|
|
On September 07 2012 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? I believe he's of the opinion that running up a deficit is borrowing money against ones children and that even though once they reach tax paying age and actually have to contribute towards repaying it it's still somehow child slavery. By the same logic it's also sperm slavery, egg slavery, foetus slavery and adult slavery. I'll throw him some moderation for being absurd.
I don't know how anyone can make such an absurd leap of logic from government debt to child slavery.
However, it is often said by Republicans that government debt is going to drown our children in a sea of debt. This is false. Most debt is money the US owes to itself. Only about 15% is owed to foreign countries (of which China is owed 8%). A majority is owed to Americans. And the rest is owed to companies, banks, and funds, many of which are also American. See: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/
If the government, for example, increases welfare payments by $1 trillion, then that is added to the debt. That's $1 trillion in promises to both current and future generations. If we owe $1 trillion dollars to the next generation, how is that a burden on them? We're giving them money. And given that nearly all of US debt is owed to the US, the interest payments on the debt are also paid to the US. Sure, some people might not like the fact that we are choosing how some money is distributed on behalf of future generations, but that's a completely different argument (which they are not making). The fact is, it's by no means a burden, as nearly all US government debt remains within the US.
|
^ ROFL oh wow.. Gary Johnson 2012. Obamney can get lost.
|
On September 07 2012 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:
[quote]
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. Well, we can't really pretend that because the stimulus package was the very first thing that Obama and the democrats worked on after Obama was elected. Basically, I'm saying that Obama poisoned the well right off the bat.
Let's not pretend that Republicans weren't having secret meetings, before he was even elected, where they plotted to obstruct the stimulus and offer no solutions forward.
“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/
|
On September 07 2012 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:
[quote]
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. Well, we can't really pretend that because the stimulus package was the very first thing that Obama and the democrats worked on after Obama was elected. Basically, I'm saying that Obama poisoned the well right off the bat.
It's abundantly clear to everyone who's not a partisan hack that both parties are at fault. I think what people are trying to say to you is that the Republicans certainly didn't lead the way by setting an example. So even if Obama poisoned a well to start things, Republicans had decided to deal with it by poisoning entire rivers after that.
What both parties need right now is some good old general wisdom and learn how to make mutual concessions.
Even dictatorial regimes of the past has shown better form at that aspect.
To quote the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius:
To refrain from imitation is the best revenge.
More below.
+ Show Spoiler +Adapt yourself to the things among which your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures with whom destiny has ordained that you shall live.
I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinions of himself than on the opinions of others.
Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one. Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears. Here is the rule to remember in the future, When anything tempts you to be bitter: not, "This is a misfortune" but "To bear this worthily is good fortune." We ought to do good to others as simply as a horse runs, or a bee makes honey, or a vine bears grapes season after season without thinking of the grapes it has borne.
We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.
If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. (Lol captain obvious)
|
|
|
On September 07 2012 00:33 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:07 JinDesu wrote:On September 07 2012 00:00 Derez wrote:On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people? I'm not sure on the specifics but as far as I'm aware the department of veterans affairs provides limited healthcare to ex-military. I think it only covers conditions that are a direct result of military service tho, including possible psychiatric disorders. Also, for those of you that run: http://www.paulryantimecalculator.com/I could have qualified for the olympics  . I'll shoot the question to a few friends in the military and see their responses as well. I wasn't sure, because I do hear of a few stories where military personnel return home, and don't get the care they need. But most of those stories tend to not have much info attached to them, so I was just curious. My stance is that I am for more pay for military personnel, more training, better tour rotations, and better benefits/healthcare after leaving. I am opposed to military spending increase that does not provide for the personnel directly. And may I ask what the joke is with the Paul Ryan calculator? I understand that it seems to decrease my running time (hey, 5 minute mile wewt) - but I must have missed the subject that caused this joke. It's not sure on how effective the program is, and there will always be cases where medical care doesn't cover everything I guess. And Ryan stated in some interview that he once ran a '3, high 2'50's marathon'. Some running magazine actually checked it and found out he ran 4.something and pointed out that the difference between a 4 hour and 3 hour isn't something you'll actually forget ;p.
I think it was runner's world. They were actually going to do a fluff piece about how cool he is for running, and what an interesting fit dude he is. Instead they found that he lied.
As someone who has run marathons, and knows plenty of others who have as well, your time is not something you forget. Maybe you are off by a few minutes, but he was off by a full hour. It shows he doesn't even have an idea what a 3 hour marathon even means. A 3 hour marathon is elite, a 4 hour marathon is below average. Maybe he just messed up, but I find it incredibly hard to believe. If he didn't know what time he ran, he should have just said so. Lying about unimportant stuff is the kind of thing only serial liars do.
|
And more from Ezra Klein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-wonk-in-chief/
This is pretty much why I had said:
Clinton's speech was absolutely epic.
For the most part, it felt like as if he had plagiarized the speech that I would have written
Apart from it being mostly what I've said in this thread, Clinton's speech was about policy, it was wonkish and it was technical. I'm so glad someone famous has finally talked policy analysis and economics to a mainstream TV audience.
|
On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:
[quote]
Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change.
Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed?
Petty differences shouldn't prevent you from doing what is best for the country. Politicians need to care less about themselves and more about the good of the country as a whole.
|
On September 07 2012 01:58 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities.
As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter.
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Petty differences shouldn't prevent you from doing what is best for the country. Politicians need to care less about themselves and more about the good of the country as a whole. Yes, but politics, like anything else, is about relationships. It is hard to get anything done if you are constantly burning bridges.
|
On September 07 2012 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 01:58 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:
[quote]
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Petty differences shouldn't prevent you from doing what is best for the country. Politicians need to care less about themselves and more about the good of the country as a whole. Yes, but politics, like anything else, is about relationships. It is hard to get anything done if you are constantly burning bridges.
Really ironic considering Republicans had secret meetings to obstruct all of Obama's policies before he was even sworn in and whose most pressing and urgent priorities were not to negotiate deficit reduction or to create jobs, but to make him a 1 term president. Hypocrite much?
|
On September 06 2012 21:48 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 04:31 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 04:02 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2012 03:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 02:54 kwizach wrote:
Or maybe you could take a look at your own graph and realize that Republicans are the ones responsible for most of the significant increases in the debt?. Yeah, no. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png) Yeah, yes. I don't even know how that graph is supposed to support your point in any way. Was I claiming that we did not have a deficit in 2011 or something? Debt comes from too much spending. Blaming Republicans for unfunded trillions from the "Great Society" because their bill comes due when Republicans are in office is silly. So debt comes from too much spending. How much is too much? Too much compared to what? How can we tell that it's too much from the graph? We can't. You've pick the wrong graph. Your graph doesn't include revenue, so you cannot tell how much spending is too much, you cannot tell whether spending is increasing. It doesn't say who is responsible for what. Here's a graph that explains who increase the deficit in terms of policy change. ![[image loading]](https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6150/5974618229_81b7d3f9ce.jpg)
Hooray, there it is! I predicted this would show up like a hundred pages ago. I'll keep it short and say, no, the "Bush" tax cuts and Middle East conflicts did not cost over $3 trillion dollars during Obama's first three years.
This is similar to how the left will claim Obama has made more jobs than Bush by taking his starting point and end point while for Obama they pick the absolute lowest point possible to compare to now. All while ignoring the giant unemployment number and the fact that if the percent of people working today was the same as it was for Bush we'd have had double-digit unemployment for the entire Obama presidency.
Come on America, isn't nice speeches more important than having a job or getting a raise?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/44LIr.jpg)
|
On September 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 12:51 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 12:48 MinusPlus wrote:
Color me skeptical, but I honestly don't even think you're capable of doing that, by this point. I disagree with xDaunt, and have issues with how he actually engages/disengages in conversations at times, but at least he's coherent. He's the resident right-winger, but I'm pretty sure you're the resident nutjob. (On any side.) I think last time I proved something on this board it was with a graph showing how government spending went from less than 10% of GDP to almost half and I was told it didn't have any relevance to bigger government so why bother? I have no idea what you're talking about, but the last time government spending was less than 10% of GDP was in the 1910s.
Yes! Amazing but true - the history of this country and of the human race is much longer than Obama and Dubya's Presidencies! And the problems we don't fix ASAP will go on much longer than Obama's magical next term.
|
On September 07 2012 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 01:58 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:
[quote]
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Petty differences shouldn't prevent you from doing what is best for the country. Politicians need to care less about themselves and more about the good of the country as a whole. Yes, but politics, like anything else, is about relationships. It is hard to get anything done if you are constantly burning bridges.
To be fair to you, I think Rahm Emanuel, Gibbs and Axelrod are no longer part of the administration, partially for the reasons you described. They're controversial, opinionated figures.
On the other hand, you make it sound everything would of worked out if Rahm didn't swear and hurt everyone's little hearts.
Part of the reason why guys like Rahm were so reticent to negotiate with Republicas was because there were people trying to score points off making Obama look bad, even before stepped into office. That's politics.
|
On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise.
Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation.
Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises.
|
On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises.
So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem.
It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed.
|
On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM
The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.
But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”
...
With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .
|
On September 07 2012 02:28 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 21:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 04:31 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 04:02 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2012 03:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 02:54 kwizach wrote:
Or maybe you could take a look at your own graph and realize that Republicans are the ones responsible for most of the significant increases in the debt?. Yeah, no. Yeah, yes. I don't even know how that graph is supposed to support your point in any way. Was I claiming that we did not have a deficit in 2011 or something? Debt comes from too much spending. Blaming Republicans for unfunded trillions from the "Great Society" because their bill comes due when Republicans are in office is silly. So debt comes from too much spending. How much is too much? Too much compared to what? How can we tell that it's too much from the graph? We can't. You've pick the wrong graph. Your graph doesn't include revenue, so you cannot tell how much spending is too much, you cannot tell whether spending is increasing. It doesn't say who is responsible for what. Here's a graph that explains who increase the deficit in terms of policy change. Hooray, there it is! I predicted this would show up like a hundred pages ago. I'll keep it short and say, no, the "Bush" tax cuts and Middle East conflicts did not cost over $3 trillion dollars during Obama's first three years. This is similar to how the left will claim Obama has made more jobs than Bush by taking his starting point and end point while for Obama they pick the absolute lowest point possible to compare to now. All while ignoring the giant unemployment number and the fact that if the percent of people working today was the same as it was for Bush we'd have had double-digit unemployment for the entire Obama presidency. Come on America, isn't nice speeches more important than having a job or getting a raise?
So basically, you're like: "Oh this again! It's wrong and I'm not going to tell you why."
You've shown nothing. You claim that the costs of the Bush tax cuts and the wars are wrong. Based on what? Republican dogma? Where is your source?
And suddenly you change the issue to the number of jobs, which wasn't what the discussion was originally about. Why change the subject. But since you want to talk Bush's jobs record lets see it:
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agv)
Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=PAYEMS
All Employees: Total nonfarm (PAYEMS), Thousands of Persons, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted
2001-02-01 132529
2009-02-01 132837
And then you add a graph about 4 year old projections about the depth of the GFC. What has that got to with the discussion? Why are you bringing that up? I thought this was about whether or not Bush blew up the deficit? Then you change the subject to employment, and then you change it again to old economic projections. You're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. You have no coherent picture of the economy. Those projections used official statistics at the time of the GFC, which were inaccurate, and were later revised downwards because no one knew how bad things were at the time.
Bush created on net, virtually no jobs, and then left Obama with a blown up economy, Not only that, he blew up the deficit. Most of the increase in the deficit since Obama took office is because of the GFC. Had there been no GFC, no wars, and no Bush tax cuts, the budget would be balanced.
How many of these categories are Obama's fault? How many are Bush's?
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/debt-mountain-chart.jpg)
|
On September 07 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:14 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? I believe he's of the opinion that running up a deficit is borrowing money against ones children and that even though once they reach tax paying age and actually have to contribute towards repaying it it's still somehow child slavery. By the same logic it's also sperm slavery, egg slavery, foetus slavery and adult slavery. I'll throw him some moderation for being absurd. I don't know how anyone can make such an absurd leap of logic from government debt to child slavery. However, it is often said by Republicans that government debt is going to drown our children in a sea of debt. This is false. Most debt is money the US owes to itself. Only about 15% is owed to foreign countries (of which China is owed 8%). A majority is owed to Americans. And the rest is owed to companies, banks, and funds, many of which are also American. See: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/If the government, for example, increases welfare payments by $1 trillion, then that is added to the debt. That's $1 trillion in promises to both current and future generations. If we owe $1 trillion dollars to the next generation, how is that a burden on them? We're giving them money. And given that nearly all of US debt is owed to the US, the interest payments on the debt are also paid to the US. Sure, some people might not like the fact that we are choosing how some money is distributed on behalf of future generations, but that's a completely different argument (which they are not making). The fact is, it's by no means a burden, as nearly all US government debt remains within the US.
Wow. Just wow. Hey kid, sure two-thirds of your paycheck is going to pay for stuff for someone else but it's a fellow American and we're all in this together so no big deal, right?
Think of economic growth as upgrading a computer. If you have lots of debt you don't get growth. That means you can't add RAM or put in a SSD or get a new video card. The next generation gets the same old crappy computer with a CRT monitor playing games with everything set to the lowest settings.
|
On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises.
Then go read about the Welfare Reform and Clinton budget compromises. Seems that when Democrats broker the deal, we end up ahead. When Republicans do it, we end up in a worse mess than we started off in.
|
On September 07 2012 02:48 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises. So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem. It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed.
The Republican method and basics of Reaganomics is what helped the United States become the most successful, largest GDP nation in the history of man. The 20th century was a move away from those principals into massive money transfers.
As I alluded to in a previous post, the true Republican way hasn't been tried in recent history because the agreed to spending cuts always get turned into spending increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/E21-debt-chart.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/9AAF2DAFFCF42E0B762E02CA76334792.gif?w=370&h=296&as=1)
