Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by bronconick View Post
    So wait, when are you going to have one of those non-troll days?
    Sometime after his electoral disaster on November 6.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    So wait, when are you going to have one of those non-troll days?

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Some days I feel inquisitive, some days I feel grumpy, some days I feel reasonable, and every now and then I feel like being a troll....

    Several weeks ago Mr. Obama focused his jobs argument on the company that Mr. Romney founded, Bain Capital. Employment growth is usually a byproduct of a firm's successful pursuit of profit. But it's become clear that even by the most conservative estimates, Bain has helped create more than 100,000 jobs by making companies grow.

    This is especially embarrassing for the White House because, according to the seasonally adjusted jobs numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its household survey, 100,000 is the total net increase in U.S. jobs since January 2009 when Mr. Obama took office.

    To appreciate how anemic this figure is, remember that there are more than 313 million Americans, and the U.S. population grows by more than two million people every year. So according to one government measure of job growth, the entire U.S. economy during the Obama Administration has not matched the business founded by Mitt Romney even three years after the recession ended.

    Many economists put more stock in the government's so-called establishment survey. But that shows not a small gain but a decline of more than 550,000 jobs during the Obama era.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion

    Leave a comment:


  • mookie1995
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    ....the baby boomer bill disappears.
    draft them and send them to afghanistan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    the Congressional Budget Office weighs in on the deficit:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop
    The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year. That's the highest share of GDP in U.S. history except World War II, as the nearby chart indicates, higher than during the Civil War or World War I. It's also way up from 40% in 2008 and from the 40-year average of 38%.

    And it's rising fast. CBO says that on present trend the national debt will hit 90% of GDP by 2022. It then balloons to 109% by 2026—that would be the all-time WWII peak—and approaches almost 200% of GDP by 2037.
    It defintely needs to be curtailed. Perhaps not directly relavent, but I wonder what % of the GDP was being spent on the military in say 1944 compared with 2011.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    That's complete bull. Dubya swaggered-chimped his way through his tax cuts and his wars. The refrain was "elections have consequences." Dude peacocked as if he had rolled up Reagan's EVs.

    I don't know why, since I know you are no friend of him, but you're peddling pure revisionism.
    I sure remember 2004 that way (the comment I specifically remember was, "I have political capital now, and I intend to spend it.") but I definitely do not remember any swagger during the first few months of 2001 - the dems still controlled Congress, etc. Are you sure that *your* memory isn't being tinged by the disappointment you must have been feeling at the time?

    The way I recall it, he didn't start peacocking until after 9/11 when the groundswell of public sentiment would have allowed him to declare martial law, if he'd cared to do so. Up until that point, he looked like a scared little kid wearing his dad's suit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    That's complete bull. Dubya swaggered-chimped his way through his tax cuts and his wars. The refrain was "elections have consequences." Dude peacocked as if he had rolled up Reagan's EVs.

    I don't know why, since I know you are no friend of him, but you're peddling pure revisionism.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Can't wait till Mitt gets elected and the economy gets fixed and the baby boomer bill disappears.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    Yeah, 53% to 47% "is" a mandate but 54% to 45% is "not" a mandate....
    I believe the concept of mandates does not have to do with Presidential elections alone. It can be portrayed that Obama received a mandate not only because he won the Presidency, but his party then took control of both houses of Congress. Bush Jr. did not receive this until 2002, as he did not have a majority at the start of his term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Pio
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    I'm well aware of that, but these chairmen are generally vetted so well that their actions don't come as a big surprise to anyone in the White House.
    Sure. But just like Supreme Court justices who don't quite pan out the way the White House wants (Mr. Warren comes to mind) Fed chairman can do whatever they want, especially when faced with unanticipated circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    narrow majorities in both (all) cases which are being oversold by the winners for obvious reasons.
    This about sums up my take on mandates. Demand far outstrips supply.

    There's probably greater evidence for mandate shifts in aggregate Congressional elections than in Presidential elections (or any individual election) - though they're also less meaningful in Congress.

    You don't need recourse to some abstract concept of mandate when the public collectively decides that a party should no longer hold a majority. That party simply no longer holds a majority.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    The fact remains that in 2008, 47% of voters wanted someone other than Obama to be president. If his election delivered a "clear message" of any kind, I don't think you can argue with a straight face that the Wisconsin recall election did not - you can't have it both ways.

    Personally, I think the records are what they say they are - narrow majorities in both (all) cases which are being oversold by the winners for obvious reasons.
    Yeah, 53% to 47% "is" a mandate but 54% to 45% is "not" a mandate....

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Are you going to point out how much money the GOP and its allies raised and spent, or is this just an anti-union rant?
    No, and no.

    I am not "anti-"union; I merely think we need to rebalance total compensation packages between public sector unions and the private sector. Saying that unions have "too much" influence over state budget priorities is not "anti-" union it is merely "pro" everything else......unless you want the entire state budget devoted solely to employee benefits, we have to find a way to balance competing priorities. Between salaries and fringe benefits, state and local government employees' total benefit packages are just sucking up too much of the budget!

    Notice that the Federal government does not have these problems....all of you who sneer at Reagan can thank him for that favor! imagine how much worse it would be if federal employees were trying to pull a wisconsin on the nation!

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Fixed your post.
    You, too? Nobody claimed a mandate after 2000.

    "The aftermath of the 2000 election was blessedly free of mandate claims, for the obvious reason that the circumstances of the election did not allow them."

    The fact remains that in 2008, 47% of voters wanted someone other than Obama to be president. If his election delivered a "clear message" of any kind, I don't think you can argue with a straight face that the Wisconsin recall election did not - you can't have it both ways.

    Personally, I think the records are what they say they are - narrow majorities in both (all) cases which are being oversold by the winners for obvious reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    During the buildup to the recall, the unions promised to "punish" Walker for daring to put limits on their bargaining power. They were going to demonstrate their might so that no politician anywhere would ever dare cross them. That was the spin they put on it. That they failed in their stated mission is the "big deal."

    Unions from across the country sent money to support the Wisconsin unions:
    Are you going to point out how much money the GOP and its allies raised and spent, or is this just an anti-union rant?

    ******* style="height: 390px; width: 640px">****** name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bn28oayX31Y?version=3&feature=player_embedded">****** name="allowFullScreen" value="true">****** name="allowScriptAccess" value="always">****** src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bn28oayX31Y?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360">

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X