Why would you want QE3 when the 10 year treasury is at 1.4 or whatever percent? It could go negative like Germany's two year is now, but I say subsidize natural gas for trucking companies and nationalizing health care, would be a good start to fixing our problems. Congress is doing nothing. Until that changes, today's job's report and other negative stories are what we can expect.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Better question: What should Obama and Dems take credit/blame for?
It amuses me to no end that a party can have super majorities in both houses and the White House for two years and still have control of the Senate and White House for the last year and a half and it's all Republican's fault.
The Librarian
Banned
For not abolishing the filibuster when it was clear the only goal of the Republicans in Congress was to see Obama fail.
Well, I guess that's not entirely fair because it wasn't really something you could prove until Mitch McConnell said it out loud. Crippled by the filibuster and Republican obstructionism. What a tragedy.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Dems were pussy when they had the chance right after 08. Now it's coming back to bite them in the ass after the change up in 10. Economic wise is there anything dems can really point to to swing the independent voters there way?
I'm not a Romney guy, but some of the non economic issues like the Gay Marriage thing really effect/swing your mind/vote I don't see how one can expect your independents and/or moderates to swing Obama's way.
Hell I'm not even saying it's Obama's fault, but thems the breaks with the way stuff ended up unfolding. It doesn't help his cause either when the world economy has such downward pressure from everything going on in Europe.
If Romney can keep the economy the focus, and not have any gafs I see no reason he shouldn't end up pulling this out in the end. He just has to keep the economic focus front and center and not stray into crap like woman's health or gay marriage stuff where the pot swirls a bit more.
PS: Bigger problem is with all of downward world pressure on the Economy Romney is probably auto fucked his 1st year or 2 as well. IDK wtf will happen in 2016. That's the real ? for me.
I'm not a Romney guy, but some of the non economic issues like the Gay Marriage thing really effect/swing your mind/vote I don't see how one can expect your independents and/or moderates to swing Obama's way.
Hell I'm not even saying it's Obama's fault, but thems the breaks with the way stuff ended up unfolding. It doesn't help his cause either when the world economy has such downward pressure from everything going on in Europe.
If Romney can keep the economy the focus, and not have any gafs I see no reason he shouldn't end up pulling this out in the end. He just has to keep the economic focus front and center and not stray into crap like woman's health or gay marriage stuff where the pot swirls a bit more.
PS: Bigger problem is with all of downward world pressure on the Economy Romney is probably auto fucked his 1st year or 2 as well. IDK wtf will happen in 2016. That's the real ? for me.
maximum360
Member
Despite their differences each side should always be open to finding some middle ground because the future of the country is at stake. Being uncompromising in hopes that the country goes down in flames in order to further an individual's (or group's) political aspirations is probably the most unpatriotic thing you can do.
Hope you are wrong.
When people talk about 'having control over house, senate and white house,' they glosses over the abuse of the filibuster.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The fact remains democrats controlled government, including a super majority, and didn't get anything done. There were signs the stimulus wasn't going to cut it years ago. Instead of ramming through a series of economic bills, Obama let democrats waste months courting Snowe and company for health care and let lobbyists write a Wall Street bill.
At the end of the day Obama let the Boy Wonder and Larry Summers drive the economy off a cliff to appease Wall Street. We will look back at 2009/2010 as the end of Obama's presidency, and he'll go down as one of the least effective presidents in modern history. How is that working together to Change Washington bullshit working for you guys? I seem to remember another candidate who predicted this and argued the best way to govern is to recognize who your enemies are and shove as much economic shit through as possible
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Like always a lot of the time in the US it's more about not voting from the other guy verses voting for the guy you end up voting for. Repubs (obviously) as well as Moderates and Independents will probably end up voting for Romney just because it's not Obama since they don't see Obama making any Economic progress leading up to the election.
that would go under the assumption that half of them would actually have to show up in the first place
Yeah, because the bailouts, jobs act and NRAA have America zooming on the path to prosperity.
thats a pretty misleading piece of "research". I dont think any sane person would actually think the GOP would cut overall expenditures, its what gets the money and what doesnt get it that causes the problem
zooming flat is still better then zooming down. I have no faith in either political party to get a single thing accomplished because of what the shit stain known as congress has become, so i'm of attitude of "who gives a shit"
The Librarian
Banned
You'll shove this away as "nobody cares" but the fact remains you're saying "they didn't get anything done":
1. Dodd-Frank
2. PPACA
3. ARRA
4. Lily Ledbetter
5. Repeal of DADT
6. Automotive rescue
7. Increased fuel standards for cars
8. Student loan reform
9. New regulations on tobacco
10. An expansion of CHIP
11. Ted Kennedy's national service legislation
12. 9/11 health insurance bill
13. START Treaty
14. Food safety bill
And those are just the big ticket items. Didn't get anything done my ass. There were several reasons for Obama not getting as much done economically as he should have his team mistaking they could go back to Congress and ask for more stimulus, the data showing the recession wasn't as bad as it was, etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Romney has a history of working with democrats, and won't be able to get things done without them even if republicans take the senate. I'm more optimistic of him getting things done than Obama, who would probably have no mandate if re-elected
thats a pretty mighty assumption. Thats like saying I can punch someone in the face and go under the assumption that they won't punch me back. Democrats will be vindictive and will do the same shit that they had done to them over the last 4 years. Nothing will get done either way.
I still dont see a way for Obama to lose due to the electoral map, even if the economy stagnates (if we get back into a recession, then all bets are off)
ErasureAcer
Banned
This is not a step in the right direction. Working for Phillip Morris so they own the market is not good legislation. I want my Djarum Black(Indonesian Cigarettes) back. The Cigars which they allow are horrible in comparison. Add to that the crackdown on legal Weed dispensaries and Obama has been a bust on drugs.
PhoenixDark
Banned
More than half of that list had no impact on the economy, and much is unpopular with the public. Good luck hyping any of that list to the average voter struggling right now
The "jobs act" could have been passed in 2010, alongside many other economic items. But no, gotta work with republicans and try to get David Brooks to like you
The Librarian
Banned
I think there's a good chance Republicans will work ease the rules of the filibuster to get things passed. They might not touch it directly, but will probably expand the rules of reconciliation.
lol. You did exactly what I said you would do. Bravo, PD. Whatever jobs act you're referring to could not have been passed in 2010. The Republicans would not have allowed it.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Petty partisan question: whose side are you on? It's pretty hard to tell sometimes.
On topic: assuming relatively modest economic growth persists through November, the conditions that would have to prevail for Romney to get in are such that Republicans would likely take over the the Senate and strengthen their grip on the House. I think that would be pretty disastrous.
RustyNails
Member
Hillaryis44
PhoenixDark
Banned
Democrats had a super majority in early 2010, or has that been thrown out of Obama's presidency alongside the first few months of 2009?
The problem in a nutshell. Maybe if we were less binary we would be able to find solutions instead of creating more problems.
Invisible_Insane
Member
That is some Kosmo level shit.
Take it up with the electoral college. It's not even realistic to think that eliminating the two-party system would get rid of all of our problems, but as it stands, there are only two people with any real chance of becoming president in November, and I'm probing the tension between the candidate PD purportedly supports and the fact that all of his posts read like memos at Romney HQ.
Sirpopopop
Member
I believe the GOP will do what that economist predicts to be the "correct" path. She's another one of the "destroy the welfare state" to stimulate the economy crowd. GMU has stepped up to the plate where Chicago has started to recede. (being champions of Conservative policy)
The problem is that her example of success is Sweden. In our present state we are nowhere close to Sweden in their "reduced" state. I believe the top income tax rate is somewhere around 60% there.
Why are you lbaming Obama instead of the partisan shithead republicans who shoved away his hand when he extended it in gratitude?
Aren't they supposed to be trying ito make the country better? How does stonewalling each other accomplish anything in this regard? It doesn't.
I'm sorry, but if your problem is obama "wasting time" courting republicans, maybe you need to take a step back and think about these elected officials with an "R" next to their name, and what their responsibilities are.
The Librarian
Banned
Democrats only had a super majority for a short period of time, and much of that was focused on health care reform. Because of the politics of that time, I doubt the likes of Lincoln and Nelson would've signed on. Reid had trouble getting every Democrat to vote for the American Jobs Act. ARRA only passed because a few Republicans were pressured by the politics. I don't know what mental hoops you have to jump through to lambast Obama for not "ramming economic stuff through" while at the same time saying he was wasting his time trying to court Republican votes, but it's unbelievable.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Right. And I'm naive. lol
RustyNails
Member
PD in full panic mode is best PD
Dems had supermajority, but we also had the likes of Ben Nelson and bluedogs who shafted the supermajority and chucked the Public Option
Dems had supermajority, but we also had the likes of Ben Nelson and bluedogs who shafted the supermajority and chucked the Public Option
Byakuya769
Member
Not to be combative, but who is that? Seems the same usual suspects support austerity here and abroad. Conservatives, and conservatives with D's beside their names.
There is a third way, friend, join the 6%:
i've always been in
yes. and as noted, its not cutting government expenditures, its cutting WHICH government expenditures. The continued fallacy that the upper class are job creators and deserve their taxes continually slashed.
i think the point is that, at that time, the economy should have been more important.
In six months Walker (and Kasich to a lesser extent) passed Act 10, Voter ID, expansion of school choice, corporate tax cuts, created new EDC agencies, Conceal Carry, a two year budget... Obama was too just too delicate a flower.
The Librarian
Banned
Oh please. There's no questions they could do more than one thing at once, but I doubt the votes were there more stimulus at the height of the health care debate.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Because healthcare has nothing to do with the economy? I don't understand why people behave as if the two are wholly disconnected from each other.
There were some wide windows where the weakness in the economy was clear, and they had time to pass some of the (many) jobs bills the House passed, but the Senate sat around bickering. It was frustrating then, and the results are all to clear now.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This has been my point. You ram big stuff through and worry about consequences later; if you did it right, voters are fine with it 2-4 years later. Obama had the perfect opportunity and wasted it. There was time before and even during health care
and if it gets struck down by the supreme court? a complete waste of time
The Librarian
Banned
They couldn't have known that when passing the bill.
That's the issue. The Democrats wanted to take their opportunity to pass generational legislation while they had the chance. Instead of focusing on getting their small economic fixes and spending bills passed, they went long. That's fine and if BarryCare holds up, it was the smart play.
The Democrats gambled and the short term economy lost. They figured that they could bend the GOP over on healthcare and then still get them to compromise later on the economy. That was their choice. They could have rammed their economic fixes down the GOP's throat, but they chose a much more sweeping focus.
I get why PoliGAF blames the GOP for being unwilling to compromise, but it goes both ways. After you pull a massive power play like ObamaCare, obviously it's going to affect future negotiations.
The Librarian
Banned
I'm sorry. What was that?
Byakuya769
Member
Couldn't they have simply "gone nuclear" on the filibuster as well?
However, some of us are ignoring that congressional democrats' interests don't always align with the President's. Many of the blue-dog type dems were in sensitive seats and ran on very fiscally conservative platforms, they would have been sinking their jobs if they signed on to very aggressive acts.
However, some of us are ignoring that congressional democrats' interests don't always align with the President's. Many of the blue-dog type dems were in sensitive seats and ran on very fiscally conservative platforms, they would have been sinking their jobs if they signed on to very aggressive acts.
Why are we using italics? During the supermajority months, the Democrats could have focused on the types of spending bills they want to pass now, but instead they chose healthcare.
It makes sense if you want to make broad sweeping changes to the future of the nation, but doesn't make a lot of sense if your goal is immediate economic impact.
they all lost their jobs anyway
Sirpopopop
Member
Why doesn't Obama do what Walker did?
Invent a new statistic to show great jobs growth when the present statistics fail!
(Yeah, I'm just tweaking eznark here.)
Invent a new statistic to show great jobs growth when the present statistics fail!
(Yeah, I'm just tweaking eznark here.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked