Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

So you are okay with increasing the national debt by a large amount to fix the economy then?

Sure, I know Reagan raised the debt limit. But, he didn't do anywhere near as much damage as obama has in 4 years, Moody's didn't downgrade us, unemployment went way down, etc...we got $hit back on track and were doing well economically. And hell, I was only born in 1985.

Obama's policies and atitude toward this country are polar opposites of Reagan's, and it shows. His policies fail, he takes no accountability for them, blames Republicans, demonizes "the rich", says he's here for "the poor" and "middle class" while those two groups have suffered the most under him, and guys like you GoIrish41 really believe things have gotten better.

If we were at 5% unemployment, were bringing down our debt and deficit, and had the Senate passed 1 damn budget in 4 years, I'd sit back and say, "I've got nothing. Obama really is getting things back on track." That isn't the case.

This is why sometimes we conservatives feel like we're living in the twilight zone. 8% unemployment, $16 trillion debt, inflation, and $4.00 gallon gas is Democrats' version of "improving economy." Sorry, I don't accept that. We have higher standards, we're capable of better, and we deserve better. Also shows two political parties who have two vastly different views for our country and why Congress sucks.

 

[GoIrish41]

But you're right, I'm so blind to reality. Everything's great. The land of unicorns is upon us. We've come so far. We're moving forward!

Nobody has made any such assertion. This argument is about the statement below.

lol amazing...things have gotten worse across the board for everyone, especially the middle class, since 2008 but you're still pissed about Bush and 2000, and comrade GoIrisis still bothered by Romney and his money.

This statement is beyond silly. You can disagree with Obama's policies and attack him for them. I won't fault you for that. But this statement is just indefensible. The more accurate statement is that most are better off than they were in 2008. And, since that is, in fact, a true statement it means that we ARE moving foward. I could even make the argument that we would be much, much further along without the obvious Republican obstruction in Congress, but let's not muddy the agument with that. My point is that you made a dumb statement designed to provoke, and you can try to dance around it all you want, it is still dumb.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So let me get this straight guys so I understand your line of thought.

You blaim the president for the bad economy?

Yet the president yet nothing as been passed outside of the annual budgets since the stimulus since 09. So basically for over 3 years we have done nothing to try help the economy because the Republicans have blocked it.

So you blaim the President for being unable to do anything for the economy for the last 3 plus years when yourself's think the government should not be helping the economy? So the President rather he has wanted to or not has followed your strategy for over 3 years. So you are saying your own strategy stinks.

ACA does not even go into effect until January of 2014 so I am not sure how can blaim that on the bad economy.

Unless you think that we shoud deny people with prexisting conditions because stuff like that has gone into effect.

I bet no one here follows your line of thought. Ignoring that jumbled garbage up there, let's do this:

a) As another posted noted, Dems could do whatever they wanted from 2009-2011. Americans wanted more jobs and a stable economy. They got a waste of a stimulus and ACA shoved down their throats. Uneployment went up...thanks, DC.

b) republicans have blocked things like your fantasy "american jobs act" that will fail just like first stimulus. And thank God...imagine the past 2 years like the first 2 of obama's? My Lord where would our debt be? Like drunken teenagers with Daddy's credit cards.

c) small businesses have admited that the ACA hurts them and hiring. premiums are already on the rise and will continue to rise.

d) don't give me that "obamacare or all the sick people die" line. you and others have done it before, and it doesn't even garner a response. do better.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Nobody has made any such assertion. This argument is about the statement below.




This statement is beyond silly. You can disagree with Obama's policies and attack him for them. I won't fault you for that. But this statement is just indefensible. The more accurate statement is that most are better off than they were in 2008. And, since that is, in fact, a true statement it means that we ARE moving foward. I could even make the argument that we would be much, much further along without the obvious Republican obstruction in Congress, but let's not muddy the agument with that. My point is that you made a dumb statement designed to provoke, and you can try to dance around it all you want, it is still dumb.

Indefensible my *** lol...I guess you didn't like any of the numbers I threw out there for you that MSLSD or Moveon.org don't put out there for you.

Most are not better off than 2008, numbers prove it, people are not confident things will get much better in the next few years, and yes in the leftist sense we are moving forward and beginning "fundamental transformation" as the president calls it. It sucks.

As for that darn Republican obstruction, I wouldn't shed a tear if we split the country into two, half with red states controlled by conservatives and half with blue states controlled by democrats/ progressives/ socialists/ statists/ whatever you call yourselves. I'd move to a red state tomorrow, sit back, wish you luck, and watch all the progressives take the blue states, turn them into welfare nanny states, and let you guys have all the things you want without any silly obstruction.

 

[chicago51]

Did you forget the 2 years of unimpeded govt control by the dems? Were sorry your president didn't think the economy was a necessity until he got towards election. Only so he could blame republicans despite having full control for half his presidency ..... You're right it's republicans fault

Dude you been paying attention. With Al Frankin's leave absence back in the 111th Congress and then Ted Kennedy's death the Democrats for all intensive purposes never had a filibuster proof Senate. The Senate republicans blocked bill after bill.

The Democrats never had full control. Not in this day and age were you need 60 votes for every single bill in the Senate.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...ACA does not even go into effect until January of 2014 so I am not sure how can blaim that on the bad economy.
...

I don't know about the "entire economy", but the fact of the matter is that small businesses began freaking out the minute it was passed. Mainly because they don't know how it will ultimately apply to them, which is understandable because not even HHS or the DOL know how everything's going to play out. (They haven't passed the regs yet).

And when small businesses freak out, they don't hire as much, and they don't spend as much. Fact is, Obamacare could not take effect for a decade and it would still be hurting the small business sector of the economy.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This is the Democrats' version of "getting better" and "moving forward."

This would be like Charlie Weis strutting himself into Swarbrick's office after the 2007 season and saying, "Hey Jack, I inherited a crummy situation after Ty. But we're getting better!"


3) The economy has improved because the DOW is at a record high? Your blind love affair with the most progressive, anti business, social welfare president is astounding. When this guy took office in 2009, unemployment was at 7.6%. Where are we now? 8%.

4) Median household incomes have declined 4 or 5 percent in since then.

5) Record numbers of people are on food stamps.

6) Half of college grads (some of them it's their own fault for fake majors) don't have full time jobs after graduation.

7) National debt has increased by $6 trillion in 4 years.

8) Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a damn budget in 4 years.

 

[RDU Irish]

I know lots of people struggle with math. Let me ask the following: if income is growing slower than expenses, what is the end game? Regardless of a current deficit or surplus, the end game is bankruptcy with that trajectory.

Obama's policies suppress growth, does that mean we won't grow? No, just means that it could be better.

Reagan put on a trajectory of growing income faster than expenses. Even though that required a higher deficit in the near term, the long run was at least saved. Seems to me Obama would rather take every dime from enough rich people to balance today's budget with no regard for tomorrow's revenue.

 

[chicago51]

)

I know lots of people struggle with math. Let me ask the following: if income is growing slower than expenses, what is the end game? Regardless of a current deficit or surplus, the end game is bankruptcy with that trajectory.

The United States government can't go bankrupt we issues our own currency. Some Republicans may want you to think so but nobody is going to question the full faith and credit of the United States. Our debt is 99% of GDP, it was 120% in 1950. This is no time to panic.

Obama's policies suppress growth, does that mean we won't grow? No, just means that it could be better.

Lowering payroll tax on small business suppresses growth (part of jobs act). Fixing our roads suppresses growth? Making the Bush tax cuts on 98% of Americans suppresses growth?

Reagan put on a trajectory of growing income faster than expenses. Even though that required a higher deficit in the near term, the long run was at least saved.

This is BS. There has been a clear cut change income in the United States since Reaganomics.

Seems to me Obama would rather take every dime from enough rich people to balance today's budget with no regard for tomorrow's revenue.

Have you read the President's plan? It is 2.5 to 1 in spending cuts to tax increases.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is the Democrats' version of "getting better" and "moving forward."

This would be like Charlie Weis strutting himself into Swarbrick's office after the 2007 season and saying, "Hey Jack, I inherited a crummy situation after Ty. But we're getting better!"


3) The economy has improved because the DOW is at a record high? Your blind love affair with the most progressive, anti business, social welfare president is astounding. When this guy took office in 2009, unemployment was at 7.6%. Where are we now? 8%.

4) Median household incomes have declined 4 or 5 percent in since then.

5) Record numbers of people are on food stamps.

6) Half of college grads (some of them it's their own fault for fake majors) don't have full time jobs after graduation.

7) National debt has increased by $6 trillion in 4 years.

8) Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a damn budget in 4 years.

These charts of from September, but they clearly show the trend that things are, in general, improving.

CHARTS: Are You Better Off Than 4 Years Ago? - Business Insider

 

[connor_in]

GoIrish41-

You say

that most are better off than they were in 2008

. I take exception to your metrics. What are you using to determine this...the DJIA? GDP? Unemployment rate? I can point to a number of metrics that are far worse...deficit...debt...price of gas...health care costs...# of food stamp recipeints...family income...food prices

Also, lets ask a question...why compare what some would consider to be Obama's best numbers of his administration versus just the very last days of W's? Both are two term presidents...why not compare the first year of W's second term with this first year of O's second term? Is it simply because you only want to compare O with the very worst economic time of W? What if we took the median of each economic metric from the 8 yrs of W's term?

Yes, there was a recession at the end of W's second term. Being brutally honest, do you think it is entirely W's fault? No fault at all lying with Congress...No fault at all lying with any previous admin-not just WJC...(if you blame the wars, did any D's vote for it...vote for the spending bills...continue Afghanistan use of force...keep Gitmo open). Have any recessions occurred during D admins? Did they have any fault for them? Do you believe that bull-bear markets are indeed cyclical and will occur or only happen due to R policies?

See...I consider myself a relatively fiscal conservative, but I have been unhappy with a number of policies from both sides over the years (note I am in my early 40's and became poltically aware at the end of Carter era). So I don't JUST blame Obama, I have arguments with W and WJC and so on down the line.

 

[Grahambo]

Some of you seem very into the political arena, have any of you tried to run or thought about running for a local office?

 

[chicago51]

Has anybody actually read the President's plan?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

Basically the President is asking the 1 percent to pony up 27 percent of the deficit reduction. (1.2 trillion in taxes/4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction= about 27 percent) Since they own 40 percent of the wealth is that not a fair share?

How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans | ThinkProgress

The rest of us that own that own other 60 percent are going to see cuts in programs that benefit the middle class. So we are essentially ponying up for 73 percent of the deficit reduction.

This why I as a liberal am not totally on board with the plan. That said we need to compromise in life.

 

[GoIrish41]

GoIrish41-

You say . I take exception to your metrics. What are you using to determine this...the DJIA? GDP? Unemployment rate? I can point to a number of metrics that are far worse...deficit...debt...price of gas...health care costs...# of food stamp recipeints...family income...food prices

Also, lets ask a question...why compare what some would consider to be Obama's best numbers of his administration versus just the very last days of W's? Both are two term presidents...why not compare the first year of W's second term with this first year of O's second term? Is it simply because you only want to compare O with the very worst economic time of W? What if we took the median of each economic metric from the 8 yrs of W's term?

Yes, there was a recession at the end of W's second term. Being brutally honest, do you think it is entirely W's fault? No fault at all lying with Congress...No fault at all lying with any previous admin-not just WJC...(if you blame the wars, did any D's vote for it...vote for the spending bills...continue Afghanistan use of force...keep Gitmo open). Have any recessions occurred during D admins? Did they have any fault for them? Do you believe that bull-bear markets are indeed cyclical and will occur or only happen due to R policies?

See...I consider myself a relatively fiscal conservative, but I have been unhappy with a number of policies from both sides over the years (note I am in my early 40's and became poltically aware at the end of Carter era). So I don't JUST blame Obama, I have arguments with W and WJC and so on down the line.

Take a look at the post above yours and the link I posted.


As to where the blame falls, I agree, there is plenty to go around in previous administrations, in Congresses, and in reckless, greedy decisions in private industry. There is no question about it. But again, to me the debate we are having is about a single statement made earlier in this thread that suggests everyone is doing worse than in 08. That statement simply does not stand up to common sense. I think anyone can cherry pick a few statistics that prove their point, but we should just use our heads on this one. We should use our eyes and decifer what we see. In 08, people were being kicked out of their homes, losing jobs, retirement accounts were going in the wrong direction. Heck, I would bet most of us on this board personally know someone who was directly affected by economic conditions in 08 whose lot in life has improved, if only just a little. I recongnize that a lot of people hate Obama and they want to see him fail. I understand that they will leap on anything that helps them prove they were right about him. But even if you don't like him, we should all condemn idiotic statements. Statements like that diminish the GOP side of almost all issues because they speak to the party's credibility. Republicans should be more upset about silliness of this statement than I am.

 

[chicago51]

Some of you seem very into the political arena, have any of you tried to run or thought about running for a local office?

I'll finish school in the summer 2014. My hope is work as physical therapist for 10-15 years pay off my student and build a foundation. This is something though I want to do at some point of my life. Being only 25 right now and having school, work, and voluntering it is not something I can right here and now. I do hope to though some day run for office.

 

[ACamp1900]

Some of you seem very into the political arena, have any of you tried to run or thought about running for a local office?

My wife has run and is still involved locally and I have worked directly for and with both the Rep. Baca and Rep. McKeon (Polar opposties I know, that's what happens when you grow up I guess)

 

[irishpat183]

Some of you seem very into the political arena, have any of you tried to run or thought about running for a local office?

HA. With my past?

I'd be out after the first week of campagining. LOL


Was very involved in student governmetn in college, though.

It just always interested me. In fact, everyone should be intersted in who is running our country.

Thats why I hold no ill will towards opposing views on here. I just sit back and admire the passion. It's good to know that people care.

 

[irishpat183]

I'll finish school in the summer 2014. My hope is work as physical therapist for 10-15 years pay off my student and build a foundation. This is something though I want to do at some point of my life. Being only 25 right now and having school, work, and voluntering it is not something I can right here and now. I do hope to though some day run for office.

By then you'll be a conservative.....so I'll vote for you!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

By then you'll be a conservative.....so I'll vote for you!

lmao...if he wins in Illinois, especially Chicago, he won't be a conservative.

 

[chicago51]

By then you'll be a conservative.....so I'll vote for you!

Never going to happen buddy even if I'm a millionaire. Just don't sit don't with my personal code just like liberalism don't sit with yours.

 

[chicago51]

lmao...if he wins in Illinois, especially Chicago, he won't be a conservative.

I am in the 5th District of Illinois which is the on north side of the city. While not as Democratic has the more heavily African American south side it is still very heavily blue. We didn't have a Republican on the ballet in 2012.

I might be more interested in a state election. Illinois at the state level has been terribly ran for 2 decades by both Democrats and Republicans. Our speaker of the state House of Representives Michael Madigen pretty much controls the state. Even though he is a Democrat I'll come out and say he is one the worst pollicticians in the country.

By the way Illinois will always be the state that elected Rod Blagoyevich so we are disgrace in many ways. I was too young to vote for Blago but probably would have if I could have. The sad thing he was one of the best governors Illinios had in recent year other than his personal morals most famously trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Sentate seat to the highest bidder.

Mark Kirk a republican candidate actually won the Illinois Senate race in 2010 partially because the Democrat had past ties to Blagoyevich. Heck I didn' vote either candidate because of that.

 

[connor_in]

I am in the 5th District of Illinois which is the on north side of the city. While not as Democratic has the more heavily African American south side it is still very heavily blue. We didn't have a Republican on the ballet in 2012.

I might be more interested in a state election. Illinois at the state level has been terribly ran for 2 decades by both Democrats and Republicans. Our speaker of the state House of Representives Michael Madigen pretty much controls the state. Even though he is a Democrat I'll come out and say he is one the worst pollicticians in the country.

By the way Illinois will always be the state that elected Rod Blagoyevich so we are disgrace in many ways. I was too young to vote for Blago but probably would have if I could have. The sad thing he was one of the best governors Illinios had in recent year other than his personal morals most famously trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Sentate seat to the highest bidder.

PLEASE chicago51! Never run for political office in IL!!!

Not because because of your political beliefs...I am of the mind we need a wide spectrum of views forthe best debates. I merely worry for your friends and family as at the end of many IL political careers some time must be served in the IL state criminal justice system!!!

 

[Irish8248]

lmao...if he wins in Illinois, especially Chicago, he won't be a conservative.

hey you never know... I won my election in a city that is 4:1 democrat to republican enrollment. My district was more like 2.5:1 but the democrats had held the seat for 50 years and I was the first ever Republican to win, I was 24... it can happen lol

 

[Irish8248]

I
Even though he is a Democrat I'll come out and say he is one the worst pollicticians in the country.

google Sheldon Silver in the NYS Assembly lol .... THE WORST EVVVVVVVVER

 

[chicago51]

HA. With my past?

I'd be out after the first week of campagining. LOL

Was very involved in student governmetn in college, though.

It just always interested me. In fact, everyone should be intersted in who is running our country.

Thats why I hold no ill will towards opposing views on here. I just sit back and admire the passion. It's good to know that people care.

All I ask is that you don't sell anymore guns to those Mexican drug cartels.

 

[connor_in]

Take a look at the post above yours and the link I posted.


As to where the blame falls, I agree, there is plenty to go around in previous administrations, in Congresses, and in reckless, greedy decisions in private industry. There is no question about it. But again, to me the debate we are having is about a single statement made earlier in this thread that suggests everyone is doing worse than in 08. That statement simply does not stand up to common sense. I think anyone can cherry pick a few statistics that prove their point, but we should just use our heads on this one. We should use our eyes and decifer what we see. In 08, people were being kicked out of their homes, losing jobs, retirement accounts were going in the wrong direction. Heck, I would bet most of us on this board personally know someone who was directly affected by economic conditions in 08 whose lot in life has improved, if only just a little. I recongnize that a lot of people hate Obama and they want to see him fail. I understand that they will leap on anything that helps them prove they were right about him. But even if you don't like him, we should all condemn idiotic statements. Statements like that diminish the GOP side of almost all issues because they speak to the party's credibility. Republicans should be more upset about silliness of this statement than I am.

I think the back and forth of a lot of this resides in you going back to the one statement

everyone is doing worse than in 08

...I do not believe that and have not been arguing that. However, i also do not beilieve from an earlier post of yours that most are doing better than 2008. In 2009 & 2010

people were being kicked out of their homes, losing jobs, retirement accounts were going in the wrong direction

(many people have contiued to be hurt over time and in response to policies of this admin as well). Also, this can be seen by the post of mine you quoted in your response quoted above where I ask why you simply want to compare O's supposed "best" econimic news versus the absolute low point of the W years. I think that in my reading of many of the posts of people responding to you they are doing the same thing and not arguing necessarily the one line you point out (I could be wrong, but even in reviewing them that is my judgement)

BTW...I do not want to see Obama "fail" (and I dislike that anyone assumes that). I want this country to get better, I want economic stability and growth. I do however believe that his policies will not lead to that. Economics was part of my multiple majors in college and I have been exposed to micro and macro on national and international levels, and even professors who were Keynesian felt it was a philosophy best used in good economic times. Also, if you think that an opposing party not allowing a president to install every single idea/policy is wanting that president to fail, then pretty yes, I guess I have wanted every president in my lifetime to fail. Even the presidents I agreed with a lot of the time, i didn't agree with all the time.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think the back and forth of a lot of this resides in you going back to the one statement ...I do not believe that and have not been arguing that. However, i also do not beilieve from an earlier post of yours that most are doing better than 2008. In 2009 & 2010 (many people have contiued to be hurt over time and in response to policies of this admin as well). Also, this can be seen by the post of mine you quoted in your response quoted above where I ask why you simply want to compare O's supposed "best" econimic news versus the absolute low point of the W years. I think that in my reading of many of the posts of people responding to you they are doing the same thing and not arguing necessarily the one line you point out (I could be wrong, but even in reviewing them that is my judgement)

BTW...I do not want to see Obama "fail" (and I dislike that anyone assumes that). I want this country to get better, I want economic stability and growth. I do however believe that his policies will not lead to that. Economics was part of my multiple majors in college and I have been exposed to micro and macro on national and international levels, and even professors who were Keynesian felt it was a philosophy best used in good economic times. Also, if you think that an opposing party not allowing a president to install every single idea/policy is wanting that president to fail, then pretty yes, I guess I have wanted every president in my lifetime to fail. Even the presidents I agreed with a lot of the time, i didn't agree with all the time.

Good post and thank you for recognizing that I was having an argument that nobody else was having. I truly was focused on that one statement and, as I said, I think we should all point out when someone makes a statement that is outrageous. Yesterday, I pointed out two such statements ... the one you acknowledge above and the Hitler comment made by Rand Paul during his fillibuster. Statements like these do nothing to promote sound arguments on either side of the political spectrum. Indeed, it distracts from the debate to say things that aren't true or are simply designed to be provacative.

A couple of other things.

First bolded statement: I believe the economy has at least stabilized. I don't see the degree of anxiety and fear that was everywhere in 2008. I think that we've added jobs to the economy (not enough, I agree), and I think people are not getting thrown out of their homes in droves. In 08 and 09, you could drive through neighborhoods all across the country and see Forclosure signs or at least for sale signs because people were trying desperately to get out of their mortgages before they lost their homes. We aren't in that place any more. While we aren't out of the woods yet, we aren't where we were in 08. For that reason alone, I stand by my observation that most are better off than they were in 08.

As to the second bolded statement above. I did not respond to that post because I do not think that is what I was doing -- comparing the worst of W to the best of Obama. I would argue that looking at the entirety of W's record shows an administration that began with a surplus and ended in the worst ressession in history. And, while it may not have been completely his fault, he certainly played a large role in that turnaround in the economy. His tax cuts and the two wars were pretty devestating body blows to the economy. He also had an unfunded prescription drug program that didn't help matters much.

Finally, the third bolded item is exagerating what I said. I don't think that Congess should let the president have everything he wants. If I thought that, I'd be advocating for not having a Congress at all. But, over the past two years, there have been a record number of fillibusters. Legislation that would have helped in the recovery was blocked and then the president was criticized for not getting anything done. The amount of obstruction during this period is absolutely unprecidented. You only have to look at the Congressional stats over the past two years to see where I'm coming from.

Oh, and I was not accusing you of wanting the president to fail, but there are certainly many, many republicans who absolutely do. Thanks for the reply.

 

[chicago51]

Shout out to Costco for paying its employees a minimum of 11.50 an hour. Costco also gives its employees health care. Costco also had record profits last year.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Costco also doesn't represent every business in the world.

 

[DSully1995]

Shout out to Costco for paying its employees a minimum of 11.50 an hour. Costco also gives its employees health care. Costco also had record profits last year.

I dont think its out of theyre heart, they have to pay a more competitive wage cuz at minimum wage no one would bare the chaos of costco...