• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fall US Elections

Most of your points are very arguable (as is your White House Blog source), a few of them I would not call necessarily "good", including expanded drone strikes, and the artificially inflated stock market.

Unemployment rate can't be taken at it's face value, as you said, for either "side".

We traded Bin Laden for Isis.

Let's just not do the list thing here. Both sides suck and both sides have their lists.

(I tried to quote your post above but the quote feature is not working for me right now.)
 
RandFan said:
[*]Health Care costs are declining.
Click to expand...

"In 2013 health spending growth is expected to have remained slow, at 3.6 percent, as a result of the sluggish economic recovery, the effects of sequestration, and continued increases in private health insurance cost-sharing requirements. The combined effects of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions, faster economic growth, and population aging are expected to fuel health spending growth this year and thereafter (5.6 percent in 2014 and 6.0 percent per year for 2015–23). However, the average rate of increase through 2023 is projected to be slower than the 7.2 percent average growth experienced during 1990–2008. Because health spending is projected to grow 1.1 percentage points faster than the average economic growth during 2013–23, the health share of the gross domestic product is expected to rise from 17.2 percent in 2012 to 19.3 percent in 2023."

Guess where I got that quote?
 
Just watched a goodly chunk of Obama's press conference on the BBC. He seemed very weary.
 
mgidm86 said:
Most of your points are very arguable (as is your White House Blog source), a few of them I would not call necessarily "good", including expanded drone strikes, and the artificially inflated stock market.

Unemployment rate can't be taken at it's face value, as you said, for either "side".

We traded Bin Laden for Isis.

Let's just not do the list thing here. Both sides suck and both sides have their lists.

(I tried to quote your post above but the quote feature is not working for me right now.)
Click to expand...
I anticipated all of those points and addressed them. My argument explicitly acknowledged that they are not necessarily good. I don't agree with everything you wrote but it's not relevant to my argument. I'm only trying to make two points. You've not addressed those.

  1. Have some consistency. Things happened during Obama's administration that many people would consider good. If you are going to blame Obama for things that you consider bad then please A.) acknowledge that Obama has done things others see as good, or, B.) provide a rational argument why Obama should get blame but not credit, or, C.) admit there is no basis to judge a president, or finally, D.) give me some argument for why Obama has not governed and the list of things are irrelevant one way or the other.
  2. Obama has made decisions and effected change. Otherwise known as governing.
That's it. I'm not trying to do the "list" thing to demonstrate Obama is a good president. Though they mean that for me. The list is to show that Obama is not a do nothing president.
 
Last edited:
Sandra Fluke's health insurance may pay for contraception, but it won't be the plan that California State Senators are on, as she went down in flames, losing to fellow Democrat Ben Allen by 21 points.
 
Sandra and Rush should both take a trip to the Dominican Republic.
 
How will this election figure into the upcoming presidential race, if at all? Bob McDonnell is out. Eric Cantor isn't looking too hopeful. On the upside, Scott Walker looks to have had his reputation polished for the second time and Paul Ryan's win was rather decisive. Christy wasn't in a contest this year but he has weathered his bridgegate storm rather well IMO.

A tea party candidate could win the base for nomination but unlikely a national election I think. Most moderates likely won't win the base but Christy, should no more dirt or indictments come out, is my bet to win both the nomination and the presidency. Bridgegate made him look like he has taken on the liberals. Not entirely baseless. If Christy does take the brass ring it might have been the controversy that puts him over the top.
 
I'm not sure what a tea party candidate even means anymore. It started as an insurgency in the Republican party against its own complicity in grotesque overspending and borrowing, and got turned into a grab bag of ancient Republican grievances from abortion to Zeus in schools.


Here's an irrelevant video from Family Guy dedicated to Chris Matthews.



 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I'm not sure what a tea party candidate even means anymore. It started as an insurgency in the Republican party against its own complicity in grotesque overspending and borrowing, and got turned into a grab bag of ancient Republican grievances from abortion to Zeus in schools.


Here's an irrelevant video from Family Guy.

Click to expand...


You make it sound like they're any different now than they were before. Or as if they even had a noble purpose in the first place.
 
Mitchell314 said:
You make it sound like they're any different now than they were before. Or as if they even had a noble purpose in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope one thing is similar to before.

Bush was president, spend spend spend to buy support for his war.

Democrat elected president in response, spend out of control, threw up hands and said huge deficits as far as the eye can see.

Control of houses turned over to Republicans.

Good times.


Of course, I speak of 1994.

If this is a repeat, I'm fine with that.
 
From a more libertarian point of view, this was a sweet election. Republicans will hopefully get spending even more under control, and the marijuana and gay rights twin juggernauts continue unstoppable.

On the downside, the leftover Reese's Peanut Butter Cups that I didn't hand out aren't as peanut buttery as I remember. Am I even crazier than normal or have they changed?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Well, I hope one thing is similar to before.

Bush was president, spend spend spend to buy support for his war.

Democrat elected president in response, spend out of control, threw up hands and said huge deficits as far as the eye can see.

Control of houses turned over to Republicans.

Good times.


Of course, I speak of 1994.

If this is a repeat, I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

"As far as the eye can see" is an apt comparison. In that the bigger scope of things has little context in relation to what a single person perceives in the mundane life.

And the Tea party, like many (left or right) "grassroot" organizations, capitalize on not making that distinction. For example, you could say the anti-gun crowd, as different as they may seem, makes the very same fundamental mistake.
 
Mitchell314 said:
<snip> And the Tea Party, like many (left or right) "grassroot" organizations...
Click to expand...

The Tea Party is about as far from being a "grassroots" movement as it's possible to get. The movement has been funded and guided largely by the billionaire Koch brothers.
What the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president. Link
Click to expand...
 
Beerina said:
Exactly. I expect an accelerated economic recovery now because there will be less fear about out of control spending with the "raised eyebrow" threat of future tax increases. Which some will interpret as the previous 6+ years of massive spending "finally paying off".
Click to expand...

Not exactly. More of the same, consumer debt will hold back spending, so more slow GDP growth.
Unemployment will fall from six percent in 2014 to four percent in 2016, but it won't feel like good times.
I suspect that if China's and Europe's economies fall then the U.S. government will respond with another five percent rise in income taxes and more small cuts in spending.
If they cannot borrow, what else is there?
 
newyorkguy said:
The Tea Party is about as far from being a "grassroots" movement as it's possible to get. The movement has been funded and guided largely by the billionaire Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party is often referred to as an "astroturf" movement.
 
Beerina said:
Republicans will hopefully get spending even more under control...
Click to expand...
Just because? Hopefully Republicans will align the planets and solve world hunger also. BTW: What is the current spending as a ratio of GDP compared to historic levels? What constitutes "under control" and what is out of control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom