2012 Republican Nominee Poll IV

[kochman]

The problem is you are taking deficits to directly equate to [over-]spending. Unemployment has the side effect of reducing tax revenues as well as people drawing off unemployment programs, so it doubly-hits the bottom line.

I understand that...
An example of his failure, the Keystone Pipeline, which he has personally been lobbying against. The number of jobs is questionable, but since each job lost is a double whammy... each job gained is a double gain.

Back to unemployment, in bigger picture... my problem is precisely that... years later, we still have roughly the same unemployment... so, yeah, deficit will remain big.
Despite stimulus, "shovel ready" jokes... I mean jobs, massive crony capitalism by Bush/Obama (Obama's been JUST as bad here, easily), etc.
Where are the jobs?!

Which is really what this election will hinge on. If the economy gets better, which it doesn't look like it will, Obama is a shoe in... if it stays the same, it's a toss up (as long as Romney is the repub)... if it gets worse, even a Newt or Sanitorium could potentially win.

 

[useless]

I can't believe this man is even running for the republican nominee, and could potentially be the next president.

Amazing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, Obama is still not responsible for us being in Afghanistan even?

No? In a past without Iraq Afghanistan might not have been that much of an issue come Obama. But I suspect you're off the opinion that Obama should have ordered a withdrawal asap, so that might not factor into your reasoning.

Despite stimulus

Odd isn't it? That was 1/3rd tax cuts. I heard that did wonders.

edit: But if you really want to get out of debt, you guys are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. And since that equals a sure loss in the elections, good luck!

 

[Core Imposter]

Raising taxes and cutting spending aren't enough to get out of debt. Its going to take more than that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Looting Canada?

 

[Cutlass]

What decisions were within Obama's power that would have had a substantial impact on the size of the deficits?

 

[kochman]

What decisions were within Obama's power that would have had a substantial impact on the size of the deficits?

1) Afghanistan is the most blaringly obvious... instead, he surged troops there... end result, while still not determined finally... does anyone really believe they will become a first class nation with continued US involvement?
Anyhow, without taking the time to fully look into the budget, which I just don't have the time to do line by line, I'll give the answer, he could have cut 10% or even 5% all around... it wouldn't have crippled the nation... lower payroll via attrition, etc.

This really isn't hard.
Your question makes it seem like poor Obama just has no power whatsoever.

And, you've still neglected to answer my fair question...
After how many years in office does Obama become responsible (as the POTUS)?

Traditionally, it's been 6 months... But you seem to think Obama should be a special case. I wonder if FDR, who had it way worse, was as prone to resorting to the blame game and passing the buck? I doubt it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Obama is responsible, but if you're looking for blame it becomes more nuanced pretty fast.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by specifying.

 

[kochman]

Obama is responsible, but if you're looking for blame it becomes more nuanced pretty fast.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by specifying.

Certainly, several things were out of his hands... I just believe, that, in this many years, when running for re-election, you've got to do better than that...

Again, it'll boil down to the economy failing. Clearly not his fault, BUT, he was elected to fix it. He asked for the job, despite the crap sandwich he would be handed. He's managed to stabilize it, but it is inferior to what the country is capable of... hence, he's got some trouble.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

With this congress, no president could fix anything. You could have had Bush for a 3rd term and it'd made little difference. Except regular embarrassments.

Maybe he should have been more Bush like. "I'm going to implement this. Oh you don't like it? Get in line." He gets crap for not reaching across the isle whatever he does anyway. From my perspective, his biggest let down was picking the same bunch who got the US into this mess to get them out. I'd liked to have seen some new faces who've not been domesticated by interest groups, if they even exist.

 

[Cutlass]

1) Afghanistan is the most blaringly obvious... instead, he surged troops there... end result, while still not determined finally... does anyone really believe they will become a first class nation with continued US involvement?
Anyhow, without taking the time to fully look into the budget, which I just don't have the time to do line by line, I'll give the answer, he could have cut 10% or even 5% all around... it wouldn't have crippled the nation... lower payroll via attrition, etc.

This really isn't hard.
Your question makes it seem like poor Obama just has no power whatsoever.

And, you've still neglected to answer my fair question...
After how many years in office does Obama become responsible (as the POTUS)?

Traditionally, it's been 6 months... But you seem to think Obama should be a special case. I wonder if FDR, who had it way worse, was as prone to resorting to the blame game and passing the buck? I doubt it.

And how does taking actions which will reduce the growth of the economy and tax receipts help solve the budget problem?

You could get a little bit out of Afghanistan. Not really very much. Everything else for cuts will be more likely to increase the deficit.

 

[kochman]

With this congress, no president could fix anything. You could have had Bush for a 3rd term and it'd made little difference. Except regular embarrassments.

Maybe he should have been more Bush like. "I'm going to implement this. Oh you don't like it? Get in line." He gets crap for not reaching across the isle whatever he does anyway. From my perspective, his biggest let down was picking the same bunch who got the US into this mess to get them out. I'd liked to have seen some new faces who've not been domesticated by interest groups, if they even exist.

With this congress? I disagree... if he'd lived up to his campaign promise of reaching across the aisle, it could be different.
Instead, when he took power, he had a supermajority, and made ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle, and in fact, built a wall in the aisle.

And how does taking actions which will reduce the growth of the economy and tax receipts help solve the budget problem?

You could get a little bit out of Afghanistan. Not really very much. Everything else for cuts will be more likely to increase the deficit.

I can see this debate has clearly hit the "pointless" point.

 

[Antilogic]

I understand that...
An example of his failure, the Keystone Pipeline, which he has personally been lobbying against. The number of jobs is questionable, but since each job lost is a double whammy... each job gained is a double gain.

Back to unemployment, in bigger picture... my problem is precisely that... years later, we still have roughly the same unemployment... so, yeah, deficit will remain big.
Despite stimulus, "shovel ready" jokes... I mean jobs, massive crony capitalism by Bush/Obama (Obama's been JUST as bad here, easily), etc.
Where are the jobs?!

Which is really what this election will hinge on. If the economy gets better, which it doesn't look like it will, Obama is a shoe in... if it stays the same, it's a toss up (as long as Romney is the repub)... if it gets worse, even a Newt or Sanitorium could potentially win.

The petroleum industry employs shockingly few people, I would equate making an argument that Obama isn't doing much for unemployment based on delaying the Keystone pipeline for ecological reasons to focusing on crumbs while others are taking cookies. Or like focusing on cutting pork-barrel spending to reduce the deficit. It's just not a major factor.

The stimulus contained AMT adjustments (tax relief), direct tax refunds, temporary funding for Medicaid and other unemployment relief, education, and the remainder was split between relief sent to states and the so-called shovel ready projects. The relief sent to states can be argued as tax relief due to the balanced budget requirements of states--without this, they would have cut fire or police services, etc. that people do not want cut. So it basically offset a tax increase on the remaining taxpayers. Only a tiny fraction was actually allocated towards infrastructure, and that was spread over two-ish years so that the derivative was negligible (i.e. look at infrastructure spending per year, a more important figure than the lump sum). It's no wonder the stimulus didn't work.

I'm curious as to why you don't think the economy is looking better or will be in another 6 months. If you use the traditional metrics (GDP, DJIA, etc.) it's doing fine. If you look at [what I think are more important] figures like employment, we are still doing better now than 3-4 years ago. The unemployment figure is unchanged because as people are hired, more of the people who quit looking for work (and thus aren't counted in the unemployment figure the TV stations report) start looking for work again, thus being re-counted as unemployed.

With this congress? I disagree... if he'd lived up to his campaign promise of reaching across the aisle, it could be different.
Instead, when he took power, he had a supermajority, and made ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle, and in fact, built a wall in the aisle.

Patently false, but whatever. I'm getting tired of this.

 

[Cutlass]

With this congress? I disagree... if he'd lived up to his campaign promise of reaching across the aisle, it could be different.
Instead, when he took power, he had a supermajority, and made ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle, and in fact, built a wall in the aisle.

That is pure partisan bullpoop. No president has reached across the isle more than Obama in decades. There is not the slightest shred of truth to claiming he has not bent over backwards to include the Republicans in everything.

I can see this debate has clearly hit the "pointless" point.

Not as long as you think that political and economic realities can be dictated by fiat.

 

[_random_]

I can't believe this man is even running for the republican nominee, and could potentially be the next president.

No he couldn't.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

With this congress? I disagree... if he'd lived up to his campaign promise of reaching across the aisle, it could be different.
Instead, when he took power, he had a supermajority, and made ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle, and in fact, built a wall in the aisle.

Bollocks.

But thanks for illustrating.

 

[kochman]

The petroleum industry employs shockingly few people, I would equate making an argument that Obama isn't doing much for unemployment based on delaying the Keystone pipeline for ecological reasons to focusing on crumbs while others are taking cookies. Or like focusing on cutting pork-barrel spending to reduce the deficit. It's just not a major factor.

Oh, because it wouldn't be the cure all, let's just ignore the inconvenient truth.

The stimulus contained

Spoiler :

AMT adjustments (tax relief), direct tax refunds, temporary funding for Medicaid and other unemployment relief, education, and the remainder was split between relief sent to states and the so-called shovel ready projects. The relief sent to states can be argued as tax relief due to the balanced budget requirements of states--without this, they would have cut fire or police services, etc. that people do not want cut. So it basically offset a tax increase on the remaining taxpayers. Only a tiny fraction was actually allocated towards infrastructure, and that was spread over two-ish years so that the derivative was negligible (i.e. look at infrastructure spending per year, a more important figure than the lump sum).

It's no wonder the stimulus didn't work.

Well, why did he design it that way if he's soooo good at this?

I'm curious as to why you don't think the economy is looking better or will be in another 6 months.

Because it's be stagnate for quite some time and nothing major has changed?

The unemployment figure is unchanged because as people are hired, more of the people who quit looking for work (and thus aren't counted in the unemployment figure the TV stations report) start looking for work again, thus being re-counted as unemployed.

You think it's a one way street? Employment situation is pretty bleak in the US right now.

That is pure partisan bullpoop.

Ummm, I'm not partisan... I dislike both parties, but I can call a situation how I see it. See after my joint reply to the three of you for why I make that claim.
Can you make the same claim?

Patently false, but whatever. I'm getting tired of this.

No president has reached across the isle more than Obama in decades.

Bollocks.
But thanks for illustrating.

Question for all 3 of you... How long was it before Obama met with the House Minority Leader after he was inaugurated?
Also, was he, as the President, saying anything to object to Repubs getting literally locked out of House committee meetings in those first 2 years?
Wouldn't that put a bad taste in the Dem party's mouth if Bush Jr had done those things?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, why did he design it that way if he's soooo good at this?

Because there's a group of toddler-like people who really really really liked tax breaks and maybe he thought they'd like tax breaks. They do like tax breaks but they didn't like those tax breaks, since those tax breaks were socialist tax breaks, not the patriotic capitalistic tax breaks they wanted like the Bush tax breaks.

Question for all 3 of you...

Allow me to repeat your comment, so you'll be able to put my bollocks into context.

Spoiler :

Well there's a sentence I never expected to utter

"Instead, when he took power, he had a supermajority, and made ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle, and in fact, built a wall in the aisle."

Capitalisation yours.

 

[kochman]

Because there's a group of toddler-like people who really really really liked tax breaks and maybe he thought they'd like tax breaks. They do like tax breaks but they didn't like those tax breaks, since those tax breaks were socialist tax breaks, not the patriotic capitalistic tax breaks they wanted like the Bush tax breaks.

But Hope & Change had control of the WH and Dems had the Congress... so, who failed there?

EDIT: Answering questions =/= working with another party...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But Hope & Change had control of the WH and Dems had the Congress... so, who failed there?

Obama, by trying to cater to the uncaterable.

As I said earlier, maybe better if he indeed had been the sort of president he was claimed to be.

edit: ZERO effort at reaching across the aisle