• 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

casebro said:
I'm not sure about the "majority of Americans actually like it" part. I beleive ACA was a major reason the Repubs made gains.
Click to expand...

True, I worded that wrong. I should have stated a majority of Americans don't want the whole thing repealed. They want it improved and the major components of it left in place (such as kids staying on parent's insurance until 26, pre-existing conditions no longer being an excuse to deny coverage, and the ability for the insurance company to dump someone the moment they get sick as examples).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...more-unpopular-obamacare-or-repealing-obamac/

While only 10 percent want to keep it as is it is, a plurality, or 49 percent, want to keep it in place but work to improve it. Just 29 percent said it should be repealed and replaced with a GOP alternative or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Other polls had different results depending on their wording, but all backed the idea that the majority of Americans want to keep the key pillars of Obamacare in place and not repeal the whole thing. Republicans wanted to repeal, then maybe replace it with something later.
 
RandFan said:
This thread of a discussion we are having is because I stated that Obama should get credit for the good things that have happened under his watch.
Click to expand...

And you haven't given an example of anything Obama did that facilitated good things happening on his watch. Even the 2009 stimulus, which I think had negative value compared to the opportunity cost, was basically dumped in the lap of Congress to hash out (and they did make a hash of it). Years later, Obama joked that he hadn't realized that shovel-ready jobs didn't really exist. He spent a lot of time giving speeches about health care reform, but in the end, he left it to Congress to hash it out, and once again, they made a hash of it. When it came time to implement it, he fouled that up. He threw away the military victory in Iraq, and he "surged" in Afghanistan for purely political reasons, with no resolve, or even a plan, to accomplish anything positive there. What has he done besides "getting" bin Laden, which involved approving a mission that 4 out of 5 Presidents in his position would have done too? The guy does nothing but fund-raise, play golf, and whine that his job is hard and people don't appreciate how smart and wonderful he is. He is probably the most narcissistic President AND the most incompetent President that I've ever seen in my lifetime. And, believe me, that's not easy to accomplish.

The 2009 deficit was Obama's first year in office. What did he do (or the Democrat Congress do) that warrants putting the blame on them for that $1559.6 Billion in deficits.
Click to expand...

What did he do to rein in spending? Why did he insist on raising taxes in the middle of a weak economic recovery? Why did he implement programs to obstruct the foreclosure process and tighten mortgage credit, which has only had the effect of delaying the recovery in housing. There is little doubt in my mind that if Obama had done nothing, literally, during the last six years, the economy would be far stronger than it is.

This is not responsive. What caused the deficits? We were waging two wars and spending much of the money off the books. Obama stopped that.
Click to expand...

Obama stopped that? What could you possibly mean? And what does it mean that spending was off the books, and why does it matter? He bugged out of Iraq, it's true, but the war was already over, and the cost of keeping 10,000 troops there would have amounted to a rounding error in the budget. And he upped the ante in Afghanistan for no reason except that he had claimed it was the "good" war during the 2008 campaign that had been neglected by Bush.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And you haven't given an example of anything Obama did that facilitated good things happening on his watch.
Click to expand...
I addressed in my very first post. I'm only asking for consistency.

Even the 2009 stimulus, which I think had negative value compared to the opportunity cost, was basically dumped in the lap of Congress to hash out (and they did make a hash of it). Years later, Obama joked that he hadn't realized that shovel-ready jobs didn't really exist. He spent a lot of time giving speeches about health care reform, but in the end, he left it to Congress to hash it out, and once again, they made a hash of it. When it came time to implement it, he fouled that up. He threw away the military victory in Iraq, and he "surged" in Afghanistan for purely political reasons, with no resolve, or even a plan, to accomplish anything positive there. What has he done besides "getting" bin Laden, which involved approving a mission that 4 out of 5 Presidents in his position would have done too? The guy does nothing but fund-raise, play golf, and whine that his job is hard and people don't appreciate how smart and wonderful he is. He is probably the most narcissistic President AND the most incompetent President that I've ever seen in my lifetime. And, believe me, that's not easy to accomplish.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to respond. This is just assertion. I won't bother to ask you how you control for your bias. It's not the subject of this discussion.

What did he do to rein in spending? Why did he insist on raising taxes in the middle of a weak economic recovery? Why did he implement programs to obstruct the foreclosure process and tighten mortgage credit, which has only had the effect of delaying the recovery in housing. There is little doubt in my mind that if Obama had done nothing, literally, during the last six years, the economy would be far stronger than it is.
Click to expand...
More assertion. You cannot re-run the model for Obama anymore than we can re-run the model for Bush or any president. Things could have been much worse if Bush had not lowered taxes. Things could have been much better if he had not. This isn't about your opinion and speculation. It's about a president making decisions and implementing policies. The proposition at issue is whether Obama did that and not whether you agree with his decisions. Nothing you've written is salient to my point.

Obama stopped that? What could you possibly mean?
Click to expand...
President Bush figured out a way to keep spending off of the books. President Obama felt that was dishonest and stopped the practice.

Obama: No More War Spending Tricks

As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.
Click to expand...


And what does it mean that spending was off the books, and why does it matter?
Click to expand...
It means dishonesty. Obfuscation. It matters because Bush was trying to hide his deficits while the debt was ballooning. The deficits do not paint an accurate picture.

He bugged out of Iraq, it's true, but the war was already over, and the cost of keeping 10,000 troops there would have amounted to a rounding error in the budget. And he upped the ante in Afghanistan for no reason except that he had claimed it was the "good" war during the 2008 campaign that had been neglected by Bush.
Click to expand...
Just more assertion and irrelevant to this discussion. I completely disagree with your unfounded conclusions but I'm not here to debate those points. My purpose is to point out that most decisions by presidents will be controversial and a large segment of the population will disagree with those decisions. That you disagree says nothing as to whether or not President Obama, duly elected, has made decisions that he believes are the best course of action.

That is what governing is. Not kowtowing to people who disagree with you.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Some credit and blame should go to both the president and congress but (IMO) even more so to economic cycles outside of their control.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Thank you. This IMO is the most intellectually honest of opinions.

That's not to say that liberals cannot criticize GOP presidents or that conservatives cannot criticize Democratic presidents. It's simply to note that our society is highly complex and dynamic. That there are many variables that go into play and perhaps most importantly is the chaotic nature of socioeconomics in a nation of 50 states and a nation of 300 million people of diverse cultural backgrounds.
 
RandFan said:
<snip>
President Bush figured out a way to keep spending off of the books. President Obama felt that was dishonest and stopped the practice.

Obama: No More War Spending Tricks

It means dishonesty. Obfuscation. It matters because Bush was trying to hide his deficits while the debt was ballooning. The deficits do not paint an accurate picture.
Click to expand...

You are very, very confused. First, it is not possible to "hide" deficits. The spending on the war appeared in the deficit and the debt numbers. It just didn't appear as part of the base defense budget; instead, it appeared as supplemental spending. Second, to the extent that the defense department allocated run-of-the-mill operating and procurement expenses to the supplementals, it was Bush himself who was hurt by that. It made his "war of choice" look more expensive than it really was. Third, it was Obama who had a nefarious and dishonest reason for changing the accounting. Obama wanted to lump war spending in with base defense spending so that he could claim enormous savings when the war ended. I remember analyzing one of his early budgets (probably the fiscal 2011 one, released in early 2010) where Obama claimed to include $2T of deficit reductions. $1T of that consisted of $100B/yr allocated to the war in Iraq for the following 10 years which he was going to save by winding down the war in Iraq within the next year. The whole thing was a dishonest trick. If you understood this stuff, you would actually be criticizing Obama for deceit and praising Bush for transparency.
 
sunmaster14 said:
< argument by assertion snipped >

If you understood this stuff...
Click to expand...
Your sources, again, are missing. I'm not really interested in echo chamber rhetoric nor am I interested in having to point out time and again that someone's sources are missing only to be ignored. Most importantly, I'm not here to be patronized or condescended to.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Okay, I'm not sure what your definition of "strong majority" is but that's just 2001.
Click to expand...

No, it's not just 2001. It's 7 months of 2001 and all of 2002. So now your six years of complete Republican control is down to 4 years and 5 months.

And the fact is that no matter how you slice it Bush never had the kind of majority that Obama had for his first two years.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You are very, very confused. First, it is not possible to "hide" deficits. The spending on the war appeared in the deficit and the debt numbers. It just didn't appear as part of the base defense budget; instead, it appeared as supplemental spending. Second, to the extent that the defense department allocated run-of-the-mill operating and procurement expenses to the supplementals, it was Bush himself who was hurt by that. It made his "war of choice" look more expensive than it really was. Third, it was Obama who had a nefarious and dishonest reason for changing the accounting. Obama wanted to lump war spending in with base defense spending so that he could claim enormous savings when the war ended. I remember analyzing one of his early budgets (probably the fiscal 2011 one, released in early 2010) where Obama claimed to include $2T of deficit reductions. $1T of that consisted of $100B/yr allocated to the war in Iraq for the following 10 years which he was going to save by winding down the war in Iraq within the next year. The whole thing was a dishonest trick. If you understood this stuff, were a rabid partisan you would actually be criticizing Obama for deceit and praising Bush for transparency.
Click to expand...
Fixed for accuracy.
 
Brainster said:
And the fact is that no matter how you slice it Bush never had the kind of majority that Obama had for his first two years.
Click to expand...
I've asked you before what you are talking about? What do you mean not the same kind of control? And you are wrong, I've already demonstrated that it was not two years. At most it was 4 months.
 
Brainster said:
No, it's not just 2001. It's 7 months of 2001 and all of 2002. So now your six years of complete Republican control is down to 4 years and 5 months.
Click to expand...
BTW: Your sources are missing. I provided a precise time line of how many seats the Dems had at every juncture. You simply make assertions. Could you support your claims?

RandFan said:
Jim Jeffords is a single legislator. How does that take away from "strong" Republican majorities? Or does that only apply when the Democrats are in control?
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
No, it's not just 2001. It's 7 months of 2001 and all of 2002. So now your six years of complete Republican control is down to 4 years and 5 months.

And the fact is that no matter how you slice it Bush never had the kind of majority that Obama had for his first two years.
Click to expand...

Unless you account for the fact that Republicans are far more reliable at voting in lock step with a party agenda, while getting Democrats to do the same is like herding cats.
 
RandFan said:
This thread of a discussion we are having is because I stated that Obama should get credit for the good things that have happened under his watch. The 2009 deficit was Obama's first year in office. What did he do (or the Democrat Congress do) that warrants putting the blame on them for that $1559.6 Billion in deficits.

You seem to be saying that the deficits are because of Democrat spending. You have not at all addressed the banking collapse and the bail out of the banks.
Click to expand...

Actually (initially) I just popped into this thread with a reminder and a little joke! I suspect it would be fruitless to write (yet another!) long and extensively linked post on this same basic subject, which is why I've begged off with the appeal to complexity. :)
 
Gillespie just conceded that a recount could not overcome Warner's 16,000 vote lead in the Virginia senate race. That leaves Alaska not fully resolved by the initial count and Louisiana who is going into the last round of voting in its jungle primary.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Some credit and blame should go to both the president and congress but (IMO) even more so to economic cycles outside of their control.
Click to expand...
Yes but I do think economic policy does affect economic cycles. The problem is that such effects may take years to occur and may difficult to impossible to tease out from all the other factors. Thus, looking at what happened to various economic indices at some point in time and ascribing the changes to the sitting President is an exercise in finger-pointing.
 
I just noticed that Al Franken easily won re-election in Minnesota. What a difference one term makes. Republicans barely put up a fight.
 
Spindrift said:
I just noticed that Al Franken easily won re-election in Minnesota. What a difference one term makes. Republicans barely put up a fight.
Click to expand...
Republicans barely put up a fight except for netting picking up a clear majority in the Senate and expanding their majority in the House, you mean?

Franken may have kept his seat with no trouble, but I guess probably for the next two years the Republicans will be looking at him across the aisle and thinking the best revenge is living well.
 
theprestige said:
Republicans barely put up a fight except for netting picking up a clear majority in the Senate and expanding their majority in the House, you mean?
Click to expand...
Well yeah, that's what he meant, because that's what he said. But we understand how important it was for you to make a feel good statement about something else :rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
Republicans barely put up a fight except for netting picking up a clear majority in the Senate and expanding their majority in the House, you mean?

Franken may have kept his seat with no trouble, but I guess probably for the next two years the Republicans will be looking at him across the aisle and thinking the best revenge is living well.
Click to expand...

Huh? I was talking about Franken's seat. What made you think I was talking about the rest of the races? He only won by 200 votes the last time so I thought he would be in at least competitive race. It obviously was a foregone conclusion since it didn't make much news and I wasn't even cognizant of him running this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom