Politics

[Buster Bluth]

I don't know what you want me to elaborate on. She doesn't come off as a thoughtful person capable of empathy or, for that matter, aware of reality. She comes off as someone who really, really wants to decorate the White House. Its a matter of opinion. I don't have empirical evidence to support that point.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Haters gonna hate. Graphs don't have much of a personality. Take a look at his graphs.

Just because someone makes your worldview look foolish doesn't mean he's an *******.

Ezra is one of the most fact-based pundits out there. He does math...and math debunks the myth that the Romney/Ryan plan would be better for the deficit than the Obama/Biden plan.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

So when you watch these speeches and ads and debates during elections, you do not make a judgment with respect to the sincerity and presence of the speaker in addition to the substance? I understand that everyone's judgment will be somewhat influenced by their perspective, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I came on here saying I had adjudged her to be inspirational and heartfelt, I wouldn't be getting the same pushback from you. (But I'm just being a partisan.)

Look, there are impressive and unimpressive conservatives in my view. I don't agree with the impressive ones any more than I do with the unimpressive ones.

I simply think too much of this site (and most of the posters on it) to appreciate mean-spirited comments respective to politics. Agree to disagree, but calling people names, on either side of the aisle, gathers no traction to the credibility of your beliefs.

It's too close to game day for all of this bickering. Let's hug it out!!!

 

[Rhode Irish]

Maybe someone can highlight which of the items in the graph below can be attributed to the President?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Maybe someone can highlight which of the items in the graph below can be attributed to the President?

The Federal government is responsible for all of them.

/thread

But seriously, you could apply some of the wars, the economic downturn (i.e. staying "downturned"), and recovery measures.

I'm curious where Obamacare is on that omniscient graph? Don't tell me that its theft of $700bil from other programs is deficit-neutral.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The Federal government is responsible for all of them.

/thread

That is a compelling reason to vote against the current administration? One way or the other, there is going to be a federal government. The issue is who is going to steward it.

Buster, I respect the fact that you aren't just on here yelling and screaming. You have a much better grip on general economics and policy than most people I find myself arguing with. But I don't think you acknowledging the just how bad the situation was that the President inherited.

I feel like the republican argument against the President (the policy one, not the appeals to bigotry and prejudice) are the political equivalent of blaming a pilot who took over an aircraft in freefall when it was 500 yards above ground for crashing the plane, instead of crediting him with saving most of the people who were on board.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The Federal government is responsible for all of them.

/thread

But seriously, you could apply some of the wars, the economic downturn (i.e. staying "downturned"), and recovery measures.

I'm curious where Obamacare is on that omniscient graph? Don't tell me that its theft of $700bil from other programs is deficit-neutral.

Total red herring. And, Paul Ryan's plan relied on the same cut.

PolitiFact | Checking the facts on the $700 billion Medicare 'cut'

 

[Buster Bluth]

....and I might add: I am not totally in favor if the Bush tax cuts. I don't think they were aimed at small business owners well enough. But I do believe that raising taxes now would be absolutely insane. Obama even said so in 2009.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Total red herring. And, Paul Ryan's plan relied on the same cut.

PolitiFact | Checking the facts on the $700 billion Medicare 'cut'

How is in a red herring? Even that says it reduced it by $700. Errr, excuse me...didn't expand it by $700.

Subtraction and not adding are the same thing. Not giving that money to hospitals and whatnot won't drive up costs?

....the CBO says that Obamacare will cost the US 800,000 jobs....I imagine that won't bode well under the "recovery" aspect.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

....and I might add: I am not totally in favor if the Bush tax cuts. I don't think they were aimed at small business owners well enough. But I do believe that raising taxes now would be absolutely insane. Obama even said so in 2009.

And many respected economists would say that austerity measures would be equally insane. You run a deficit in bad times, you pay down debt during the good times. Austerity is one of the reasons this recovery has been weaker than it could have been.

 

[Rhode Irish]

And many respected economists would say that austerity measures would be equally insane. You run a deficit in bad times, you pay down debt during the good times. Austerity is one of the reasons this recovery has been weaker than it could have been.

 

[Buster Bluth]

And many respected economists would say that austerity measures would be equally insane. You run a deficit in bad times, you pay down debt during the good times. Austerity is one of the reasons this recovery has been weaker than it could have been.

We haven't paid one dollar on the principle of the debt since 1960.

So your economists can f*ck themselves. The problem is much bigger than austerity or not.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Can't we just eat scallions and get along?????

(They are delicious...)

 

[Buster Bluth]

You know why they say economists are like weathermen right?

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

We haven't paid one dollar on the principle of the debt since 1960.

So your economists can f*ck themselves. The problem is much bigger than austerity or not.

So angry, young man......... I'm surprised at you.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

We haven't paid one dollar on the principle of the debt since 1960.

So your economists can f*ck themselves. The problem is much bigger than austerity or not.

I'll pass that message along to my economists.

I just can't figure out why some people are only concerned about deficits during democratic administrations. It's a mystery to me.

 

[Rhode Irish]

We haven't paid one dollar on the principle of the debt since 1960.

So your economists can f*ck themselves. The problem is much bigger than austerity or not.

Not really. Who gives a **** about the debt if people can't eat? You have no hope of ever paying a nickel of principal on the debt if the economy is contracting. If you want to pay down the debt, you have to expand the economy. If you want to have prolonged, sustainable economic growth, you have to have people working and consuming. You don't accomplish that through austerity. Austerity will smother the baby in the crib. You need stimulus during recession and save austerity for periods of expansion.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Can't we just eat scallions and get along?????

(They are delicious...)

They are outstanding as a garnish. If you think they're good to eat raw, you're a communist.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'll pass that message along to my economists.

I just can't figure out why some people are only concerned about deficits during democratic administrations. It's a mystery to me.

If we had this thread during Bush, or if you can find one instance in which I've defended Bush, you might have a point. Both parties blow immensely.

Not really. Who gives a **** about the debt if people can't eat? You have no hope of ever paying a nickel of principal on the debt if the economy is contracting. If you want to pay down the debt, you have to expand the economy. If you want to have prolonged, sustainable economic growth, you have to have people working and consuming. You don't accomplish that through austerity. Austerity will smother the baby in the crib. You need stimulus during recession and save austerity for periods of expansion.

You see a lot of starving people in this country? Spare me the exaggerations. (Not to mention, who gives a **** about global warming if people can't eat because they spend their money on their now-overly-expensive heating bill?)

What signs of "expanding the economy" has Obama given us? I see an Obamacare that will cost us 800k+ jobs, an EPA/Energy Secretary working to increase the price of energy? I mean, LITERALLY, they want the price of gas and fossil fuels to rise so that it makes green technology economically competitive. If you can't lower the price of greentech (i.e. have the scientific breakthroughs) , simply raise the price of gas/coal so that going green is justified. It's disgusting. And those are all in their words, not mine. Oh wait, "we want the price of gas to increase, just not soooo sharply).

If this President was even a bit pro-business, I'd be much more inclined to vote for him. If we need to grow our way out of this deficit...I'm placing my trust in Romney every time and that's that.

On one hand he's "fighting for the middle class," on the other he's attacking the very energy sources that give them jobs. If you increase the cost of doing business here...jobs leave. I don't see any sign of Obama turning this economy around, he's in this "fundamentally transform America," and to do that prices must rise.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If we had this thread during Bush, or if you can find one instance in which I've defended Bush, you might have a point. Both parties blow immensely.



You see a lot of starving people in this country? Spare me the exaggerations. (Not to mention, who gives a **** about global warming if people can't eat because they spend their money on their now-overly-expensive heating bill?)

What signs of "expanding the economy" has Obama given us? I see an Obamacare that will cost us 800k+ jobs, an EPA/Energy Secretary working to increase the price of energy? I mean, LITERALLY, they want the price of gas and fossil fuels to rise so that it makes green technology economically competitive. If you can't lower the price of greentech (i.e. have the scientific breakthroughs) , simply raise the price of gas/coal so that going green is justified. It's disgusting. And those are all in their words, not mine. Oh wait, "we want the price of gas to increase, just not soooo sharply).

If this President was even a bit pro-business, I'd be much more inclined to vote for him. If we need to grow our way out of this deficit...I'm placing my trust in Romney every time and that's that.

On one hand he's "fighting for the middle class," on the other he's attacking the very energy sources that give them jobs. If you increase the cost of doing business here...jobs leave. I don't see any sign of Obama turning this economy around, he's in this "fundamentally transform America," and to do that prices must rise.

If you slashed all the programs that provide a social safety net for the least fortunate among us, people would starve. If you don't realize that there is real poverty in this country then your other arguments instantly lose credibility. Also, indebtedness is not a natural state. Money is a human invention. The environment is not. So yeah, debt can be ignored before the environment.

Whoever is telling you that "Obama's policies are killing jobs" is lying to you. The President is not responsible for rising gas prices. That is political rhetoric intended for the most naive and uninformed people in the country, not people who understand financial and economic theory.

The only business people who think the President's policies have made things harder for business is business owners who listen to Rush Limbaugh on their way home from work and watch FOXNews on their lunchbreak. They think that because they are being told that. It isn't based on their experience.

 

[Buster Bluth]

That is a compelling reason to vote against the current administration? One way or the other, there is going to be a federal government. The issue is who is going to steward it.

Buster, I respect the fact that you aren't just on here yelling and screaming. You have a much better grip on general economics and policy than most people I find myself arguing with. But I don't think you acknowledging the just how bad the situation was that the President inherited.

I feel like the republican argument against the President (the policy one, not the appeals to bigotry and prejudice) are the political equivalent of blaming a pilot who took over an aircraft in freefall when it was 500 yards above ground for crashing the plane, instead of crediting him with saving most of the people who were on board.

Thanks for the kind words. I should reiterate that I do not have a horse and the race, and that I love the graph. I have seen it before and LOVE throwing that gem onto a mainly-GOP board I am on.

I don't really care for the analogy. We must first recognize that Bush wasn't responsible--at least not solely. The Dems wanted every American to have a home just as the GOP wanted business expansion. One house creates two jobs, Dems get more handouts, banks get rich. They're all in it together. The vids of Barney Frank prove it.

You don't think TARP saved the freefall a bit? Wasn't that Bush? What did Obama do, the stimulus? An honest question.

Ron Paul would say that trusting the same people to fix their own problems in this case is just plain stupid. The whole game is flawed, in his eyes. I believe him more and more the more I read about just how screwed we are as a country.

Where I blame Obama, is his lack of leadership and plans. As I stated on this thread (believe it or not), I sorta liked the old Obama. The Obama who sounded like he was ready to grab Washington by the horns and be a modern Lincoln. PLEASE, show me where that guy is. I see a President who is in over his head, was never truly prepared, and owns his seat to too many friends and puts their interests first. I don't see any of those friends being small business and the true middle class.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Whoever is telling you that "Obama's policies are killing jobs" is lying to you. The President is not responsible for rising gas prices. That is political rhetoric intended for the most naive and uninformed people in the country, not people who understand financial and economic theory.

The only business people who think the President's policies have made things harder for business is business owners who listen to Rush Limbaugh on their way home from work and watch FOXNews on their lunchbreak. They think that because they are being told that. It isn't based on their experience.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Almost every word.

The President's Energy Secretary stated "we need to find a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe." Obama stated that under Cap & Trade (which he attempted to pass), that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket."

There really is no denying that the President's policies want the price of energy to go up so that people use greentech. I didn't get that from Rush, or FN, I got it from Obama and Chu.

And it is somewhat based on my experience. I study and work in a field in which a good amount of people WANT $8 gas, so that Americans will be forced to leave their suburbs and build real cities again. Honestly, I could live a few dozen POSITIVES from high gas prices. They can.

As for the price of gas per se, you don't think that printing a trillion or so for that stimulus and the general weakening of the dollar plays into that? The Feds use an inflation meter that doesn't take into account food and energy (among other things), so they're clueless on this issue.

And even if alllll of that wasn't true, where's his plan to fix it?

Would you not agree that if coal is the cheapest energy resource ($30bil for $42% of our energy), switching to more expensive energy would make the cost of manufacturing increase and worsen our ability to compete on the global market? No? Even natural gas is 4x the price of coal.

 

[pkt77242]

Thanks for the kind words. I should reiterate that I do not have a horse and the race, and that I love the graph. I have seen it before and LOVE throwing that gem onto a mainly-GOP board I am on.

I don't really care for the analogy. We must first recognize that Bush wasn't responsible--at least not solely. The Dems wanted every American to have a home just as the GOP wanted business expansion. One house creates two jobs, Dems get more handouts, banks get rich. They're all in it together. The vids of Barney Frank prove it.

You don't think TARP saved the freefall a bit? Wasn't that Bush? What did Obama do, the stimulus? An honest question.

Ron Paul would say that trusting the same people to fix their own problems in this case is just plain stupid. The whole game is flawed, in his eyes. I believe him more and more the more I read about just how screwed we are as a country.

Where I blame Obama, is his lack of leadership and plans. As I stated on this thread (believe it or not), I sorta liked the old Obama. The Obama who sounded like he was ready to grab Washington by the horns and be a modern Lincoln. PLEASE, show me where that guy is. I see a President who is in over his head, was never truly prepared, and owns his seat to too many friends and puts their interests first. I don't see any of those friends being small business and the true middle class.

Obama bailed out the auto industry (forced them into bankruptcy backed by the governemnt funding) which worked out rather well.

I think the problem that Obama ran into is that congress is so polarized that it is almost impossible to move legislation through it currently. The Senate has turned into a wasteland as you almost always have to have 60 votes to pass anything now, which in this polarized time it very difficult.

I would say that the biggest issue we face as a country is that compromise has become a dirty word. It is my way or the highway in politics currently and that leads to nothing getting done. Extremism in politics has gotten out of control and has royally ****ed us.

 

[DSully1995]

I couldn't disagree with this more. Almost every word.

The President's Energy Secretary stated "we need to find a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe." Obama stated that under Cap & Trade (which he attempted to pass), that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket."

There really is no denying that the President's policies want the price of energy to go up so that people use greentech. I didn't get that from Rush, or FN, I got it from Obama and Chu.

And it is somewhat based on my experience. I study and work in a field in which a good amount of people WANT $8 gas, so that Americans will be forced to leave their suburbs and build real cities again. Honestly, I could live a few dozen POSITIVES from high gas prices. They can.

As for the price of gas per se, you don't think that printing a trillion or so for that stimulus and the general weakening of the dollar plays into that? The Feds use an inflation meter that doesn't take into account food and energy (among other things), so they're clueless on this issue.

And even if alllll of that wasn't true, where's his plan to fix it?

Would you not agree that if coal is the cheapest energy resource ($30bil for $42% of our energy), switching to more expensive energy would make the cost of manufacturing increase and worsen our ability to compete on the global market? No? Even natural gas is 4x the price of coal.

Ofcourse, im sure thats what would get him re-elected, high gas prices. it all makes sense


Also, on the issue of coal, you probly dont believe in global warming or care about it, but I dont see coal as worth its long term cost

 

[Buster Bluth]

Obama bailed out the auto industry (forced them into bankruptcy backed by the governemnt funding) which worked out rather well.

This one always makes me so angry. He bailed out the UAW. Why couldn't they go into Chapter 11 like so many other companies? Because the massive union would get destroyed, that's why.

Fiat now owns Chrysler. You don't hear about that much. All we hear in Toledo is "oh boy Jeeps are selling off the shelves," "brand new technology being installed at Jeep," etc etc. All because of Fiat. Fiat is the one who boosted sales overseas (e.g. up in Australia >40% for two years in a row). Fiat built that.

The governments owns 26% of GM. It needs to sell its stock at $53 to make back its money. The stock is currently at $21. Ouchers. We (tax payers) stand to lose tens of billions on this.

And might I add, GM is still broken. It isn't thriving in America.

A response to this, perhaps?: Michael Barone: Bad for GM and country, good for UAW » Abilene Reporter-News

And lastly, even if this was a homerun, that sure isn't the entire American economy.

I think the problem that Obama ran into is that congress is so polarized that it is almost impossible to move legislation through it currently. The Senate has turned into a wasteland as you almost always have to have 60 votes to pass anything now, which in this polarized time it very difficult.

I would say that the biggest issue we face as a country is that compromise has become a dirty word. It is my way or the highway in politics currently and that leads to nothing getting done. Extremism in politics has gotten out of control and has royally ****ed us.

Perhaps. There's really no way to prove who is at fault. But the guy was elected on promising to work with both parties. Where is that? I haven't seen the President reach out too often lately (the last two years). And Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed, that leads me to believe that bills that weren't so left-leaning would have had a decent shot at passing.

What is to mindboggling to me is their unwillingness to do what they both even agree on because they are using it as bait to get what the other party doesn't. That's how **** like "rising student loan interest" happens.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Also, on the issue of coal, you probly dont believe in global warming or care about it, but I dont see coal as worth its long term cost

But will you at least have the balls to admit the negative impacts of getting away from coal?

 

[DSully1995]

But will you at least have the balls to admit the negative impacts of getting away from coal?

Its hard to tell people to stop using coal when the Chinese open a coal factory a day.

 

[pkt77242]

Thanks for the kind words. I should reiterate that I do not have a horse and the race, and that I love the graph. I have seen it before and LOVE throwing that gem onto a mainly-GOP board I am on.

I don't really care for the analogy. We must first recognize that Bush wasn't responsible--at least not solely. The Dems wanted every American to have a home just as the GOP wanted business expansion. One house creates two jobs, Dems get more handouts, banks get rich. They're all in it together. The vids of Barney Frank prove it.

You don't think TARP saved the freefall a bit? Wasn't that Bush? What did Obama do, the stimulus? An honest question.

Ron Paul would say that trusting the same people to fix their own problems in this case is just plain stupid. The whole game is flawed, in his eyes. I believe him more and more the more I read about just how screwed we are as a country.

Where I blame Obama, is his lack of leadership and plans. As I stated on this thread (believe it or not), I sorta liked the old Obama. The Obama who sounded like he was ready to grab Washington by the horns and be a modern Lincoln. PLEASE, show me where that guy is. I see a President who is in over his head, was never truly prepared, and owns his seat to too many friends and puts their interests first. I don't see any of those friends being small business and the true middle class.

If Romney gets elected he will owe it to all of the Rich people who funded the Super PACS (Sheldon Adelson, etc. Top super PAC donors - Sheldon and Miriam Adelson (1) - CNNMoney ) not to the middle class and even better most of his policies will greatly benefit the rich but will at best have a neutral impact on the middle class and could even be a negative (e.g. his tax plan that will drastically cut rates on the rich but will likely be neutral to a slight increase for the middle class).

 

[pkt77242]

This one always makes me so angry. He bailed out the UAW. Why couldn't they go into Chapter 11 like so many other companies? Because the massive union would get destroyed, that's why.

Fiat now owns Chrysler. You don't hear about that much. All we hear in Toledo is "oh boy Jeeps are selling off the shelves," "brand new technology being installed at Jeep," etc etc. All because of Fiat. Fiat is the one who boosted sales overseas (e.g. up in Australia >40% for two years in a row). Fiat built that.

The governments owns 26% of GM. It needs to sell its stock at $53 to make back its money. The stock is currently at $21. Ouchers. We (tax payers) stand to lose tens of billions on this.

And might I add, GM is still broken. It isn't thriving in America.

A response to this, perhaps?: Michael Barone: Bad for GM and country, good for UAW » Abilene Reporter-News

And lastly, even if this was a homerun, that sure isn't the entire American economy.



Perhaps. There's really no way to prove who is at fault. But the guy was elected on promising to work with both parties. Where is that? I haven't seen the President reach out too often lately (the last two years). And Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed, that leads me to believe that bills that weren't so left-leaning would have had a decent shot at passing.

What is to mindboggling to me is their unwillingness to do what they both even agree on because they are using it as bait to get what the other party doesn't. That's how **** like "rising student loan interest" happens.

Actually they couldn't go through regular chapter 11 because no one wanted to fund them. For a company to go through chapter 11 a bank or group must fund them and no one wanted to touch them. Banks and other groups were given a chance to fund their chapter 11 or restructure their debt but none wanted any piece of it.

 

[pkt77242]

This one always makes me so angry. He bailed out the UAW. Why couldn't they go into Chapter 11 like so many other companies? Because the massive union would get destroyed, that's why.

Fiat now owns Chrysler. You don't hear about that much. All we hear in Toledo is "oh boy Jeeps are selling off the shelves," "brand new technology being installed at Jeep," etc etc. All because of Fiat. Fiat is the one who boosted sales overseas (e.g. up in Australia >40% for two years in a row). Fiat built that.

The governments owns 26% of GM. It needs to sell its stock at $53 to make back its money. The stock is currently at $21. Ouchers. We (tax payers) stand to lose tens of billions on this.

And might I add, GM is still broken. It isn't thriving in America.

A response to this, perhaps?: Michael Barone: Bad for GM and country, good for UAW » Abilene Reporter-News

And lastly, even if this was a homerun, that sure isn't the entire American economy.



Perhaps. There's really no way to prove who is at fault. But the guy was elected on promising to work with both parties. Where is that? I haven't seen the President reach out too often lately (the last two years). And Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed, that leads me to believe that bills that weren't so left-leaning would have had a decent shot at passing.

What is to mindboggling to me is their unwillingness to do what they both even agree on because they are using it as bait to get what the other party doesn't. That's how **** like "rising student loan interest" happens.

I agree with the bolded part.

On the italics part. He tried to reach out frequently during his first 2 years, but everytime he did the GOP wouldn't work with him. Actually he kept reaching out to the Republicans on healthcare and they didn't want to work with him. He even took a damn Republican idea and used it (shockingly the idea of an individual mandate and such was a Republican idea during the Clinton years as an alternative to a single payer system) and yet they still wouldn't work with him. I am sorry but to say that you don't know who to blame for Republicans filibustering a record number of bills and killing nominations left and right for appointed positions (and putting secret holds on them) is willful blindness. I am not saying that Obama is great President but Republicans have made it their goal to make him a one term President no matter what it cost the U.S.