether two people can be in a relationship? Do you have a vagina? If not, why the FUCK are you talking about what someone can or cannot do with one? You realize that there is almost NOTHING that you will ever have a chance to do regarding these issues within the Legislative and Executive branches of Federal government? That's right, they are decided on a STATE level, unless there is a perceived injustice against a minority, in which case the Supreme Court gets involved, not YOU, DUMBASS. READ the Constitution that you all lie through your teeth about being so in love with. STOP falling for TROLOLOL at every possible opportunity!
After another term of Obama and two terms of Hillary, and this country is going to be a very different place. There will be no room for 19th century politics. There will be no room for bigoted ignorance. We need to be able to offer a clear contrast to the left-wing without giving them ANY opportunity to discredit our entire platform with crap that IS NOT RELEVANT. We are the LAST HOLDOUT of conservatism. There IS NO GALT'S GULCH. If there were, do you think that the welfare state would leave it alone? Class warfare is here to stay, and God help us that we can pull together enough votes to keep it at bay every now and then; it will be difficult enough without all of your MORONIC DISTRACTIONS! /endrant http://www.boortz.com/Player/101701171/ - (listen to the whole thing, TL) Obama had less then one percent more of the population vote for him then romney. You're really blowing this out of proportion. There was this one election a little while back where the republican candidate won all but one state in the union. did the democrats die out because of that? Quite literally nothing changed from the election and its looking like thats going to stick. Republicans are holding more gov seats then ever and have a redistricting advantage in the house. Like literally bachmann is still going back to Washington. If that doesn't say anything to you then you need to reexamine your view of politics in america. My friend, you forget that Obama was running for reelection after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. He won IN SPITE of his record. He has literally accomplished nothing in four years. Obamacare is a perceived failure by over 50% of the electorate. The economy was rated as the top area of concern by something like 75% of the electorate. Women and minorities decided this election, for reasons specifically stated above. Bachmann survived by the skin of her teeth; West and Love are out...I don't see where you are going with your argument. On November 08 2012 11:22 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 11:18 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 10:54 babylon wrote:After hearing Fox News say, on air, that they think they lost this election because Romney was too moderate ... I don't know what to think. They said the same thing about McCain too. Sigh. Independents need a choice. Independents were given a choice in 2010. They came out in droves. The choice was very clear, a more limited government, more fiscal responsibility, vs. expansive government, obamacare, etc. When independents don't see a clear difference between the candidates, they stay home. When Mitt Romney or McCain try to come across as moderate, when they don't distinguish themselves from Obama with a clear and articulated philosophy, then they are making it a pure popularity contest, a beauty contest. McCain and Romney are not going to win a beauty contest with Obama. The only chance they could possibly have is to articulate a philosophy so that people can vote philosophy and not vote popularity contest, which they are doomed to fail. There is a market for the ideas, 2010 proved that. When the ideas are push aside, Republicans lose. When ideals are championed, as they were with Reagan, with Rubio, with Rand... You can see victory. Of course, I need to be clear which ideas I'm talking about. I'm not talking about gay marriage, or abortion, or any social issue. I'm talking about individualism and limited government. We talk and think too much of Democracy itself and too little of the values which it serves. I disagree with you 100%. We lost the election because of the superfluous crap that taints Republicans. Romney offered a clear fiscal and foreign policy alternative to Obama. Obama already had a poor track record in these areas. Yet none of that could stop the 5% margin from increased turnout by pissed-off women, gays and Latinos. GG, no re for 12 years; can we try something different then? Do you honestly think Republicans could ever win anything playing the "we're less liberal than they are" game? That's a death sentence. It makes no sense at all to say that the way to beat Democrats is to be more Democrat. Unless the country is.....you know.......more Democrat. This. There is no other explanation. Obama has accomplished things in his first term, don't really know what you're talking about. He went into his first term with a super majority in the senate a soundly defeated enemy and the most super charged and connected populace the country has ever seen. Then he managed to fuck up the first thing he did in office (obamacare) and things went downhill from there when he lost control of the house and lost his super majority in the senate. I hope to god that a president does something with the kind of advantage that obama had in his first term. He did nowhere near what he said he was going to do Republican intransigence at least has to take part of the blame for those things, and indeed the political system as a whole. It doesn't give him a free pass, but equally voters probably remembered the numerous Republican-instigated roadblocks that were holding up everything, especially if it pertained to their own personal circumstances like the funding of unemployment and the likes. The Republicans have nobody but themselves to blame for losing this one if Obama's handling of the economy was as catastrophic as they claimed, and given the cited stat earlier that 75% of voters had this as their number one concern it seems curious that Obama won. Perhaps Romney's own financial plans weren't that good?
Obama had a whole fucking year of super majority you can't do shit to stop us from doing what we want legislative time. Its from that "we're taking over and we're not going to let the republicans have any credit for this health care reform" attitude that caused such problems as in the second half of his term.
Yeah its Romney's fault that he lost. Is anyone accusing something otherwise here? He was a bad uninteresting candidate that will be remembered more for his mistakes then his success's.
|
On November 08 2012 11:46 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:28 darthfoley wrote:On November 08 2012 11:23 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Maxyim wrote:Looks like the Republican party is done; left-wing voters resoundingly outnumber right-wing voters now within the USA; the election was not even close, yet Republicans were the party with the momentum! Hillary will win in 2016 after another "slow recovery" period by positioning herself as a more moderate Democrat than Obama. Pretty soon, the moderate Democrats will be running against the liberal Democrats. Europe, here we come!!! On a brighter note, America just voted to re-elect a minority president after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Perhaps we can finally stop talking about racism now. MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS, ESP. THOSE PLANNING TO RUN FOR POTUS / CONGRESS, OR ADVISE SAID CANDIDATES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM:/rant, profanity alert + Show Spoiler +It's time for a serious, and I mean FUCKING serious attitude adjustment. We know now (although some of us already knew before, but you were too fucking STUPID to listen), that, even when we are in the RIGHT (pun intended) on all key issues pertaining to fiscal and foreign policy, we will get RAPED UP THE ASS in elections if we utter a peep against abortion or gay marriage. These subjects are NOT RELEVANT. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP about them. Who are you to decide whether two people can be in a relationship? Do you have a vagina? If not, why the FUCK are you talking about what someone can or cannot do with one? You realize that there is almost NOTHING that you will ever have a chance to do regarding these issues within the Legislative and Executive branches of Federal government? That's right, they are decided on a STATE level, unless there is a perceived injustice against a minority, in which case the Supreme Court gets involved, not YOU, DUMBASS. READ the Constitution that you all lie through your teeth about being so in love with. STOP falling for TROLOLOL at every possible opportunity!
After another term of Obama and two terms of Hillary, and this country is going to be a very different place. There will be no room for 19th century politics. There will be no room for bigoted ignorance. We need to be able to offer a clear contrast to the left-wing without giving them ANY opportunity to discredit our entire platform with crap that IS NOT RELEVANT. We are the LAST HOLDOUT of conservatism. There IS NO GALT'S GULCH. If there were, do you think that the welfare state would leave it alone? Class warfare is here to stay, and God help us that we can pull together enough votes to keep it at bay every now and then; it will be difficult enough without all of your MORONIC DISTRACTIONS! /endrant http://www.boortz.com/Player/101701171/ - (listen to the whole thing, TL) Obama had less then one percent more of the population vote for him then romney. You're really blowing this out of proportion. There was this one election a little while back where the republican candidate won all but one state in the union. did the democrats die out because of that? Quite literally nothing changed from the election and its looking like thats going to stick. Republicans are holding more gov seats then ever and have a redistricting advantage in the house. Like literally bachmann is still going back to Washington. If that doesn't say anything to you then you need to reexamine your view of politics in america. My friend, you forget that Obama was running for reelection after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. He won IN SPITE of his record. He has literally accomplished nothing in four years. Obamacare is a perceived failure by over 50% of the electorate. The economy was rated as the top area of concern by something like 75% of the electorate. Women and minorities decided this election, for reasons specifically stated above. Bachmann survived by the skin of her teeth; West and Love are out...I don't see where you are going with your argument. On November 08 2012 11:22 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 11:18 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 10:54 babylon wrote:After hearing Fox News say, on air, that they think they lost this election because Romney was too moderate ... I don't know what to think. They said the same thing about McCain too. Sigh. Independents need a choice. Independents were given a choice in 2010. They came out in droves. The choice was very clear, a more limited government, more fiscal responsibility, vs. expansive government, obamacare, etc. When independents don't see a clear difference between the candidates, they stay home. When Mitt Romney or McCain try to come across as moderate, when they don't distinguish themselves from Obama with a clear and articulated philosophy, then they are making it a pure popularity contest, a beauty contest. McCain and Romney are not going to win a beauty contest with Obama. The only chance they could possibly have is to articulate a philosophy so that people can vote philosophy and not vote popularity contest, which they are doomed to fail. There is a market for the ideas, 2010 proved that. When the ideas are push aside, Republicans lose. When ideals are championed, as they were with Reagan, with Rubio, with Rand... You can see victory. Of course, I need to be clear which ideas I'm talking about. I'm not talking about gay marriage, or abortion, or any social issue. I'm talking about individualism and limited government. We talk and think too much of Democracy itself and too little of the values which it serves. I disagree with you 100%. We lost the election because of the superfluous crap that taints Republicans. Romney offered a clear fiscal and foreign policy alternative to Obama. Obama already had a poor track record in these areas. Yet none of that could stop the 5% margin from increased turnout by pissed-off women, gays and Latinos. GG, no re for 12 years; can we try something different then? Do you honestly think Republicans could ever win anything playing the "we're less liberal than they are" game? That's a death sentence. It makes no sense at all to say that the way to beat Democrats is to be more Democrat. Unless the country is.....you know.......more Democrat. This. There is no other explanation. Obama has accomplished things in his first term, don't really know what you're talking about. He went into his first term with a super majority in the senate a soundly defeated enemy and the most super charged and connected populace the country has ever seen. Then he managed to fuck up the first thing he did in office (obamacare) and things went downhill from there when he lost control of the house and lost his super majority in the senate. I hope to god that a president does something with the kind of advantage that obama had in his first term. He did nowhere near what he said he was going to do Boy it really drives me mad when people talk like this. Ok Mr. Armchair Warrior, how much do you know about what obama could do or the political and economic situation that he was given? Probably close to nothing. And yet you are talking as if you know obama so well to conclude that he just sat around when he was free to do whatever he wanted. If obama really could get everything he wanted to do done...he probably would have. Part of the reason why he couldn't get things done was because of the republicans in congress whose only goal was to prevent obama from doing anything. Mitch mcconnell famously said (I believe this was in 2010) that his goal was to make obama a one-term president. How can you expect anyone to get anything done when there are people alongside you with an attitude like that?
He had a full half term that caused the republicans to take a such "us against the world" attitude.
He had the republicans on life support after 8 years of bush. He lost the house 2 years later to the republicans. Something happened in this 2 year period.
On November 08 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:54 Wuster wrote:
You can't ignore the fact that Obama went into 2009 with a super-majority in the Senate, meaning no filibuster and a majority in the House, meaning that yes he had more political power than just about any president could ask for going into the White House.
most of that time was spent towards creating obamacare and then actually passing it.The difficulty in getting something like that done is nearly impossible to do unless you had ideal conditions, like the ones you stated. Whether or not obamacare is good or bad or well made is not the point. The point that obama was able to do something that nearly every modern democratic president has wanted to do is significant enough. So he didn't do "nothing". He had to deal with so much shit and so for him to do his best to do actually do something what he thought was good for the country is something people should be congratulating him and wishing him better in his second term. Instead of complaining that he didn't do enough like little babies. I'd like to see how well you whiners would have done had you been in his shoes. Also, obama was given an economic meltdown and two unpopular wars to deal with the moment he walked into the white house. I think he could have done many more positive things in domestic policies had he come into office if things had been better.
He Did health care reform for a year and then had to water it down at the end and use a clever legislating tactic to even get something though. He lost a PR battle as Obama against the Party coming off 8 years of bush. How are you not seeing how wildly bad of a loss this was for him. No one is saying that he didn't have a shitty situation to deal with. But the situation that the republicans had coming into said term were even worse for their political outlooks. people were writing them off and saying how there would be 50 years of democratic domination in Washington from such a large defeat morally and electorally.
|
On November 08 2012 11:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:41 Wuster wrote:On November 08 2012 11:27 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 11:11 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 11:04 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 10:57 Joedaddy wrote:On November 08 2012 10:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 10:32 Joedaddy wrote:Everyone said this election was going to be about the economy. Mitt Romney still won on the economy. He lost on social issues and he lost on foreign policy due to the continued hangover from Bush. Yeah, this is the most surprising thing I took away from the election. People care more about social issues than economic issues. I whiffed on that one completely. In fairness it's not like Obama's economic plan was to set fire to the country and claim the insurance, he does have a legitimate track record on the economy. Jobs are being created, it is growing. Whether it's as much as you believe Romney would do is another matter but I don't think people voted for Obama because they didn't care at all about the economy. Incomes declined every year during his first term. down by $4,300. for middle income families. 32 million on food stamps when Obama took office. Now 47 million on food stamps. 10 trillion dollars in debt when Obama took office. Now16 trillion in debt. Unemployment is down, but there are also less people being counted that still remain unemployed. I need to dig up the details about this, but there is a lot of concern that un-employment is being understated as a result in the way unemployment is being counted. In essence, being willing and able to work yet remaining unemployed does not mean you are being counted in the unemployment numbers. "Setting fire" seems a bit extreme, but I'm not seeing how Obama's policy are anything short of failure. Unless of course, you paint the doomsday picture that Obama saved us from. The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1][2] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[3][4] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007 when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing "a complete evaporation of liquidity".[5]
The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[6] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[7][8] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[9][10][11][12] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[13] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[14][15][16] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[17][18]
Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[19] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[20] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[21] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[22] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[23]
In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[24] Paul Krugman, author of End This Depression Now! (2012), argues that while current solutions have stabilized the world economy, the world economy will not improve unless it receives further stimulus.[25] Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith argue that fiscal and monetary policy are ineffective, failing to reignite residential investment and construction as they have in past contractions. The current type of contraction requires balance sheet repair via currency depreciation and export-driven growth. Fiscal stimulus extends a current account deficit and retards export growth.[18][26] If the world economy does not improve, many economists fear sovereign default is a real possibility in several European countries and even the United States.[27] SourceHow's that for painting? Get real, we suffered MASSIVE economic hits, and the damage could have been far worse, all thoughts given print by the likes of Krugman and similar minded economists. The mere fact that you mention a sub-20 million dollar increase in food stamps shows how loaded your hand is; that number is not only tiny but also very likely indicative of something most average people can see very clearly; shit got bad, and people needed assistance. Now is where you pretend that most of those who receive these benefits are lazy, horrible, likely minority citizens, and use that intellectually dishonest label to justify lionizing anyone who wants to cut government spending. Guess what, voters didn't buy the bullshit, so I'd stop selling it like it's a well informed opinion. There's a reason why no college campus in the country accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jus sayin. There's a reason why it is an incredibly useful means of sourcing information when prompted via impromptu online message boards, something I'd think a 1000+ poster would know. In fact, amongst pretty much anyone who knows how wikipedia goes about maintaining their high traffic pages, when someone says "oh mah gawd wikipedia so bad", it means they either lack the evidence or the will to actually support a position. Jus sayin. Edit: I apologize if I appear hostile, I'm only trying to play my doomsayer role. I wish I could pretend to understand all the intracacies that propel the economy in a positive or negative direction. There is enough speculation out there to evidence a position for and against the necessity of Obama's economic policies during the last four years. What I do understand are simple facts. Those are easy. We're making less money than we were before Obama took office. We're paying more for everyday goods. Unemployment remains way to high. Our national debit has increased by 6 trillion dollars. I'm not sure any amount of spin can paint these things as a success. "Hey, it could have been worse" doesn't seem like much of an argument to me. You should know that middle class income has been dropping since 2000. You should also know that Obama is actually a net-job creator (more jobs have been created than lost during his term, raw numbers not the unemployment / underemployment / work force participation numbers; actually payroll figures). Things were terrible in 2007/8. It's really easy to forget that, but just think how unpopular those things Obama did? Bail out the banks? Release a stimulus? Pander to the auto unions by rescuing GM/Crystler from bankruptcy? *All* of that was started under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress. That's how dire the situation was. Not only did those programs get bipartisan support, they survived virtually intact under Obama and the Democrats. Bush signed the first stimulus in 2008 early enough so it could take effect for tax day. That summer they started working on TARP, signing it into law in the fall. Then they started holding hearings about Detroit, eventually sending them an emergency bailout that was to take effect under Obama (which he did). The funny thing is, Romney kept hammering Obama on his followup stimulus plans and famously opposed the Detroit bailout. There wasn't really any point there except to revise history to forget how everyone saw these things as vitally necessary. Well I guess, since the programs ended up being so fully associated with Obama, that it let Romney prove his conservative bonafides. Its been dropping since Reagan........ Some blame globalization, some blame Reagan. I think its a combination of both tbh.
Saying "middle class income" has been dropping makes no sense, but no, compensation per hour worked has not been dropping, it has been steadily increasing.
|
Meh. Nevermind. 
Lets just say I'm pumped for Obama's second term, my dad is pissed as hell though. Hopefully the two sides finally work together, cause honestly I'm sick of the obstructionist bullshit of being the worst congressional session in history in terms of getting things done.
|
On November 08 2012 12:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 11:46 white_horse wrote:On November 08 2012 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:28 darthfoley wrote:On November 08 2012 11:23 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2012 11:07 Maxyim wrote:Looks like the Republican party is done; left-wing voters resoundingly outnumber right-wing voters now within the USA; the election was not even close, yet Republicans were the party with the momentum! Hillary will win in 2016 after another "slow recovery" period by positioning herself as a more moderate Democrat than Obama. Pretty soon, the moderate Democrats will be running against the liberal Democrats. Europe, here we come!!! On a brighter note, America just voted to re-elect a minority president after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Perhaps we can finally stop talking about racism now. MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS, ESP. THOSE PLANNING TO RUN FOR POTUS / CONGRESS, OR ADVISE SAID CANDIDATES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM:/rant, profanity alert + Show Spoiler +It's time for a serious, and I mean FUCKING serious attitude adjustment. We know now (although some of us already knew before, but you were too fucking STUPID to listen), that, even when we are in the RIGHT (pun intended) on all key issues pertaining to fiscal and foreign policy, we will get RAPED UP THE ASS in elections if we utter a peep against abortion or gay marriage. These subjects are NOT RELEVANT. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP about them. Who are you to decide whether two people can be in a relationship? Do you have a vagina? If not, why the FUCK are you talking about what someone can or cannot do with one? You realize that there is almost NOTHING that you will ever have a chance to do regarding these issues within the Legislative and Executive branches of Federal government? That's right, they are decided on a STATE level, unless there is a perceived injustice against a minority, in which case the Supreme Court gets involved, not YOU, DUMBASS. READ the Constitution that you all lie through your teeth about being so in love with. STOP falling for TROLOLOL at every possible opportunity!
After another term of Obama and two terms of Hillary, and this country is going to be a very different place. There will be no room for 19th century politics. There will be no room for bigoted ignorance. We need to be able to offer a clear contrast to the left-wing without giving them ANY opportunity to discredit our entire platform with crap that IS NOT RELEVANT. We are the LAST HOLDOUT of conservatism. There IS NO GALT'S GULCH. If there were, do you think that the welfare state would leave it alone? Class warfare is here to stay, and God help us that we can pull together enough votes to keep it at bay every now and then; it will be difficult enough without all of your MORONIC DISTRACTIONS! /endrant http://www.boortz.com/Player/101701171/ - (listen to the whole thing, TL) Obama had less then one percent more of the population vote for him then romney. You're really blowing this out of proportion. There was this one election a little while back where the republican candidate won all but one state in the union. did the democrats die out because of that? Quite literally nothing changed from the election and its looking like thats going to stick. Republicans are holding more gov seats then ever and have a redistricting advantage in the house. Like literally bachmann is still going back to Washington. If that doesn't say anything to you then you need to reexamine your view of politics in america. My friend, you forget that Obama was running for reelection after a first term chronicled by the worst economic record since the Great Depression. He won IN SPITE of his record. He has literally accomplished nothing in four years. Obamacare is a perceived failure by over 50% of the electorate. The economy was rated as the top area of concern by something like 75% of the electorate. Women and minorities decided this election, for reasons specifically stated above. Bachmann survived by the skin of her teeth; West and Love are out...I don't see where you are going with your argument. On November 08 2012 11:22 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 11:18 Maxyim wrote:On November 08 2012 11:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 10:54 babylon wrote:
[quote]
After hearing Fox News say, on air, that they think they lost this election because Romney was too moderate ... I don't know what to think. They said the same thing about McCain too. Sigh. Independents need a choice. Independents were given a choice in 2010. They came out in droves. The choice was very clear, a more limited government, more fiscal responsibility, vs. expansive government, obamacare, etc. When independents don't see a clear difference between the candidates, they stay home. When Mitt Romney or McCain try to come across as moderate, when they don't distinguish themselves from Obama with a clear and articulated philosophy, then they are making it a pure popularity contest, a beauty contest. McCain and Romney are not going to win a beauty contest with Obama. The only chance they could possibly have is to articulate a philosophy so that people can vote philosophy and not vote popularity contest, which they are doomed to fail. There is a market for the ideas, 2010 proved that. When the ideas are push aside, Republicans lose. When ideals are championed, as they were with Reagan, with Rubio, with Rand... You can see victory. Of course, I need to be clear which ideas I'm talking about. I'm not talking about gay marriage, or abortion, or any social issue. I'm talking about individualism and limited government. We talk and think too much of Democracy itself and too little of the values which it serves. I disagree with you 100%. We lost the election because of the superfluous crap that taints Republicans. Romney offered a clear fiscal and foreign policy alternative to Obama. Obama already had a poor track record in these areas. Yet none of that could stop the 5% margin from increased turnout by pissed-off women, gays and Latinos. GG, no re for 12 years; can we try something different then? Do you honestly think Republicans could ever win anything playing the "we're less liberal than they are" game? That's a death sentence. It makes no sense at all to say that the way to beat Democrats is to be more Democrat. Unless the country is.....you know.......more Democrat. This. There is no other explanation. Obama has accomplished things in his first term, don't really know what you're talking about. He went into his first term with a super majority in the senate a soundly defeated enemy and the most super charged and connected populace the country has ever seen. Then he managed to fuck up the first thing he did in office (obamacare) and things went downhill from there when he lost control of the house and lost his super majority in the senate. I hope to god that a president does something with the kind of advantage that obama had in his first term. He did nowhere near what he said he was going to do Boy it really drives me mad when people talk like this. Ok Mr. Armchair Warrior, how much do you know about what obama could do or the political and economic situation that he was given? Probably close to nothing. And yet you are talking as if you know obama so well to conclude that he just sat around when he was free to do whatever he wanted. If obama really could get everything he wanted to do done...he probably would have. Part of the reason why he couldn't get things done was because of the republicans in congress whose only goal was to prevent obama from doing anything. Mitch mcconnell famously said (I believe this was in 2010) that his goal was to make obama a one-term president. How can you expect anyone to get anything done when there are people alongside you with an attitude like that? He had a full half term that caused the republicans to take a such "us against the world" attitude. He had the republicans on life support after 8 years of bush. He lost the house 2 years later to the republicans. Something happened in this 2 year period.
A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.
But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
This timeline shows the facts.
President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?
Source
Now remember that Republicans were willing to do anything it took to keep Obama a one-term president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
