Whats the deal with obummer?

[Copernicus]

Well, apparently the people of Virginia and New Jersey are sending a pretty clear message to the current administration.

Only the New Jersey race could be considered any kind of referendum on Obama, since the Virginia candidate actually tried to distance himself from Obama. Needless to say, he didn't do much to inspire the Democratic base. In New Jersey, Corzine had become an extremely unpopular politician, despite Obama's attempts to defend him.

The New York congressional seat was a real shocker for Republicans, but they probably would have won had they not turned it into a referendum on the whacky extremism that the GOP has been supporting lately. I expect the district to swing back into Republican hands, if the national party doesn't goof it up again next year. But the fact is that Obama did carry that Republican congressional district in his election, so maybe the demographic is following the national pattern of shifting to more progressive politics.

 

[Reverend Rick]

People where tired of 8 years of GWB. 31 out of 40 moderates voted with the 20% Liberal base.

The Pendulum is swinging the other way now.

 

[Engyo]

I think we are all trying to read far too much into far too few tea leaves yet. Next year at this time will be a different story as far as all of this goes.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Just as the 2006 elections foretold the future in 2008, so will the 2010 elections.

 

[Engyo]

Just as the 2006 elections foretold the future in 2008, so will the 2010 elections.

This agrees with what I said above. I'm just not too sure about all this forecasting from the 2009 elections.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When perfectly healthy 25 year olds with no family have to pay 15% of their income to the government for health insurance or face a 1,000 dollar fine........

When EVERY AMERICAN pays more for utilities because of cap and trade when the earth has not got warmer in the last 11 years.....

Or we have had a mild if non-existent hurricane season this year.....

All the while China and India take our last bit of industry....

 

[Smoke]

Come on! If you read this site, it would lead you to believe that Barack Obama has kept every campaign promise he ever made.

No, I don't think anybody has said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that I don't think he has any intention of keeping his promises, and I voted for the son of a *****. There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

But whether he's showing much sign of keeping his promises was not what the OP was about.

 

[Engyo]

I've never expected a politician to live up to campaign promises anyway; that's not how I judge whether the pol in question is doing a reasonably decent job.Cmpaing promises are also NOT how I decide where to cast my votes, either.

 

[Magic Man]

When perfectly healthy 25 year olds with no family have to pay 15% of their income to the government for health insurance or face a 1,000 dollar fine........

I guess it's a good thing that's not happening, huh?

When EVERY AMERICAN pays more for utilities because of cap and trade when the earth has not got warmer in the last 11 years.....

Or we have had a mild if non-existent hurricane season this year.....

All the while China and India take our last bit of industry....

What in the hell are you talking about now?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you know anything about the cap and trade bill at all?

When energy costs more, our last bit of industry will move to China and India where they could care less about pollution and have cheap energy.

What good is it to clean up one place and dump it on another? This is a global issue right?

 

[Minus Habens]

When perfectly healthy 25 year olds with no family have to pay 15% of their income to the government for health insurance or face a 1,000 dollar fine........

Won't go into effect until 2013... after Obama is up for re-election. Convenient, huh?

When EVERY AMERICAN pays more for utilities because of cap and trade when the earth has not got warmer in the last 11 years.....

Or we have had a mild if non-existent hurricane season this year.....

All the while China and India take our last bit of industry....

I have a feeling all this will be blamed on bush n da gop... and people will buy it.

I sure hope you're right, but I do not yet share your optimism...

The gop screwed up big when they had their chance. Let's hope they can live up to, and convince people of their promise that they are no longer fiscally liberal... we shall see.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I am mad as hell at the Republicans for spending like drunken sailors, (no offense to drunken sailors), but when it comes to spending, Barack Obama could make a whore blush.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you know anything about the cap and trade bill at all?

No, but I know enough to not trust your assessment of such issues.

When energy costs more, our last bit of industry will move to China and India where they could care less about pollution and have cheap energy.

What good is it to clean up one place and dump it on another? This is a global issue right?

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the way it works.

 

[Magic Man]

I am mad as hell at the Republicans for spending like drunken sailors, (no offense to drunken sailors), but when it comes to spending, Barack Obama could make a whore blush.

Right. How much did we spend on that war thing in Iraq again?

And by the way, the "drunken sailor" and "whore blushing" comments make no sense.

 

[Copernicus]

I am mad as hell at the Republicans for spending like drunken sailors, (no offense to drunken sailors), but when it comes to spending, Barack Obama could make a whore blush.

First of all, the biggest spending started with Bush, in a desperate attempt to save the economy from total collapse. Obama continued that policy, although one can say that his giveaways to private business have had more strings attached. Unfortunately, Obama hired some Wall Street foxes to safeguard the economic henhouse. The reason for the massive spending is that it is the only fiscal strategy that has been proven to work in the past when the economy is in a nosedive.

And you have a lot of nerve complaining about spending as if the economic debacle had nothing to do with the policies and economic philosophy that right wing libertarian ideology has led us into. Banking deregulation created the economic bubble the blew out last year, and it was Republicans and conservative Democrats who colluded to bring on the disaster. Most of the people with any political power who opposed the irresponsibility were Democrats. Republicans have been leading the stampede over the abyss.

 

[T-Dawg]

First of all, the biggest spending started with Bush,

No it didn't... it began with REAGAN. Reagan started every bad thing in America I can think of off the top of my head (besides the creation Federal Reserve and the poisoning of the water supply with fluoride). Reagan created the debt, exploited fear of communists (although the longevity of anti-communism has to do more with McCarthy than Reagan), brought the far-right into power, and practacally invented "neoconservatism" as well as the "trickle-down economics" policy that inspired both of the Bush's. Oh, and the CIA under Reagan also hired Osama, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda to fight off the "Evil Empire" from Afghanitan, and then abruptly left them once their job was finished so they could set up a new government. Gee, wasn't that smart? Bush (both senior and GWB) was merely a continuation of Reagan's reign of terror.

The ridiculous similarities (and unbelievable stupidity) between Reagan and Bush is why I'm suspicious that there really is some conspiracy going on... people like Reagan are proof that Satan exists.

The reason for the massive spending is that it is the only fiscal strategy that has been proven to work in the past when the economy is in a nosedive.

Can someone explain to me how spending massive amounts of money is supposed to revive the economy? I don't understand how that concept works .

 

[Copernicus]

No it didn't... it began with REAGAN...

Last year's economic collapse had very little to do with Reagan. Bill Clinton left George Bush a reasonably healthy economy and a budget surplus. The primary cause of the collapse is traceable to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which started during Clinton administration. The main culprits were Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but Clinton put his weight behind the Republican-crafted effort. Bush, together with Greenspan and other conservative allies, managed to exacerbate the situation to the point where the bubble finally burst before he was able to get out of office. Obama has done a creditable job of staving off economic collapse, but we are still in a downward job spiral.

The ridiculous similarities (and unbelievable stupidity) between Reagan and Bush is why I'm suspicious that there really is some conspiracy going on... people like Reagan are proof that Satan exists.

There is no conspiracy other than among very wealthy people who could not contain their greed. Everyone rode the roller coaster up to the top. It was deregulation boys and girls gone wild. We are currently back to the boom-bust cycles that had plagued the US economy before the Roosevelt administration. Obama has temporarily stabilized us, but it won't last unless they bring back more regulatory controls. Republicans have been trying to destroy the New Deal reforms since the end of the FDR administration, and they have made great strides towards that goal.

Can someone explain to me how spending massive amounts of money is supposed to revive the economy? I don't understand how that concept works .

You can start with Keynesian economics. Basically, the government gives people money so that they can use it to buy goods that the economy produces. That primes the economic growth, i.e. the growth of capital. It would help if we had not allowed most of our manufacturing base to be exported to other countries, however.

 

[T-Dawg]

Last year's economic collapse had very little to do with Reagan. Bill Clinton left George Bush a reasonably healthy economy and a budget surplus.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the huge deficit. And wow, Clinton fixed Reagan's debt?!? Holy crap, that president must have been freakin' amazing... O_O

There is no conspiracy other than among very wealthy people who could not contain their greed. Everyone rode the roller coaster up to the top. It was deregulation boys and girls gone wild. We are currently back to the boom-bust cycles that had plagued the US economy before the Roosevelt administration.

You say that there's no conspiracy, yet you give all these examples of republicans intentionally trying to destroy the economy. If there was no conspiracy, why are the republicans intentionally trying to destroy the economy and transfer all of the wealth to the upper class?

Republicans have been trying to destroy the New Deal reforms since the end of the FDR administration, and they have made great strides towards that goal.

Why the hell? WHY?!? This is more proof that there IS a conspiracy. Why would the republicans want to destroy something that got us out of the Depression even though it was proven to have actually worked? Because it's a CONSPIRACY! =O

You can start with Keynesian economics. Basically, the government gives people money so that they can use it to buy goods that the economy produces. That primes the economic growth, i.e. the growth of capital. It would help if we had not allowed most of our manufacturing base to be exported to other countries, however.

But wouldn't giving out money cause inflation to spike upwards? Or does it go with price regulations or something?
But anyways, if giving money to the PEOPLE helps... what the heck was the point of bailing out the bankers and CEOs?!?

 

[Copernicus]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the huge deficit. And wow, Clinton fixed Reagan's debt?!? Holy crap, that president must have been freakin' amazing... O_O

That's a straw man. Obviously, he couldn't fix all the damage that Reagan did, but he did leave Bush with a very healthy economy and a budget surplus. Bush managed to squander it and reverse our economic prosperity in record time.

You say that there's no conspiracy, yet you give all these examples of republicans intentionally trying to destroy the economy. If there was no conspiracy, why are the republicans intentionally trying to destroy the economy and transfer all of the wealth to the upper class?

I think that the economic damage caused by pro-market fundamentalism does not have the destruction of the economy as its goal. The goal of people who promote radical deregulation believe that trickle-down economics works and that their ideological perspective will increase our wealth. They view the economic devastation differently--as the result of our failure to take a large enough dose of their prescribed medicine. But you can call any group activity a "conspiracy". That doesn't mean that they are all conspiring to create a plutocracy (which is what their policies have led to, IMO).

But wouldn't giving out money cause inflation to spike upwards? Or does it go with price regulations or something?

You are right. If the emergency spending works, it will tend to inflate the currency. In fact, I think that you usually need a relatively mild rate of inflation to increase general prosperity. The thing that we DO NOT want is currency deflation--where the value of money increases rapidly and the supply shrinks.

But anyways, if giving money to the PEOPLE helps... what the heck was the point of bailing out the bankers and CEOs?!?

Basically, the idea was to pump money into the economy by means of the credit markets. If businesses cannot get loans, many cannot make their payrolls. More jobs are lost. If people cannot get loans, the housing market collapses. Unfortunately, the money was given away too freely, thanks to those in government who see it in their interest to cozy up to the Wall Street mentality. Give the money away without strings, and the super rich will be only too happy to take it and run. They are not going to change their behavior unless they see it in their interest to do so. Right now, foreign countries such as China see it in their interest to keep lending us money to keep our economy afloat. If we sink, then they go down with us. Hence, we must seek to placate China. They have us by the short hairs, but they need us to stay alive. You can thank Bush and the free market extremists for putting us in this spot. They didn't plan to land us here, but this is where their policies landed us.

 

[T-Dawg]

That's a straw man. Obviously, he couldn't fix all the damage that Reagan did, but he did leave Bush with a very healthy economy and a budget surplus. Bush managed to squander it and reverse our economic prosperity in record time.

How could I make a strawman on something I'm agreeing with you on? O_O
Meh, how the heck did Bush do it? How does one person cause so much devastation? I mean seriously, what could he have possibly spent all that money on? Even a war couldn't have got us where we are now by itself... (could it? O_O)

They view the economic devastation differently--as the result of our failure to take a large enough dose of their prescribed medicine.

Ok, so socialism helped everyone who has tried it a lot, keynesian economics has helped the US a lot, and free market capitalism has invariably had a bad human rights record and has consistently destroyed the US economy... so therefore, we can fix our economy by making the market even more free? I don't get these people. O_O

Unfortunately, the money was given away too freely, thanks to those in government who see it in their interest to cozy up to the Wall Street mentality. Give the money away without strings, and the super rich will be only too happy to take it and run. They are not going to change their behavior unless they see it in their interest to do so.

Why do people like that even exist? Who would vote for them (besides republicans; they'll vote for anything bad, but fortunately, they've been in a minority for a while, haven't they?)

I still don't get why the RICH needed that money. They already had money. Lots of money. Why couldn't we have forced them to spend the vast amounts of wealth they already had on their companies rather than jets and mansions?


Er, by the way, was it the war that destroyed our economy, or was it the free-market idealogy?