The Myth of the US independent Voter

[kochman]

So you bring up a point and when challenged, you say it is irrelavent? Why even bring it up in the first place then?
If we look outside of the mandate, the individual parts of the ACA are pretty well liked, notably the restrictions on insurance companies dropping patients, lifetime caps, and the whole issue with 'pre existing conditions'.

My point is, the left is cleverly (so they think) trying to shift the blame for the unpopular camp onto the right, as a talking point for the upcoming campaign. The left owns ACA though, as they had not one right wing vote to pass it, while using very shady political schemes.
There are tons of parts of the ACA which I like, and tons I dislike. Pointing out a couple of good aspects doesn't fix the crappy plan the left passed.
It really is disingenuous to try to trick people like that, by picking and choosing little aspects that have almost universal acceptance, and saying only the individual mandate is disliked, and that was a right wing idea. It's basically revisionist history of something that happened within the last two years.
You'll have to get up earlier in the morning to pull that type of trick over on most people.
ACA, and the individual mandate, are FIRMLY DEMOCRAT from 2009, when they had majorities, and pushed it through. No blame shifting on this one guys, sorry!

If someone borrows my car and drives it into a tree, is it okay for me to blame him for driving it into a tree two years later?
The economy is like a supertanker: it doesn't turn on a dime. When the country is still suffering from the effects of policies implemented by the previous president or problems that went unfixed, it is still fine to blame him. Just look at how much blame Carter still gets, when most of the issues weren't his fault and beyond his control.

2 years, with total majority control of both houses of congress, and trillions in deficit spending is hardly "a dime", (heck, how many super tankers could he have purchased?) so yes, he should have turned it around by now. Other countries have managed, and at way less of a cost. They aren't necessarily supporting a leftist agenda while doing it though. And, man, Pelosi told us that ACA would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately!!! Where are the jobs?
The car analogy, by the way, that's so poorly thought out it is beyond terrible. 2 years later the car should be FIXED, especially if you spent on it, proportionally, what Obama has spent "on the economy".

"Working on it" and "serious proposal" are two very, very, different things. Besides, basic gun enforcement such as permits (much in the same way driving licenses work) is hardly an unreasonable requirement.

All I ever claimed is that it is in the works.
I hardly think you are the final arbiter of what is a reasonable requirement regarding guns anyway... seeing as you are far left and totally biased. You don't get to set the rules, you can just vote for people like Obama to push your agenda through, then call him a right winger when he isn't quite as radical as you had hoped.

He most certainly did. The Bush plan set the rates for 2011 and 2012.

Ok, extended the status quo and cutting the status quo are two different things. It would have been an increase had the Bush tax cuts expired, as they had become the status quo (even if only designed to be "temporary").

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok, extended the status quo and cutting the status quo are two different things. It would have been an increase had the Bush tax cuts expired, as they had become the status quo (even if only designed to be "temporary").

Nope. By statute (as signed into law by Bush), the tax rates were set for 2011 and 2012. That was the status quo. Obama signed into law a change to the statutory status quo. The Bush tax package included the rates for 2011 and 2012. That these rates were lowered were the Obama tax cuts, not the Bush tax cuts.

 

[kochman]

Nope. By statute, the tax rates were set for 2011 and 2012. That was the status quo. Obama signed into law a change to the statutory status quo. The Bush tax cuts included the rates for 2011 and 2012. That these rates were lowered were the Obama tax cuts, not the Bush tax cuts.

This is just semantics... not worth debating.

This is one place where he actually, until the ACA, kept his word on lowering taxes for the Middle Class...

 

[pi-r8]

2 years, with total majority control of both houses of congress, and trillions in deficit spending is hardly "a dime", (heck, how many super tankers could he have purchased?) so yes, he should have turned it around by now. Other countries have managed, and at way less of a cost. They aren't necessarily supporting a leftist agenda while doing it though. And, man, Pelosi told us that ACA would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately!!! Where are the jobs?
The car analogy, by the way, that's so poorly thought out it is beyond terrible. 2 years later the car should be FIXED, especially if you spent on it, proportionally, what Obama has spent "on the economy".

This ignores the republicans in the senate who could block anything they didn't like with a filibuster. There was no "total majority control", that's just a lie.

I do agree with you though, the economy could have been fixed by now if Congress had enacted some actual liberal policies, like a bigger stimulus and more far-reaching healthcare reform. But Obama pushed for the middle of the road, centrist policies, which basically did nothing, and here we are.

 

[Junius]

I do agree with you though, the economy could have been fixed by now if Congress had enacted some actual liberal policies, like a bigger stimulus and more far-reaching healthcare reform. But Obama pushed for the middle of the road, centrist policies, which basically did nothing, and here we are.

More stimulus defense huh? Out of curiosity how much would have needed to be spent in the package before we could say deficit-spending wasn't going to work? Obviously it's important what it is spent on and that is where the package really failed, but how much would be enough?

 

[pi-r8]

More stimulus defense huh? Out of curiosity how much would have needed to be spent in the package before we could say deficit-spending wasn't going to work? Obviously it's important what it is spent on and that is where the package really failed, but how much would be enough?

Read and learn
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

Those of us who say that the stimulus was too small are often accused of after-the-fact rationalization: you said this would work, but now that it hasn’t, you’re just saying it wasn’t big enough. The quick answer to that accusation is that people like me said that the stimulus was too small in advance. But the longer answer is that it’s all in the math: Keynesian analysis provides numbers as well as qualitative predictions, and given reasonable projections of the economy’s path in January 2009, the proposed stimulus just wasn’t big enough. Let’s go back to the tape, January 9, 2009:

Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.

 

[JollyRoger]

More stimulus defense huh? Out of curiosity how much would have needed to be spent in the package before we could say deficit-spending wasn't going to work? Obviously it's important what it is spent on and that is where the package really failed, but how much would be enough?

How many years of low tax rates and historically low relative wage income are we going to have to suffer before we concede that supply side is the problem here, not the solution?

 

[Junius]

Read and learn
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

So what would have been the magic number? The article says 2.1 trillion of lost production and 1trillion short of full capacity. Let's assume that 1.5 trillion was needed. Economics, even more so than other disciplines, is open to many different interpretations, but let's say that most economists say 1.5 trillion. Even when the stimulus package was passed shortly after Obama's inauguration, with sky-high approval ratings, and as much control of congress as one party has had in generations, they still couldn't get that done. There is simply not enough political capital to pass anything that is going to spend that much money. It was never a possible solution. Now what is possible is not the same as what should have happened. It is certainly important to remember though.

How many years of low tax rates and historically low relative wage income are we going to have to suffer before we concede that supply side is the problem here, not the solution?

I would think we have to conclude that tax cuts alone won't suffice. That doesn't answer the question though.

 

[kochman]

This ignores the republicans in the senate who could block anything they didn't like with a filibuster. There was no "total majority control", that's just a lie.

I do agree with you though, the economy could have been fixed by now if Congress had enacted some actual liberal policies, like a bigger stimulus and more far-reaching healthcare reform. But Obama pushed for the middle of the road, centrist policies, which basically did nothing, and here we are.

Yeah, you're right... MORE liberal spending is the answer.
It is insanity to think that trying the same thing over and over again will yield different results somehow.

The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate, and for anything budget related, all they needed was 51... no filibuster.
SORRY, but you are just flat out wrong... they had both houses, by hefty margins, and the Presidency.
The Democrat Party owns this economy, 100%, after 2 years of that.

I understand you are far left also, it's quite common on this board, but blatantly lying by saying dems didn't have a supermajority, etc, is getting REALLY OLD.

 

[Ajidica]

My point is, the left is cleverly (so they think) trying to shift the blame for the unpopular camp onto the right, as a talking point for the upcoming campaign. The left owns ACA though, as they had not one right wing vote to pass it, while using very shady political schemes.

Whether or not 'the left' championed ACA has no bearning on the fact the Mandate was originaly concieved by the Republicans.

It really is disingenuous to try to trick people like that, by picking and choosing little aspects that have almost universal acceptance, and saying only the individual mandate is disliked, and that was a right wing idea. It's basically revisionist history of something that happened within the last two years.

For myself at least, I am trying to trick nobody about the mandate. That particular fantasy is on your head.
Are the individual parts of ACA, excluding the mandate well liked? Yes.
Was the mandate originaly a Republican sponsored idea that was re-used by Obama later on? Yes.
If facts become 'revisionist', then you may have a career working at the Ministry of Truth, Memory Hole station perhaps.

2 years, with total majority control of both houses of congress, and trillions in deficit spending is hardly "a dime[/B]", (heck, how many super tankers could he have purchased?)

1)The Democrats control over both houses was flimsy at best.
2)The vast majority of the deficity spending is just more people using existing programs. The stimulus bills were a bit too small and, most importantly, they were a one off event. They had their cost which is fixed.

so yes, he should have turned it around by now.

So you are blaming Obama for not fixing it yet, but condemning him for taking actions that would fix it?

Other countries have managed, and at way less of a cost.

Examples? In other developed countries that suffered from a recession due to the crisis, it was largely mitigated because of their extensive laws regulating the financial sector whick kept the bubble small.

They aren't necessarily supporting a leftist agenda while doing it though. And, man, Pelosi told us that ACA would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately!!! Where are the jobs?

Source for the quote.
Additionaly, politicians lie and twist the truth to gain support.

The car analogy, by the way, that's so poorly thought out it is beyond terrible. 2 years later the car should be FIXED, especially if you spent on it, proportionally, what Obama has spent "on the economy".

Even if the car is fixed, can I not blame the person for crashing it? Perhaps the parts have to be machined by hand, or they are very expensive so I have to save up for them.

I hardly think you are the final arbiter of what is a reasonable requirement regarding guns anyway...

It is far from just me thinking that. But I do thank you for giving me credit for the idea of permits that we have for just about everything else.

seeing as you are far left and totally biased.

Due, we have actual socialists on the board. I hardly think my fairly standard Scandinavian SocDem/Keynesian leanings qualify me as 'far left' unless you destroy all meaning found in that word.

 

[Cutlass]

More stimulus defense huh? Out of curiosity how much would have needed to be spent in the package before we could say deficit-spending wasn't going to work? Obviously it's important what it is spent on and that is where the package really failed, but how much would be enough?

You'd have to design a program without any "supply side" tax cuts to get a decent return on investment for it. There really wasn't stimulus at all, because people who criticize the stimulus keep ignoring the spending cuts at the state and local level. And beyond that, the tax cuts portion of it had no stimulus affect.

 

[useless]

"OBAMAS A LEFTIST" despite the fact that he's a centrist and attempts to be bi-partisan AT EVERT OPPORTUNITY. Seriously, he's only considered "left" in America (which has a screwed up definition of political ideology btw), everywhere else he's a centrist.

 

[Junius]

You'd have to design a program without any "supply side" tax cuts to get a decent return on investment for it. There really wasn't stimulus at all, because people who criticize the stimulus keep ignoring the spending cuts at the state and local level. And beyond that, the tax cuts portion of it had no stimulus affect.

Well as i conceded the biggest failure of the stimulus package was where the money was directed. I'm still curious as to what an ideal number would be. I have a hard time believing a package much larger was actually feasible.

"OBAMAS A LEFTIST" despite the fact that he's a centrist and attempts to be bi-partisan AT EVERT OPPORTUNITY. Seriously, he's only considered "left" in America (which has a screwed up definition of political ideology btw), everywhere else he's a centrist.

Again where he would fall in Europe is completely irrelevant. How liberal he is compared to the average american or average american pol is the only thing that matters. It's interesting that only liberals consider him a centrist while no conservatives do. I would say he has governed fairly moderately, but that doesn't mean that he personally isn't liberal. Simply that he is pragmatic.

Here is a poll reflecting where americans think Obama stands. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2011/most_voters_think_president_obama_is_more_liberal_than_they_are

 

[Rashiminos]

There's a difference between hacking a few trees down and clearing a forest.
Antibiotic-resistance and dead bacteria..
...

 

[Cutlass]

Well as i conceded the biggest failure of the stimulus package was where the money was directed. I'm still curious as to what an ideal number would be. I have a hard time believing a package much larger was actually feasible.

Do you mean feasible politically? If you think it wasn't politically feasible, then I think that's a valid concern. It would have been extremely difficult to sell to Congress.

The point is that a large portion of the stimulus simply went to offset lost state and local spending. No increase in spending. And the other largest part went to tax cuts that people largely used to pay down debts a bit, and not for increased spending. And so only a small portion was actually spending, and that went out over the course of a couple years, not at once. So it the stimulus had been maybe twice as large, or all targeted on investment spending on science and infrastructure, then the ROI would have been much higher.

The bill as it stood was a demonstration of the fundamental ways in which Congress is dysfunctional.

What was needed was to put people to work. It didn't accomplish that.

 

[kochman]

Whether or not 'the left' championed ACA has no bearning on the fact the Mandate was originaly concieved by the Republicans.

Yeah, and T Roosevelt wanted HC, etc, etc, etc.
If has no bearing on TODAY and reality!

For myself at least, I am trying to trick nobody about the mandate. That particular fantasy is on your head.
Are the individual parts of ACA, excluding the mandate well liked? Yes.
Was the mandate originaly a Republican sponsored idea that was re-used by Obama later on? Yes.
If facts become 'revisionist', then you may have a career working at the Ministry of Truth, Memory Hole station perhaps.

The broken record routine, it's so intelligent.

1)The Democrats control over both houses was flimsy at best.
2)The vast majority of the deficity spending is just more people using existing programs. The stimulus bills were a bit too small and, most importantly, they were a one off event. They had their cost which is fixed.

1) Flimsy? Uh, 60% is not flimsy when you need 51%.
2) NO, it isn't. NO, they weren't.
Again, the definition of insanity, per Einstein I believe it was... trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

So you are blaming Obama for not fixing it yet, but condemning him for taking actions that would fix it?

Blaming him for not fixing it, and condemning him for taking actions that WOULD NOT fix it.

Examples? In other developed countries that suffered from a recession due to the crisis, it was largely mitigated because of their extensive laws regulating the financial sector whick kept the bubble small.

Germany.

Source for the quote.
Additionaly, politicians lie and twist the truth to gain support.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ll_create_400000_jobs_almost_immediately.html

Even if the car is fixed, can I not blame the person for crashing it? Perhaps the parts have to be machined by hand, or they are very expensive so I have to save up for them.

I can't believe you are still backing that stupid analogy.

It is far from just me thinking that. But I do thank you for giving me credit for the idea of permits that we have for just about everything else.

Oh, you were just acting like what you said was final and decided, so I thought someone had appointed you the final arbiter.

Due, we have actual socialists on the board. I hardly think my fairly standard Scandinavian SocDem/Keynesian leanings qualify me as 'far left' unless you destroy all meaning found in that word.

Uh, it has way more to do with than you support of failed economics and the belief that we just need to keep spending to get out of our current problem.

 

[kochman]

"OBAMAS A LEFTIST" despite the fact that he's a centrist and attempts to be bi-partisan AT EVERT OPPORTUNITY. Seriously, he's only considered "left" in America (which has a screwed up definition of political ideology btw), everywhere else he's a centrist.

Because you have your thumb on the world's political beliefs and know so well what is the best...

 

[Junius]

Do you mean feasible politically? If you think it wasn't politically feasible, then I think that's a valid concern. It would have been extremely difficult to sell to Congress.

The point is that a large portion of the stimulus simply went to offset lost state and local spending. No increase in spending. And the other largest part went to tax cuts that people largely used to pay down debts a bit, and not for increased spending. And so only a small portion was actually spending, and that went out over the course of a couple years, not at once. So it the stimulus had been maybe twice as large, or all targeted on investment spending on science and infrastructure, then the ROI would have been much higher.

The bill as it stood was a demonstration of the fundamental ways in which Congress is dysfunctional.

What was needed was to put people to work. It didn't accomplish that.

Politically feasible, yes. Even coming off a large election win and with large majorities i think it would have been very very tough to get it through. That is of course assuming it would have worked which no one can say for sure.

 

[Cutlass]

Politically feasible, yes. Even coming off a large election win and with large majorities i think it would have been very very tough to get it through. That is of course assuming it would have worked which no one can say for sure.

No one can say anything with certainty. The thing you have to keep in mind is that we have never been in this situation. 1929 was a similar situation, but with no one knowing even the theory behind doing something about it. And because there was no thought to do it, there was never a debate about what would or would not work. And so it has never been tried, there is no actual experience that tells us what will and what will not.

What we do know, is that half measures don't work. We learned that from Japan. And what we do know, is that doing nothing means that the markets will panic and seize up even worse. And when that happens, you get a depression. And what we do know is that tax cuts for the wealthy have effectively no stimulus effect. We learned that over the past 10 years with the Bush tax cuts. And what we do know, is that businesses do not invest without customers. And what we do know is that people don't do a lot of consumption spending while unemployed, or worried about unemployment and loss of income.

 

[Ajidica]

1) Flimsy? Uh, 60% is not flimsy when you need 51%.

Due to double tracking and how filibuster laws work, you need 60% to have any chance of sucess over an entrenched minority. When a few defections would result in you loosing the filibuster proof majority, it does become a flimsy effective majority.

2) NO, it isn't.

Prove it. The only expansion of the federal safety net I can recall under Obama was the increased length of Unemployment Benefits, which compared to SocSec and Medicare/aid, has a minimal cost. If I happened to sleep through a major expansion of any of the major debt contributing programs, please enlighten me.

NO, they weren't.

Contrary to what you may have chosen to believe, the stimulus was a one off deal. We knew exactly what the price tag was when voting on it. Even the bailouts had a fixed price (which, for TARP at least, has been almost completely paid back).

Blaming him for not fixing it, and condemning him for taking actions that WOULD NOT fix it.

Keynesian policies are the best options for stimulating growth in a developed country during a recession. Slash and tax policies can work, such as in Chile, but they are often very shaky and require later work to rectify the issues brought about by them.

Germany.

Of course! The best example of a country that pulled out of the recession fairly quickly is one that has a well regulated finance sector, a substantial welfare system to smooth over increases in unemployment, and engaged in massive stimulus packages.

I can't believe you are still backing that stupid analogy.

I can't believe you have faith in your economic beliefs, but to each their own.

Uh, it has way more to do with than you support of failed economics

Of course! It must have been Keynesian/SocDem policies that put us into our current economic recession. When Keynesian policies are employed, the nation does well. When their are recessions, the damage is mitigated.

and the belief that we just need to keep spending to get out of our current problem.

Basic economics. When you are in a recession you pursue expansionary policies, whether monetary or fiscal. We have just about scraped the bottom of the barrel with monetary policies as a result of Greenspan bailing out the companies engaged in the dot com boom and addition actions taken by the Fed. All that is left is fiscal expansion, which is hampered due to both the current situation, self-imposed restrictions (the credit rating companies aren't concerned about our debt level, they are concerned about our ability to pay back, which at the moment is a political issue), and past actions, notably engaging in massive deficit spending during a time of growth, however tepid it might be.