|
|
On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver.
Gridlock is like that?
I do not feel that your analogy is sound.
|
On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver.
No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive.
Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-;
|
On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-;
Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me.
|
On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me.
Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself!
|
On July 24 2012 17:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:[quote] Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me. Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself!
Lol, of course it is. Gridlock doesn't mean the government stops working. It just makes it hard to get any new changes made.
|
On July 24 2012 17:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:38 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly.
I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions."
BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me. Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself! Lol, of course it is. Gridlock doesn't mean the government stops working. It just makes it hard to get any new changes made.
Actually, sometimes it does mean government stops working. Remember when the Republican Congress was cockblocking appointments of various agreed upon board members and directors and the administration had to resort to recess appointments?
I mean, they really didn't seem to want work to be done.
|
On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck.
The stimulus wasn't huge relatively. China had a $600 billion stimulus for an economy that's 1/3 the size of the US in terms of GDP. And when you're splashing around $700 billion, anyone who you give it to could be called a "special interest". Construction is a special interest. So is research. Education is also a special interest. Tax cuts for the middle class... well middle class people have special interests too.
The question originally raised is who is to blame. Let's put it this way: Who's stopping more stimulus now?
|
A closer look at Obama's polling trends from Dick Morris:
His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers.
Source.
|
On July 24 2012 23:56 xDaunt wrote:A closer look at Obama's polling trends from Dick Morris: Show nested quote +His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers. Source.
Sometimes I wonder if you ever explore the news outside of conservative bloggers and networks.
|
On July 24 2012 17:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:38 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly.
I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions."
BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me. Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself! Lol, of course it is. Gridlock doesn't mean the government stops working. It just makes it hard to get any new changes made.
Oh, yes, then, good to hear everything is going so well as it is...
|
On July 24 2012 20:23 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. The stimulus wasn't huge relatively. China had a $600 billion stimulus for an economy that's 1/3 the size of the US in terms of GDP. And when you're splashing around $700 billion, anyone who you give it to could be called a "special interest". Construction is a special interest. So is research. Education is also a special interest. Tax cuts for the middle class... well middle class people have special interests too. The question originally raised is who is to blame. Let's put it this way: Who's stopping more stimulus now?
The stimulus WAS huge. Show me a bigger fiscal stimulus post WW2 in the US if you want to prove otherwise.
The US has also added to the stimulus already this year, as it has in each year of the recession.
Are Republicans blocking somethings that Obama wants to do? Yep. Opposition parties do tend to do that. Would be nice if Obama had some political capital left over but that wad was already blown getting Obamacare passed.
|
On July 25 2012 01:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 23:56 xDaunt wrote:A closer look at Obama's polling trends from Dick Morris: His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers. Source. Sometimes I wonder if you ever explore the news outside of conservative bloggers and networks.
I really don't have any problem if you want to shoot messenger and ignore the message. I'm just helping to provide a reality check for the vast majority of people in this thread who don't think that Romney has a chance at winning.
|
On July 25 2012 02:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 17:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:38 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:
[quote]
I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim.
Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me. Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself! Lol, of course it is. Gridlock doesn't mean the government stops working. It just makes it hard to get any new changes made. Oh, yes, then, good to hear everything is going so well as it is...
Are you suggesting that 100% of what government does is a net positive?
|
On July 25 2012 02:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 02:41 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 17:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:38 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 17:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 17:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress.
Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working. It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver. No...gridlock is more like being on a road trip and having 100 back seat drivers all with different opinions, ultimately not letting you drive. Getting rid of the back seat driver is more akin to getting rid of gridlock. -.-; Oh it'll be a pain for the Prez, but I'm driving my own car and I want the politicians too busy arguing with each other to affect me. Ah, yes! Good thing your life isn't affected by any systems larger than yourself! Lol, of course it is. Gridlock doesn't mean the government stops working. It just makes it hard to get any new changes made. Oh, yes, then, good to hear everything is going so well as it is... Are you suggesting that 100% of what government does is a net positive?
I don't think that is in any way a reasonable implication from what I've been saying
edit: of course, 100% percent of what government SHOULD do WOULD be a net positive, by definition...
|
|
|
Thank God for Tyler Durden and his wonderful alarm bells.
|
On July 25 2012 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 01:56 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 23:56 xDaunt wrote:A closer look at Obama's polling trends from Dick Morris: His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers. Source. Sometimes I wonder if you ever explore the news outside of conservative bloggers and networks. I really don't have any problem if you want to shoot messenger and ignore the message. I'm just helping to provide a reality check for the vast majority of people in this thread who don't think that Romney has a chance at winning.
Checking to what extent the poll is in line with other polling results seems like a good idea tho, especially in this case because its clear it isn't (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html). No other poll confirms the drop in the poll the guy is basing his entire statement on, and it would just be as wrong to pick a single poll where Romney scores low.
If we were to accept the poll data, it is incomplete without using Romney's data also (which is also completely out of line with other polls btw), where he scores a -12 net favorability rating, while Obama is on -4.
(Not to even mention the fact that this Dick Morris is obviously a conspiracy blow-hard who imagines that Obama is trying to outlaw gun ownership by backdooring it through the UN.)
|
On July 25 2012 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 20:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. The stimulus wasn't huge relatively. China had a $600 billion stimulus for an economy that's 1/3 the size of the US in terms of GDP. And when you're splashing around $700 billion, anyone who you give it to could be called a "special interest". Construction is a special interest. So is research. Education is also a special interest. Tax cuts for the middle class... well middle class people have special interests too. The question originally raised is who is to blame. Let's put it this way: Who's stopping more stimulus now? The stimulus WAS huge. Show me a bigger fiscal stimulus post WW2 in the US if you want to prove otherwise. The US has also added to the stimulus already this year, as it has in each year of the recession. Are Republicans blocking somethings that Obama wants to do? Yep. Opposition parties do tend to do that. Would be nice if Obama had some political capital left over but that wad was already blown getting Obamacare passed.
Show me a bigger recession since the Great Depression.
It was a 4% of GDP stimulus to plug an 8% of GDP output gap. As Krugman, Romer, and other economists have said, the stimulus needed to be twice the size. But I guess, if there was another $700 billion stimulus, that money has to go somewhere. Wherever it would hypothetically ended up would be called a "special interest".
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/CBO_GDP_impact_of_ARRA_2009.png)
I guess Obama had political capital when he first came into office and passed the stimulus... and only 1 Republican who wasn't really a Republican voted for it.
It's got nothing to do with political capital. Republicans are obstructionists. What part of "Republicans are dogmatically opposed to stimulus and Obama in general" don't you understand?
|
On July 24 2012 23:56 xDaunt wrote:A closer look at Obama's polling trends from Dick Morris: Show nested quote +His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers. Source.
I can't find the source from your source. It says its a NY Times/CBS poll, but I can't find that poll anywhere. Did I miss it?
|
On July 25 2012 03:05 paralleluniverse wrote:
What part of "Republicans are dogmatically opposed[...] Obama in general" don't you understand?
Haven't they even stated this explicitly? I forget who is was... something about how the goal of the republican party was to make the next four years go as badly as possible...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
