Support NeoGAF

[Cooter]

I have no doubt in my mind the Clinton's are pulling for an Obama loss. If not she is pretty much screwed with an Obama re-election.

 

[Odrion]

"Things won't change despite who'll lead." Is such an obvious blanket statement used by people who either are negligent of politics or have a poor memory.

 

[reilo]

Clinton didn't have fiscal responsibility he had a historic period of high revenue due to the tech boom. Without the tax cuts we would have been in bad shape after 9/11. The spending by this adminstration is deplorable and one of Bush's biggest failures.

Yeah, I forget the old republican line:

"The democrat didn't do anything to bring this country fiscal responsibility and a good economy. It was all by accident! He's a tax and spend liberal! How could he have?!"

 

[Cheebs]

Hillary would indeed be a lock in 2012. The problems left by Bush are extensive to say the least, it would take a lot of cooperation with the congress to get much done, hell even then it'd be hard. A stronger dem congress bitter about the loss of Obama would likely be very resistant to the McCain white house leaving things likely in the same place as they are right now for Hillary to swoop in in 2012.

2012 would thus be about how change backfired and the dems need the Clintons again to redeem them.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23439569724

joins

 

[polyh3dron]

Yeah, I forget the old republican line:

"The democrat didn't do anything to bring this country fiscal responsibility and a good economy. It was all by accident! He's a tax and spend liberal! How could he have?!"

Again: Anything good that happens while a Democrat is President is credited to the previous Republican President. Anything bad that happens while a Republican is President is the fault of the previous Democrat President.

Oh and there's always Gingrich.

 

[Cooter]

Yeah, I forget the old republican line:

"The democrat didn't do anything to bring this country fiscal responsibility and a good economy. It was all by accident! He's a tax and spend liberal! How could he have?!"

I give him credit for not going crazy but he really couldn't with a Rep congress. Was I wrong about the huge influx of revenue to the feds during Clinton's administration?

 

[Manmademan]

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23439569724

this is silly, but does GAF in general have a facebook group? I'd be interested since I just started using my facebook account.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If McCain wins a 2012 election between Hillary and Palin seems really likely. Kind of incredible.

If McCain loses I don't see Palin magically becoming the front runner. She'd be attacked for her weak conservative record (leaving a small town in debt, raising taxes) and I think the evangelical vote would go to God's Candidate himself, Huck

 

[bob_arctor]

So Obama, Biden & McCain are to make the Sunday talk-show rounds but ultra-ready-experienced Palin is still being sequestered?

Three of the four now-official candidates on the major-party presidential tickets are scheduled to sit down for questions: Democrat Barack Obama on ABC's "This Week," his running mate, Joe Biden, on NBC's "Meet the Press" and Republican John McCain on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, [top McCain aide Rick] Davis said, "I'd never commit to anything in the future. ... Our strategy is in our hands, not the media's. We're going to do what's in our best interests to try to win the election. If we think going on TV news shows are [sic] in our best interests, we'll do it. If we don't, we won't."

Amazing.

 

[Atrus]

Of course not. But would have 9/11 still occured? Would Katrina still have wrecked New Orleans? Bush was a shitty President, but he also had a lot of shitty things happen during his 8 years.

Marcus Aurelius' reign was filled with war, natural disasters, outbreaks of plague and secessionists.

So why is he known as the last of the 5 great emperors of Rome while Bush one of the worst? Why did people try to closely associate with him after his reign (and death) while people are repulsed by Bush?

The difference is that in spite of the disasters to incur during his reign Marcus Aurelius was himself not one of them. When disasters broke out, he served the people in a way many dictators of Rome never desired to do.

That bad things happen is not enough to justify failures of leadership. If anything, thats the time when regular leaders achieve greatness.

 

[reilo]

Five things that would have been different under Gore and would have made a huge difference:

1) No Iraq war
2) Greenspan would not have been allowed to run like a chicken with his head cut off and cut the Fed rates to sub 2%, in combination with...
3) ... there would have never been a rapid deregulation of the housing market, which is directly affecting our economy in ways not seen since the Great Depression
4) The DOJ would not be run by religious fanatics from Messiah College
5) Gore's passion for the environment and understanding of needing a great infrastructure to be successful would have at least moved us a few steps forward and not fifteen steps backwards like the Bush administration

And shit, I'll throw in a bonus sixth option:

6) The republican congress would not have been allowed to do whatever they fuck they wanted

 

[Manmademan]

I give him credit for not going crazy but he really couldn't with a Rep congress. Was I wrong about the huge influx of revenue to the feds during Clinton's administration?

clinton had a democratic congress for half of his administration, FYI.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hillary would indeed be a lock in 2012. The problems left by Bush are extensive to say the least, it would take a lot of cooperation with the congress to get much done, hell even then it'd be hard. A stronger dem congress bitter about the loss of Obama would likely be very resistant to the McCain white house leaving things likely in the same place as they are right now for Hillary to swoop in in 2012.

2012 would thus be about how change backfired and the dems need the Clintons again to redeem them.

Which is why I've done my absolute best to keep expectations/hope down on my side; hell if Obama wins in November I won't believe it until he's officially sworn in. An Obama loss would be devastating no matter what though, and really ensure that things stay the exact same for years.

It'll mean no more 50 state strategy, no more shunning lobbyists, no more "change"/populism, etc.

 

[Cloudy]

Is it hard to believe that tax cuts stimulate and strengthen an economy? Is it that hard to grasp?

Some folks aren't only concerned about the present though. I won't send the IRS more money voluntarily (lol) but are tax-cuts across the board -in a time when government spending is out of control- really good in the long-run?

The vitriol should be spewed when money is spent inefficiently/unwisely. This demonizing of taxes is kind of ridiculous with all the govt. services we have in this country..

 

[Incognito]

2012 Republican primary frontrunners:

Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, and Romney.

:lol

 

[Tamanon]

Five things that would have been different under Gore and would have made a huge difference:

1) No Iraq war
2) Greenspan would not have been allowed to run like a chicken with his head cut off and cut the Fed rates to sub 2%, in combination with...
3) ... there would have never been a rapid deregulation of the housing market, which is directly affecting our economy in ways not seen since the Great Depression
4) The DOJ would not be run by religious fanatics from Messiah College
5) Gore's passion for the environment and understanding of needing a great infrastructure to be successful would have at least moved us a few steps forward and not fifteen steps backwards like the Bush administration

And shit, I'll throw in a bonus sixth option:

6) The republican congress would not have been allowed to do whatever they fuck they wanted

Also, I doubt the Patriot act.

 

[CharlieDigital]

You're letting this get to you. No matter who wins nothing is going to change. It will be business as usual. There are some differences between the two parties but the important issues will continue to go unaddressed.

Things like immigration, national debt, and the continuing SS disaster will still remain.

I think the problem is when you've been down in the cellar for so long like we have as a nation, it's hard to see the light. When we do see it, it's blinding; we don't understand where it's coming from. We don't know what it is. We're so used to the darkness and hopelessness of politics and politicians in Washington, that we just don't believe that any man can affect change anymore. It seems like rhetoric.

"Yeah right, this guy is going to change Washington? I've heard that line before."

But you know what? There is something genuinely different about Obama. I know 8 years of failure really puts a dent on our faith in our politicians and their intent. We've missed so many opportunities in these last 8 years to shape the world and shape the country in better ways. We've missed so many opportunities to make advances in science and research. We've seen so much bickering, pandering, and bullshit out of Washington.

But you know what? There is something different about Obama.

I think the reason that many people will feel a sense of hopelessness and fall deeper into that cellar of despair if Obama fails is because this guy is everything that's right about America and everything that's right about the American Dream. He is the product of the liberalism that shaped America into the world it was before 30 years of conservatism and libertarian ideas shifted the landscape for the worse. He represents everything right about liberalism. He's got ideas -- audacious ideas -- which he says are going to make us healthier, wealthier, and restore our standing and alliances on the world stage. How dare he give us hope! He's even outlined them in excruciating detail in page after page of policy proposals. How dare he lead us to think he can actually make a difference! He proposes to take us away from the failed conservative movement of the last three decades and bring us back to the center (and a bit to the left). How dare he propose these stinking liberal ideas!

In an election cycle where the other side plays dirty, Team Obama has chosen to stay above the fray (really, all the muck is coming from the blogosphere and media). He's chosen to stay on point and talk about the issues that matter to people like me. People like my mom who raised my sister and I as a single immigrant mother (from Taiwan) and sent her two kids off to college (one Ivy too!). People like my wife's friend/coworker, a teacher who's having trouble making ends meet and may have to sell one of their cars to be able to afford child care for their toddler now that school has started (my wife and friend are teachers).

Obama represents everything that is so right about America. He is that light reaching down to pull us out of the cellar of despair of these last 8 years which has seen the erosion of middle class families and the tremendous loss of financial stability for a large portion of the US population. If he fails, we shall be in despair not because of something so partisan and trivial as "our side lost", but because American's lost out on our first best chance to make a change for the good of the nation and the world in the 21st century. So far in the 21st century, we've seen the US squander it's political capital abroad. We've seen needless and unjustified war. We've see the economy flounder. We've seen businesses and individuals profit while the working class continues to lose it's share of the pie.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Mark Rosenfelder writes:

The wealthiest 1% of the population doubled their share of the pie in just 15 years. In 1973, CEOs earned 45 times the pay of an average employee (about twice the multipler in Japan); today it's 500 times.

Thirty years ago, managers accepted that they operated as much for their workers, consumers, and neighbors as for themselves. Some economists (notably Michael Jensen and William Meckling) decided that the only stakeholders that mattered were the stock owners-- and that management would be more accountable if they were given massive amounts of stock. Not surprisingly, CEOs managed to get the stock without the accountability-- they're obscenely well paid whether the company does well or it tanks-- and the obsession with stock price led to mass layoffs, short-term thinking, and the financial dishonesty at WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, and elsewhere.

The nature of our economic system has changed in the last quarter-century, and people haven't understood it yet. People over 30 or so grew up in an environment where the rich got more, but everyone prospered. When productivity went up, the rich got richer-- we're not goddamn communists, after all-- but everybody's income increased.

If you were part of the World War II generation, the reality was that you had access to subsidized education and housing, you lived better every year, and you were almost unimaginably better off than your parents.

We were a middle-class nation, perhaps the first nation in history where the majority of the people were comfortable. This infuriated the communists (this wasn't supposed to happen). The primeval libertarians who cranky about it as well, but the rich had little reason to complain-- they were better off than ever before, too.

Conservatives-- nurtured by libertarian ideas-- have managed to change all that. When productivity rises, the rich now keep the gains; the middle class barely stays where it is; the poor get poorer. We have a ways to go before we become a Third World country, but the model is clear. The goal is an impoverished majority, and a super-rich minority with no effective limitations on its power or earnings. We'll exchange the prosperity of 1950s America for that of 1980s Brazil.

After 8 years of being shitted on by the Bush administration, we really need to step back from so called "conservative" values and get back to the liberal ideas which has shaped the tremendous civil, social, and political progress of the 20th century.

If wanting for American's of all classes to do well and have decent paying jobs, and if wanting for a country where we don't have to worry about being one illness away from bankruptcy, and if wanting to fix our educational system to match the great strides made in developing countries around the world are bad, commie ideals, then fine, call me a commie liberal tree hugging bastard.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Marcus Aurelius' reign was filled with war, natural disasters, outbreaks of plague and secessionists.

So why is he known as the last of the 5 great emperors of Rome while Bush one of the worst? Why did people try to closely associate with him after his reign (and death) while people are repulsed by Bush?

The difference is that in spite of the disasters to incur during his reign Marcus Aurelius was himself not one of them. When disasters broke out, he served the people in a way many dictators of Rome never desired to do.

That bad things happen is not enough to justify failures of leadership. If anything, thats the time when regular leaders achieve greatness.

Superb post. Couldn't agree more. Bravo good sir.

 

[Cooter]

clinton had a democratic congress for half of his administration, FYI.

I believe it was only 2 years but who's counting?

 

[reilo]

Also, I doubt the Patriot act.

Falls under #6!

 

[Cheebs]

2012 Republican primary frontrunners:

Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, and Romney.

:lol

I am curious about your thoughts on this because you said Obama should ignore Palin:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/06/obama-to-palin-you-cant-just-make-stuff-up/

 

[Stoney Mason]

I'll even use the Republican friendly heritage foundation gifs as a source btw.


This includes defense which is the proper way to look at it.

Change in Average Revenue and Spending, by Administration

Now this takes out defense and is only non-defense spending growth which the republicans always like to pretend is the only way you should measure government spending.

Average Annual Real Growth of Non-Defense Federal Outlays in Inflation-Adjusted 2000 Dollars

So in both cases Clinton was far better in this regard than what came before and after him. And better than Reagan when you include military spending. Yet the democrats are the fiscally irresponsible party. You can't make this shit up. If a Democrat had ran this sort of government that Bush has run that's all you would be hearing about.

 

[Freshmaker]

He's referring to Hitler's idea with the autobahn, which was primarily used for swift transportation of his military units. Yeah, let's do what the most evil son of a bitch in the history of this world wanted to do!

This thinking doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Build a road capable of transporting the military quickly to any point in the country isn't exactly a new idea. It makes a good deal of sense. Just because Hitler happened to implement one sensible idea, it must now never be used again?

Trains running on time? Oh nOES! Police state! :lol

 

[numble]

2012 Republican primary frontrunners:

Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, and Romney.

:lol

Expect latter 3 to trot out the experience argument.

 

[adamsappel]

You're letting this get to you. No matter who wins nothing is going to change. It will be business as usual. There are some differences between the two parties but the important issues will continue to go unaddressed.

Things like immigration, national debt, and the continuing SS disaster will still remain.

Then why not vote for Obama?

 

[reilo]

This thinking doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Build a road capable of transporting the military quickly to any point in the country isn't exactly a new idea. It makes a good deal of sense. Just because Hitler happened to implement one sensible idea, it must now never be used again?

Trains running on time? Oh nOES! Police state! :lol

The hell? Are you arguing with me? Because that was my entire point.

Hitler wanted to use the autobahn for military use, and I am saying that we should use it for civilian purposes!

 

[Incognito]

I am curious about your thoughts on this because you said Obama should ignore Palin:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/06/obama-to-palin-you-cant-just-make-stuff-up/

I wonder if that was part of his stump speech or simply an answer to a question? Either way, looks as though he's trying to take some bloom off the rose. I think that role should be left to Biden and only if necessary.

EDIT: Looks like stump speech. I dunno, her convention speech left so many openings to attack maybe it's to irresistible to pass up?

 

[Freshmaker]

The hell? Are you arguing with me? Because that was my entire point.

Hitler wanted to use the autobahn for military use, and I am saying that we should use it for civilian purposes!

No, just agreeing with you. Text > "." IMO.

 

[bob_arctor]

I am curious about your thoughts on this because you said Obama should ignore Palin:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/06/obama-to-palin-you-cant-just-make-stuff-up/

He is ignoring the side-show of her personal life and attacking her on what she actually said in a speech watched by millions by bringing up her record. That's exactly how he should attack her. He's also on record as stating that she will be treated like any other political opponent regardless of gender. So this is m.o is par the course for his campaign.

Speaking of par the course:

“Barack Obama has requested the equivalent of one million dollars in new pork barrel spending for every working day he’s been in the U.S Senate, while John McCain has never once asked for an earmark, and Governor Palin has vetoed hundreds of millions in government spending including killing the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’. Just like so many other issues Barack Obama is all talk, has no record to back it up and isn’t ready to make change.”

Really wonder why they keep referring to the Bridge to Nowhere but then I remember they are the GOP and don't give a fuck about reality.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I have no doubt in my mind the Clinton's are pulling for an Obama loss. If not she is pretty much screwed with an Obama re-election.

Spoiler

troll?

yeah that's why she's stumping for him like crazy.

no, but really this so stupid. i know painting hillary as some megalomaniac who'll step on babies to get to the white house adheres to your predisposed opinion of her, and it makes for good political theater. but it's grounded in no reality whatsoever

 

[AniHawk]

You can't make this shit up.

Republicans can.

 

[Tamanon]

He is ignoring the side-show of her personal life and attacking her on what she actually said in a speech watched by millions by bringing up her record. That's exactly how he should attack her. He's also on record as stating that she will be treated like any other political opponent regardless of gender. So this is m.o is par the course for his campaign.

Speaking of par the course:



Really wonder why they keep referring to the Bridge to Nowhere but then I remember they are the GOP and don't give a fuck about reality.

Yeah, the McCain camp was ignoring the argument Obama was making, he was saying that she is lying, not that earmarks are evil!

 

[AniHawk]

Didn't Palin uh... keep all the money she received for the Bridge to Nowhere?

 

[reilo]

I'd like to know where they got the "Obama will spend $1mil in pork barrels a day" shit? My guess? Their asshole.

Didn't Palin uh... keep all the money she received for the Bridge to Nowhere?

Not only that, but Alaskans are getting $3,000 each from earmarks that is being paid to them by the federal government.

 

[Chiggs]

Marcus Aurelius' reign was filled with war, natural disasters, outbreaks of plague and secessionists.

So why is he known as the last of the 5 great emperors of Rome while Bush one of the worst? Why did people try to closely associate with him after his reign (and death) while people are repulsed by Bush?

The difference is that in spite of the disasters to incur during his reign Marcus Aurelius was himself not one of them. When disasters broke out, he served the people in a way many dictators of Rome never desired to do.

That bad things happen is not enough to justify failures of leadership. If anything, thats the time when regular leaders achieve greatness.

Well put.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Roland Martin comes close to using the F-bomb to describe Palin's speech on CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWthR7vdfI

 

[laserbeam]

This thinking doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Build a road capable of transporting the military quickly to any point in the country isn't exactly a new idea. It makes a good deal of sense. Just because Hitler happened to implement one sensible idea, it must now never be used again?

Trains running on time? Oh nOES! Police state! :lol

People seem to downplay the fact that the US Government made our highways that are cross country in the exact same fashion as Hitler. Cross Country movement of massive amounts of military hardware was its intention.

Obviously the People benefit from it but that was not its primary goal. Local highways are designed primarily for civilians but even then they make sure they are large enough for Military forces.

 

[AniHawk]

Roland Martin comes close to using the F-bomb to describe Palin's speech on CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWthR7vdfI

Why haven't they done this yet (go on the attack for the community organizer thing)? What are they waiting for?

 

[sevenchaos]

Spoiler

troll?

yeah that's why she's stumping for him like crazy.

no, but really this so stupid. i know painting hillary as some megalomaniac who'll step on babies to get to the white house adheres to your predisposed opinion of her, and it makes for good political theater. but it's grounded in no reality whatsoever

Let us also not forget the fact that if Obama loses Hillary will take a big part of the blame and her political career is over. She needs Obama to win.

 

[Trurl]

I'll even use the Republican friendly heritage foundation gifs as a source btw.


This includes defense which is the proper way to look at it.

Change in Average Revenue and Spending, by Administration

Now this takes out defense and is only non-defense spending growth which the republicans always like to pretend is the only way you should measure government spending.

Average Annual Real Growth of Non-Defense Federal Outlays in Inflation-Adjusted 2000 Dollars

So in both cases Clinton was far better in this regard than what came before and after him. And better than Reagan when you include military spending. Yet the democrats are the fiscally irresponsible party. You can't make this shit up. If a Democrat had ran this sort of government that Bush has run that's all you would be hearing about.

I just saved both graphs. They are all the more sweet coming from the Heritage Foundation. Finally that group is good for something.:lol

 

[reilo]

People seem to downplay the fact that the US Government made our highways that are cross country in the exact same fashion as Hitler. Cross Country movement of massive amounts of military hardware was its intention.

Obviously the People benefit from it but that was not its primary goal. Local highways are designed primarily for civilians but even then they make sure they are large enough for Military forces.

Yeah, so, the US government's goal to build highways was in case that New York needed to attack Delaware?

Get that shit out of here.

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, so, the US government's goal to build highways was in case that New York needed to attack Delaware?

Get that shit out of here.

I thought the original goal of freeways (that connect the country) was to create a way to transport tanks and the like easily in the case of a Russian attack during the Cold War.

 

[reilo]

I thought the original goal of freeways (that connect the country) was to create a way to transport tanks and the like easily in the case of a Russian attack during the Cold War.

And from where would the Russians have attacked exactly?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I just saved both graphs. They are all the more sweet coming from the Heritage Foundation. Finally that group is good for something.:lol

Can someone explain the second graph to me? My brain is dead right now

 

[AniHawk]

And from where would the Russians have attacked exactly?

Attack, invasion, same thing.

 

[adamsappel]

Which is why I've done my absolute best to keep expectations/hope down on my side; hell if Obama wins in November I won't believe it until he's officially sworn in. An Obama loss would be devastating no matter what though, and really ensure that things stay the exact same for years.

It'll mean no more 50 state strategy, no more shunning lobbyists, no more "change"/populism, etc.

If Obama loses, I'm done with Democrats. No moving to Canada or anything like that but, coupled with the Kerry loss, the only lesson I think the Democrats will learn is you have to fight sleazy to win. And with Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee, that's the kind of campaign the Democrats would run.

 

[avaya]

Can someone explain the second graph to me? My brain is dead right now

The average increase in non defense government spending, adjusted for inflation.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Can someone explain the second graph to me? My brain is dead right now

It's basically how much spending increased excluding the military.

 

[laserbeam]

I thought the original goal of freeways (that connect the country) was to create a way to transport tanks and the like easily in the case of a Russian attack during the Cold War.

The interstate system is a result of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. It championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences in 1919 as a young soldier crossing the country (following the route of the Lincoln Highway) and his appreciation of the German autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system.