Rocket Scientist
Member
SuperPAC's are fucking scary shit. Reading that article makes the US sound like Russia.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
It's amazing how quick some of us are to forget the Bush Admin. Wish there was a more polite way to put this, but I'm just not that interested in belaboring the obvious. Bullet points should be adequate at this point.
It depends. I understand negative ads backfire, will general attack ads backfire if there isn't a "Romney" tagline at the end? Thats going to be the telling point. It certainly could, and i think people are going to be pretty annoyed this year by the amount of advertising, which will be an increase from the insane amounts last presidential election. At some point i see superpacs going down the drain because they will have no restraint and the general public will become very hostile to them
I agree, it is amazing how fast people can forget what happened during the Bush adminstration. You would need to state the obvious first before you belabour it. You have done nothing to even state an effective case. Just your typical parroting of a pedantic, comment section narrative.
Officerrob
Banned
Are they only running their ads on Fox News? Here in southwest Virginia, I expected to be bombarded by Romney and Pro-Romney Super PAC ads, and I've yet to see one. On the other hand, I've probably seen 15-20 Obama ads (dating back 2-3 weeks) during various primetime network shows as well as syndicated showings of "The Big Bang Theory"
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
TA, you were arguing if the economy could even be regarded as 'strong' when Bush took office. What do you expect from me if even something like that is up in the air?
The obvious was stated.
reggieandTFE
Member
It's funny how obtuse you're being considering your love for the free trade agreements Bush pushed on his watch.
Souldriver
Member
I literally lolled when I read "The National Coalition for Men".
Good lord, how is that not an Onion article.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I sometimes don't feel right about spending a bunch of time fleshing out arguments when it almost seems like a troll, even though TA is more sincere than some here.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
I have often decried free trade agreements (especially NAFTA) as helping gut America of it's manufacturing base. I lauded Bush for actually enacting tarriffs to help protect the steel industry when China was pretty clearly dumping at the turn of the century.
What I said:
Bush mostly had an anemic/backsliding economy for his entire first term when those actions you listed were enacted.
So, again .. if you want to have a discussion, you should begin by stating your case and not twisting people's words around in an attempt to save face.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
There were indicators, and Bush ignored advice and still went ahead and kept interest rates low, cut taxes, etc which did nothing but make the crisis worse.
I don't really want to have a discussion, I know you are very well informed. I'm still kind of unsure how you would want a discussion on this topic. It's all out there, we've all spent enough time and energy on that shit.
I still don't understand how tax cuts passed in 2001/2002 exacerbated the 2008 crash? Especially when Obama's response to the crisis (ARRA) was billions of dollars worth of more tax cuts.
As far as 'ignoring the advice' on interest rates ... whose advice? Guys like Roubini who were seen a fringe voices back in 2006? If anything, Bush followed the advice from the Fed and his financial advisors pretty much throughout his whole tenure. Even with TARP, which his hardcore base was pretty vehemently opposed to.
Frank the Great
Banned
bush didn't "destroy the economy" any more than obama did. a billion factors went into this last recession, and it has been building up for many years.
bush DID contribute a huge amount to the debt issue that republicans are crying about this year. with the tax cuts, the two wars, and medicare part d, he and his party are much more responsible for the debt. obama came in at a time when federal spending was really necessary and when the tax base had shrunk a lot due to the recession.
so i think it is really unfair to blame obama for the debt or deficit, as republicans are wont to do, when the republicans did much more damage in that regard. i don't think any president should be blamed for economic disasters, he has almost no powers over the economy and there are so many other factors that we simply don't know about.
in fact, the only way bush "destroyed the economy" is if the right-wing argument that government debt "weakens confidence" in the marketplace is true . . . then by increasing the debt, the republicans under bush did indeed destroy the economy. but we all know that this argument is complete bullshit.
bush DID contribute a huge amount to the debt issue that republicans are crying about this year. with the tax cuts, the two wars, and medicare part d, he and his party are much more responsible for the debt. obama came in at a time when federal spending was really necessary and when the tax base had shrunk a lot due to the recession.
so i think it is really unfair to blame obama for the debt or deficit, as republicans are wont to do, when the republicans did much more damage in that regard. i don't think any president should be blamed for economic disasters, he has almost no powers over the economy and there are so many other factors that we simply don't know about.
in fact, the only way bush "destroyed the economy" is if the right-wing argument that government debt "weakens confidence" in the marketplace is true . . . then by increasing the debt, the republicans under bush did indeed destroy the economy. but we all know that this argument is complete bullshit.
Black Republican
Member
according to ppp, 55% of blacks in NC support gay marriage up from 44%
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
No, TA already knows what Bush did on his watch to make Clinton policies worse, he just wants to know if YOU know.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Dat leadership! What year was the 44% taken?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
He ignored Greenspan.
The tax cuts did not spur investment, what it did do is add to the money hedge funds had to gamble with. The Bush Admin promoted speculation (energy of course, as well as housing 'ownership society').
Obama cutting taxes during a recession is quite different than the conditions when Bush took office.
The Librarian
Banned
Where are you getting those numbers?
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-shift-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-among
PhoenixDark
Banned
Ricketts' camp denying the NY Times story
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/fred-davis-joe-ricketts-respond-to-rev-wright?ref=fpb
I'd imagine someone will run similar ads, but it won't be a businessman who could be vulnerable to public backlash/boycotts
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/fred-davis-joe-ricketts-respond-to-rev-wright?ref=fpb
I'd imagine someone will run similar ads, but it won't be a businessman who could be vulnerable to public backlash/boycotts
Bush ignored him on interest rates? I would be curious to see a link with that article. I know Greenspan advised him to rein in Congressional spending.
Tax cuts do not spur investment, yet it gave a huge wealth of money to investors to 'gamble with'? hahahaha. Jesus, I've never seen someone contradict themselves within the same sentence.
Every adminstration since WWII has promoted speculation and wanted an ownership society. It's intrinsic to the American Dream.
A good bulk of the Bush tax cuts were done in response to a recession. (2003 JGTRRA)
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Man what the f*ck? How in the hell does the percent of blacks approving same sex marriage go up 25% (or 11 percentage points) solely due to Obama stating his opinion on the matter.
Jesus Christ man black people really really look up to and listen to Obama on key matters. That's unbelievable.
I think it wasn't even just the President changing his mind, but the fact that the conversation was back up and running in the public that pushed the numbers.
Black Republican
Member
cant speak for american black voters (im canadian black) but id say alot were leaning on accepting gay marriage but didnt feel comfortable saying it in public.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The black people I know have basically responded by
1. "He had to, the gay militia forced his hand"
2. "I don't agree but he's still my president"
3. "Fuck that shit"
1. "He had to, the gay militia forced his hand"
2. "I don't agree but he's still my president"
3. "Fuck that shit"
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Where do you live? The blacks I associate with through work or business don't seem to mind one way or the other.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Michigan (Ypsilanti, near Ann Arbor). My family is pretty religious, and I work with a super religious black lady. My parents are big time Obama supporters, do functions, have contributed a lot of money etc...but both generally feel marriage is between a man and a woman; my mom spent part of Mother's Day preaching to my gay brother that it's not godly. The black lady I work with goes to one of the biggest black churches in the area and said most people are not happy at all, although most do plan to vote for Obama. She's on the fence and said she might stay home.
And the black young people....bleh. Lots of snark and general nasty comments about gay people. Even from young female friends of mine. Usually women seem more ok with gay folks than men do, but I've heard some crazy shit even from people I consider to be good friends.
empty vessel
Member
I don't think it is unbelievable at all. While change begins from the ground up (organized people making vocal demands), it culminates with leaders and people in positions of power making pronouncements and/or institutionalizing the new norms. This tends to drag the as-yet on-board population along. Civil rights legislation was put in motion by organized citizens making demands and putting pressure on public officials, but integration and anti-racism did not become a norm until it was institutionalized from the top-down.
Obama's statements--even though there was nothing official about them--will sway more than just blacks. Humans are quite susceptible to being influenced by power. This is usually not helpful, but when the organized forces of progression break through to the top, the influence of power has its benefits.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I should also note that most of the black people I've talked kept bringing up the Civil Rights era, and their anger that gay activists have compared the two movements. I notice many black GAFers make similar arguments
RoninChaos
Member
I also like when people declare the stimulus wasn't big enough, they keep acting like it was just giving money away. 40% of it was tax cuts. So if damn near half of it didn't stimulate anything, why are people continuing to scream that we need to keep taxes horribly low?
Grover Norquist tried this shit on Bill Maher the other night. I also can't stand the attitude of "Well, something didn't work, so fuck trying anything! Let's just let everything fall down!". I don't get it.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Yeah, i'd say stigma was/is an issue within the black community. Obama coming out for gay marriage made it easier for others to do the same.
Christine O'Donnell all over again.
Aaron Strife
Banned
If there wasn't a net negative effect on our society at large, I'd enjoy the irony in religious black people using the Bible to suppress other minorities in the same way whites used the Bible to suppress blacks in the slavery/Jim Crow eras.
SIGH.
My only hope is that the votes in MN, MD, ME, and WA fail, succeed, succeed, and succeed, respectively. For me, personally, I feel there's more at stake than the Obama v. Romney, Democrats v. Republicans bullshit. This is peoples' lives.
empty vessel
Member
Tax cuts are a form of government spending. And they are stimulative. But the effectiveness of stimulus does depend on whom the government spends. Stimulus basically means increasing the financial assets available to be spent in the economy, which increases the demand for goods and services. But, for the reasons discussed by Nick Hanauer, putting money in the hands of rich people does not necessarily increase the demand for goods and services, because they may just stick it in a bank account. Their spending does not really go up and down depending upon whether there is a recession. It is the spending of people affected by the recession--the bottom half of the income distribution--that goes down during a recession, and it is this spending that requires a boost. This is why MMT economists supported the payroll tax cut--it is a regressive tax that when cut puts more money into the hands of people who will spend it.
Bush's tax cuts, because they spent so overwhelmingly on the rich, didn't really accomplish much in the way of economic stimulus. And they greatly increased income inequality, which does play a role in financial crises and economic instability.
We currently do not need tax increases on the middle class or poor. I am not opposed to raising taxes on the rich, but that is not to "solve" a non-existent budget problem. It is strictly to reduce income inequality.
Bush's tax cuts, because they spent so overwhelmingly on the rich, didn't really accomplish much in the way of economic stimulus. And they greatly increased income inequality, which does play a role in financial crises and economic instability.
We currently do not need tax increases on the middle class or poor. I am not opposed to raising taxes on the rich, but that is not to "solve" a non-existent budget problem. It is strictly to reduce income inequality.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Bicker about the small details all you want (which advice from Greenspan did he ignore heh), but you're on the wrong side of this one. If one day you feel like understanding this topic, there's plenty of empirical data out there, and the wisdom of the top economic thinkers of our time.
"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences"
-Alan Greenspan, 2007
"When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page."
-Joseph Stiglitz, 2007
makingmusic476
Member
That's odd. TPM says this:
But the poll they actually link to says this:
Wonder how they screwed that up.
RoninChaos
Member
That was pretty much what I would have wanted to say if I had time to type it out. I'm at work.
Putting money in the hands of the rich doesn't put it back into the economy, which is what needs stimulating. Putting money into the hands of the people who will put it back into the economy with things like food stamps etc, seems like a better deal for everyone instead of giving money to millionaires and billionaires who wold just sit on it anyway.
RustyNails
Member
Is this Romney's first presser?
Look at the crosstabs. The difference is between "married" and "married or civil unions"
19% support marriage, 36% support civil unions. Adds up to 55%
Still, the numbers are a bit weird, as they ask the question several different ways and get different numbers on each.
Officerrob
Banned
Mitt Romney, just a moment ago, referring to Bain's purchases of companies.
I have a feeling that soundbite will be used in campaign commercials in the very near future
Mitt Romney, just a minute ago when asked about comments he made on the Hannity show saying Rev. Wright is fair game, yet he repudiates the Ricketts' ad strategy
Romney is a clown
PhoenixDark
Banned
It seems clear republicans/conservatives are waging a long defeat on gay marriage. They lost some time ago, but will play their part and keep fighting until it's completely over. If Obama wins in November we'll be closer to that point than at any time in US history: Obama will have given the proverbial middle finger to the religious right, taken their best punch, and survived. Despite my general snark in this thread, I do hope that happens.
There will always be a section of the country who vehemently opposes gay marriage, but it'll dwindle over the next decade. The "gay agenda" or whatever you want to call it has been quite successful: homosexuality has been humanized in the minds of many young people thanks to media. I realize that term is controversial, but what has happened has basically been an impressive social revolution/marketing job. I would liken it to how music helped changed many white young people's minds about race relations in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Yeah when people paraphrase the bush tax cuts as harmful to the economy its not that tax cuts themselves are intrinsically bad, its who or what the tax cuts are used on and they weighed heavily in a market that quite frankly didn't need to be leveraged (The rich) and it accelerated income inequality which has become a huge issue now after the 2008 recession.
If I had to say one thing though about Bush, he may not have personally enacted the policies that specifically caused our issues (Congress has control of the purse and a lot of the structural issues that we face today were enacted decades ago) but he certainly advocated for them damn near religiously and was one of the primary reason congress even brought them to the table.
Meanwhile a lot of the stuff Obama (And even Clinton) wanted to do got drowned out by the Republican party and even people within the Democratic party. They own what they sign, but I also don't specifically hold all the issues passed in their time against them UNLESS they specifically advocated for it to be passed. Just how I don't hold a grudge against Bush for what happened during Immigration Reform and a variety of other issues.
RustyNails
Member
LOL
GOP relying on "obama is a celebrity" and now dragging Rev Wright's skeleton from 2008. They have nothing. PD is so screwed come november.
GOP relying on "obama is a celebrity" and now dragging Rev Wright's skeleton from 2008. They have nothing. PD is so screwed come november.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Check out Drudge's front page, bros
If this is the new strategy, Romney is fucked
If this is the new strategy, Romney is fucked
Officerrob
Banned
HOLY SHIT
Yeah, can't believe they are reaching into the distant past like that. Next thing you know they'll start bringing up how Barry acted in high school.
Officerrob
Banned
The high school thing was dumb, but it was both new (as a story), and over with in 48-72 hours. This is the same shit they used 4 years ago!
cartoon_soldier
Member
My point is that this is the retarded season. Everyone in every campaign is going to throw bullshit against the wall and see what sticks. Saying things like "omg this is all they have lol they fucked" in May is moronic.
If they are still only chipping away at nonsense in August then it is appropriate to laugh. At this point though, the thing is kind of out of Romney's hands. He just has to try and stay out of trouble and hope external factors sink Obama.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked