The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[barry2952]

I wonder if Pentaxshooter is detecting a trend?

[pentaxshooter]

Not hearing much from you.

About the other presidencies? Hell, I hardly talk about the current adminstration on here on in person. Not something I concern my self with much. I was simply saying our problems are compounded through years of gross distortions of power through countless presidents.

I wonder if Pentaxshooter is detecting a trend?

That you are a douche? Yes, detected that quite easily.

[butterface]

"Deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney

Except when they increase under a Democratic administration as the direct result of actions taken by the immediately prior Republican adminstration.

You know, I don't ****ing care at all who wins this election, but if I have to hear the tired ass regurgitated 'Blame Bush!' bull**** for the next 10 months after he's had four ****ing years to implement his own policies, I'm going to lose it. It worked in 2008, and rightfully so, but Jesus it's weak as **** now.

I'm sure I won't be the only one tired of it if he campaigns on this, um, "platform". If he goes down this road, he'll lose big and absolutely deserve to.

[barry2952]

That you are a douche? Yes, detected that quite easily.

Ouch, it's apparent that you don't like to be made out to be the fool you are. My bad.

[pentaxshooter]

Ouch, it's apparent that you don't like to be made out to be the fool you are. My bad.

Yeah, that's it.

[compy222]

children, please stop fighting and calling each other names just because you don't agree with each other...or the mods are going to shoot one of you, and they are letting all of us vote on which one...

[Momus]

You know, I don't ****ing care at all who wins this election, but if I have to hear the tired ass regurgitated 'Blame Bush!' bull**** for the next 10 months after he's had four ****ing years to implement his own policies, I'm going to lose it. It worked in 2008, and rightfully so, but Jesus it's weak as **** now.

It wouldn't even be necessary to mention it, except that some parties want to pretend that the economy tanked on Inauguration Day, January 2009. Look, deficits are high! Look, the poverty rate is up! More folks are on food stamps! Check it out, more people are unemployed! If everyone will simply keep in mind what the economy was like when Obama took office, no one need mention George W. Bush. The GOP presidential candidates certainly aren't!

[compy222]

It wouldn't even be necessary to mention it, except that some parties want to pretend that the economy tanked on Inauguration Day, January 2009. Look, deficits are high! Look, the poverty rate is up! More folks are on food stamps! Check it out, more people are unemployed! If everyone will simply keep in mind what the economy was like when Obama took office, no one need mention George W. Bush. The GOP presidential candidates certainly aren't!

i think the point is that Barack has had 3 years+ to try to fix/right the ship...and instead he spent billions, added to our already large deficit, and hasn't fixed much yet. statistically speaking, GWB would have never survived another reelection had he been able to run in 2008, much like the numbers for Barack aren't improving. its that old saying that "things don't default to yes over time." just because he is trying, if he doesn't make improvements, the public will no default to "yes" on his reelection.

[Sporin]

Actually, the economy was falling off a cliff at the end of Bush's last term. Now it's turned around and growing again.

It may not be where you'd like it to be yet but the facts and numbers quite clearly show that the present administration has Turned around the financial debacle they inherited.

Not sure why people can't, or won't, see that.

[O_G]

I think it's droll that Bush defenders still exist and are popular.

The defenses wrapped up in feigned neutrality are always particularly amusing:

And its that kind of partisan attitude that forces people to elect these fools over and over again. Obama is everything the Democrats claimed Bush was. Our fearless leader is a straight-up criminal.

Bush got congressional approval for his wars. Lybia bomber Obama was told by Congress to pull out and refused. This guy gives money to his buddies in Solyndra and other 'green' companies while ignoring the average Joe. He says deep water oil drilling is bad and shuts down US endeavors, then funds the exact same thing in Brazil. Now, he vows to protect our rights after already violating them behind closed doors (in this, the 'most transparent administration ever').

Bush may have been bad (I disagreed with his foreign policy, but Obama has only continued it. I disagreed with his monetary policy, Obama has only amplified it.) but he is GONE and won't be coming back. Obama is today's problem. Focus on him and the current GOP candidates. Focusing on bad presidents of the past is a waste of time.

[Mike!]

Actually, the economy was falling off a cliff at the end of Bush's last term. Now it's turned around and growing again.

It may not be where you'd like it to be yet but the facts and numbers quite clearly show that the present administration has Turned around the financial debacle they inherited.

Not sure why people can't, or won't, see that.

Unfortunately it's impossible to "know" how many more jobs would have been lost and what the domino effect would have been if not for TARP I, if not for TARP II, if not for government takeover of GM and Chrysler's arranged marriage. The growth mechanism of the economy is through ripple effects, so just imagine the cascading effect on the economy if GM had gone out of business. Restaurants frequented by (now-former) plant workers? Out of business. Mom & pop corner stores in those communities? Out of business. Houses foreclosing. Parts suppliers and technology consulting firms go out of business, and then the same thing happens in those towns. That in turn drags the entire economy of those states down, which drags the US economy down with it.

"Jobs saved or created" is thus understandably impossible to know in totality, but still important to recognize. Jobs don't just magically appear or disappear. If people spend money and drive demand, jobs appear, and if people are out of work and not spending money and not buying things, jobs will disappear.

[VarianceVQ]

Shut up and shout "socialism!" at the falling sky, you.

[Momus]

i think the point is that Barack has had 3 years+ to try to fix/right the ship...and instead he spent billions, added to our already large deficit, and hasn't fixed much yet.

I don't think you can credibly assert that the economy isn't much stronger today than it was three years ago. In January 2009, we lost over 800,000 jobs; in January 2012, we added over 200,000 jobs. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy contracted by almost 9% at an annualized rate. In the fourth quarter of 2011, the economy grew for, what, the tenth or eleventh straight quarter? By the end of 2008, broad-based indicators for the economy were trending worse than in the early years of the Great Depression; today, we're doing much, much better.

So you can argue that Obama doesn't deserve any credit for this, or that we should be doing even better than we are, but then you have to actually make that argument. Why should we be doing even better? How would your preferred policies have led to a better outcome? In short, you can argue the hows and whys, however persuasive that might be, but you can't say things are no better than they were three years ago.

[pentaxshooter]

in January 2012, we added over 200,000 jobs.

Yeah, but 1.2 million stopped looking for work and no longer considered in the "labor force". Some growth

[VarianceVQ]

Yeah, but 1.2 million stopped looking for work and no longer considered in the "labor force". Some growth

People do retire and die, you know.

[butterface]

It wouldn't even be necessary to mention it, except that some parties want to pretend that the economy tanked on Inauguration Day, January 2009. Look, deficits are high! Look, the poverty rate is up! More folks are on food stamps! Check it out, more people are unemployed! If everyone will simply keep in mind what the economy was like when Obama took office, no one need mention George W. Bush. The GOP presidential candidates certainly aren't!

My point is that the validity of the assertion doesn't matter, but rather that it will be political suicide if he continues to assert it. If he runs on a platform of blaming his predecessor for the economy, and his opponent runs on a platform of blaming him, then the criticism from his opponent fosters a more immediate recall and reaction from swing voters, and will likely garner more support.

The only people on board with the 'Blame Bush!' mantra are voters that Obama already has in the bag. And that's not nearly enough to win a national election.

[MixmasterNash]

Yeah, but 1.2 million stopped looking for work and no longer considered in the "labor force". Some growth

This is the first half of an argument. You're missing the second half, where you say how what the Republican candidate would do to fix this or do better or differently than Obama. Not coincidentally, the Republican candidates also don't say.

[Momus]

Yeah, but 1.2 million stopped looking for work and no longer considered in the "labor force". Some growth

Yeah, not so much. First, you're confusing the household survey, which the BLS uses for the unemployment rate, with the payroll survey, which is used to determine monthly job losses/gains. The 250,000 jobs created are independent of the current estimate of the labor force.

Set that aside, though, and let's talk about that 1.2 million. Those weren't people who "stopped looking for work." Every year, the BLS updates its estimates of the labor force. This year, they made those adjustments based on data in the 2010 Census. The BLS raised its estimate of the 16+ population by about 1.5 million. Now the BLS has to estimate the percentage of this increased population that is in the labor force and working. If they'd simply asserted that all of them were working, U3 would have been 8.2% instead of 8.3%. The BLS didn't do that, though. Demographically, most of this increased population was 55+ and 16-24, cohorts that have a lower rate of labor force participation, for obvious reasons. So the BLS estimates that of that 1.5 million people, 258,000 were in the labor force, of which 216,000 were working. That's where the 1.2 million come from, and they aren't people who stopped looking for work. It's just a population adjustment, and it happened in 2009, too. No surprise -- it happens every year.

[barry2952]

Yeah, not so much. First, you're confusing the household survey, which the BLS uses for the unemployment rate, with the payroll survey, which is used to determine monthly job losses/gains. The 250,000 jobs created are independent of the current estimate of the labor force.

Set that aside, though, and let's talk about that 1.2 million. Those weren't people who "stopped looking for work." Every year, the BLS updates its estimates of the labor force. This year, they made those adjustments based on data in the 2010 Census. The BLS raised its estimate of the 16+ population by about 1.5 million. Now the BLS has to estimate the percentage of this increased population that is in the labor force and working. If they'd simply asserted that all of them were working, U3 would have been 8.2% instead of 8.3%. The BLS didn't do that, though. Demographically, most of this increased population was 55+ and 16-24, cohorts that have a lower rate of labor force participation, for obvious reasons. So the BLS estimates that of that 1.5 million people, 258,000 were in the labor force, of which 216,000 were working. That's where the 1.2 million come from, and they aren't people who stopped looking for work. It's just a population adjustment, and it happened in 2009, too. No surprise -- it happens every year.

I've never seen somebody get punched in the head with facts before. Well done!

[Momus]

My point is that the validity of the assertion doesn't matter, but rather that it will be political suicide if he continues to assert it. If he runs on a platform of blaming his predecessor for the economy, and his opponent runs on a platform of blaming him, then the criticism from his opponent fosters a more immediate recall and reaction from swing voters, and will likely garner more support.

I don't think he even has to mention Bush. He just has to remind voters of what the economy was like when he took office, and compare that to what it's doing today. And for what it's worth, I don't think the political spin matters a whole lot. If the economy continues to improve for the next nine months, he'll be reelected in a landslide. If it turns down again, he'll lose.

[SpeedyD]

You know, I don't ****ing care at all who wins this election, but if I have to hear the tired ass regurgitated 'Blame Bush!' bull**** for the next 10 months after he's had four ****ing years to implement his own policies, I'm going to lose it. It worked in 2008, and rightfully so, but Jesus it's weak as **** now.

I'm sure I won't be the only one tired of it if he campaigns on this, um, "platform". If he goes down this road, he'll lose big and absolutely deserve to.

It's not tired, it's true. We're still dealing with the fallout from that assclown, and anyone with a memory knows it.

[O_G]

5 million jobs lost that paid $50,000 year lost
2 million jobs that pay $18,000 year gained

WOW... look at that economic recovery!

[barry2952]

5 million jobs lost that paid $50,000 year lost
2 million jobs that pay $18,000 year gained

WOW... look at that economic recovery!

Got facts?

[O_G]

Got facts?

[compy222]

This is the first half of an argument. You're missing the second half, where you say how what the Republican candidate would do to fix this or do better or differently than Obama. Not coincidentally, the Republican candidates also don't say.

Reducing regulations and lowering costs are good things. As are opening new markets, which we haven't done. Business craves stability, the circus in Washington with no clear schedule, plans, or budget are hampering growth.

[MixmasterNash]

Reducing regulations and lowering costs are good things. As are opening new markets, which we haven't done. Business craves stability, the circus in Washington with no clear schedule, plans, or budget are hampering growth.

You're right, the Republican circus in congress really has contributed to the atmosphere of uncertainty, with the debt show down, refusals to extend payroll tax cuts, and refusal to vote on dozens of critical appointments for federal agencies.

What we're looking for is an argument against Obama though, not against congressional Republicans.

[turbinepowered]

You're right, the Republican circus in congress really has contributed to the atmosphere of uncertainty, with the debt show down, refusals to extend payroll tax cuts, and refusal to vote on dozens of critical appointments for federal agencies.

What we're looking for is an argument against Obama though, not against congressional Republicans.

Yes, let's do the typical and blame all the problems on a single political party, when it's rather blatant that these are the tactics of whichever party happens to lack a congressional majority.

[barry2952]

I'll take that as no.

[MixmasterNash]

Yes, let's do the typical and blame all the problems on a single political party, when it's rather blatant that these are the tactics of whichever party happens to lack a congressional majority.

I'd could spend time arguing that you're factually wrong, which you are, but in reality it doesn't matter. The perception is that the Republicans in congress are obstructionist and wants to block everything, and Obama will have an easy time running against that.

[rsj0714]

I'd could spend time arguing that you're factually wrong, which you are, but in reality it doesn't matter. The perception is that the Republicans in congress are obstructionist and wants to block everything, and Obama will have an easy time running against that.

Congress being obstructive is just another excuse. If he runs on the "blame Bush", I tried but I couldn't because of congress argument he will lose. People are tired of hearing excuses, true or not.

[MixmasterNash]

Congress being obstructive is just another excuse. If he runs on the "blame Bush", I tried but I couldn't because of congress argument he will lose. People are tired of hearing excuses, true or not.

Well, I think Obama's going to run with the "in spite of the obstruction of Congress, the economy has turned around and we're on the road to the right track. Look at what I was able to do in foreign policy where I didn't have to deal with congressional obstruction."

Again, what's completely missing is what Romney/not-Romney would do to make things better. Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to win a campaign, especially when congressional republicans are willing to increase payroll taxes on the lower 90%.

[rsj0714]

Again, what's completely missing is what Romney/not-Romney would do to make things better. Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to win a campaign, especially when congressional republicans are willing to increase payroll taxes on the lower 90%.

The folks that make 175+ are already paying 33-35%. The average Joe making less than 35K is paying as low as 10%. That is about as fair as it gets. I would say if tax figures remain the same(which I agree with) there is no excuse, that any politician can make, saying the lower 90% pay too much.

If anything the lower 90% should see increased taxes, but I am against any increases.

[MixmasterNash]

The folks that make 175+ are already paying 33-35%. The average Joe making less than 35K is paying as low as 10%. That is about as fair as it gets. I would say if tax figures remain the same(which I agree with) there is no excuse, that any politician can make, saying the lower 90% pay too much.

If anything the lower 90% should see increased taxes, but I am against any increases.

Have you considered a second career as a political adviser?

Surely, a message that folks earning $35k a year should pay more taxes is an election year winner!

[rsj0714]

Have you considered a second career as a political adviser?

Surely, a message that folks earning $35k a year should pay more taxes is an election year winner!

I was saying out of the 2 I would have to choose the people paying 10%. Again, I am totally against tax hikes on anyone, but if I had to choose that's my personal preference.

[Mike!]

Well, I didn't see these Santorum wins coming. I thought Anybody But Romney would have settled on Gingrich, and Santorum would have dropped out before there was another shift in momentum.

What we've seen so far in the Republican primary/caucus season is true multiway race, more akin to a Westminster democracy and its party leadership contests where it's rare for one person to have a majority and more common to see multiple ballots or runoff elections. If the contest continues seeing numbers like 45-27-17-11, and 40-35-13-12, with 2nd 3rd and 4th jumbled between the two states, no one is going to have a majority going into the convention, and for the first time in something like 40 years we could head into the convention not knowing who the nominee will be.

It's also telling that the turnout numbers are really low. People are too unsure about which candidate to pick, or even don't like any of them, to bother showing up to make a choice.

The question I have is whether indecision stretching out helps or hurts the eventual nominee in November. I was convinced in 2008 that the protracted contest between Clinton and Obama would weaken the eventual winner in terms of having time to sell themselves versus McCain and to build the necessary organization. Obviously Obama won anyway, but maybe that would have hurt his campaign had it not been for the perception of him as being the better choice over McCain to turn around the economy overruling that handicap.