The Myth of the US independent Voter

[kochman]

First, you have no idea what my economic theory is... It basically involves not spending like drunken sailors on shore leave for the first time in 6 months though... something your folks don't seem to believe in.

Well, whatever Germany did... which included cutting spending and tax cuts... why didn't Obama do it with his supermajorities in the congress? Interesting... Oh, because he's a failure who has little to no grasp on economics.

You only need 51 votes in budgetary matters, in the Senate... you know, that's how they railroad through "budget" issues like ACA.

Dems own this failing economy.

End of story.

 

[Cutlass]

Dems own this failing economy.

End of story.

Even though Republican polices caused the fail and no Republican has even so much as pretended to present an alternative that makes any sense at all?

 

[Ajidica]

First, you have no idea what my economic theory is... It basically involves not spending like drunken sailors on shore leave for the first time in 6 months though... something your folks don't seem to believe in.

Thank you for misrepresenting my viewpoints.

Well, whatever Germany did... which included cutting spending and tax cuts... why didn't Obama do it with his supermajorities in the congress?

Due to the structure of the German government, it is far easier to pass legislation like that. Additionaly, as I pointed out earlier, Germany had kept a far greater leash on lending banks (and by extention, predatory lenders) so they were not in the same situation we are. Furthermore, although Merkel made spending cuts (I'm not so sure about tax cuts), she also implemented a program where the government would partialy reimburse companies for keeping workers on the payroll rather then firing them.
So yeah, the German situation is far from ours. Why should the same medicine work? You don't perscribe Nyquil to someone suffering from a broken leg.

You only need 51 votes in budgetary matters, in the Senate... you know, that's how they railroad through "budget" issues like ACA.

Yes, if the measure every makes it to the floor which is very unlikely due to double tracking and current filibuster rules. Railroading through bills is hardly unusual. Perhaps if you dislike politicians forcing bills through you should have voted for politicians who would have closed those options. Or, perhaps if the Republicans had approached the ACA with something resembling bipartisanship rather then imediately defaulting to false assertions like 'socialism' and 'death panels'.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Dems own this failing economy.

End of story.

You mean deliberately lowering taxes, and continuing to fight against raising them, while drastically increasing government spending for 8 years under GWB had no effect? Then there was deregulating banks and investment firms at the same time, because they would regulate themselves in their own self-interests, didn't contribute at all to this "failing economy"?

Obama called that one before he even took office. He claimed that the Republicans would try to blame him and the Democrats for the long and difficult economic recovery in the years ahead. But it doesn't take much to prognosticate the obvious.

 

[kochman]

Or, perhaps if the Republicans had approached the ACA with something resembling bipartisanship rather then imediately defaulting to false assertions like 'socialism' and 'death panels'.

I wish there had been compromise as well... however, when Pelosi was railroading things through, locking the repubs out of committee meetings because frankly she didn't need their votes anyway... it made that much less likely.

People like Palin coming up with "death panels" certainly didn't help the matter... The benefit of that was, she successfully made herself unelectable in the future when her pedagogy became exposed.

A small price to pay!!!

 

[pi-r8]

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.

No... most economists said $2 trillion. Conservatives said we needed spending cuts, because they don't listen to keynesian economics at all. Obama tried to be a moderate, so he said $775 billion was enough, even though no economic analysis actually said it would be. We got about 1/3 of what would have been necessary. And this isn't far left politics, this is just basic, mainstream economics.

Of course you're right that was politically impossible to get a $2 trillion stimulus. Too many conservatives in power for the liberals to do what was necessary.

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.

Alright, let's check the sources on these "lies". Hopefully wikipedia is enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States

Apart from these constitutional requirements, a Senate rule requires a supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate—60 of the 100 senators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
(first number is the number of democratic senators, second number is independants who were effectively democrats)

Begin 55 2
January 15, 2009 56 2
January 20, 2009 55 2
January 26, 2009 56 2
April 30, 2009 57 2
July 7, 2009 58 2
August 25, 2009 57 2
September 9, 2009 57 2
September 10, 2009 57 2
September 25, 2009 58 2
February 4, 2010 57 2
June 28, 2010 56 2
July 16, 2010 57 2
November 29, 2010 56 2

For the period from september 25, 2009 to February 4, 2010, you are correct that the Dems had a supermajority. It was a razor thin supermajority that required the cooperation of every single democratic senator, many of whom were conservative and didn't want any liberal legislation. But it was enough, just barely, to pass the extremely moderate healthcare reform act during that time. For the entire rest of the congress, republicans had enough senators to block anything they wanted, and they did. A massive amount of legislation was passed in the house, but defeated in the senate, including

American Clean Energy and Security Act
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
DREAM Act
Employee Free Choice Act
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009
Food Safety Enhancement Act
Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009
Military Readiness Enhancement Act
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009
Public Option Act
Respect for Marriage Act
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Uniting American Families Act
Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act

 

[kochman]

1st, Wikipedia is certainly not enough.

2nd, everyone knows the Dem party had a caucus of 60 voters. That is a "supermajority". Why are you trying to deny this still?

3rd, Before the 2 years that Obama had supermajority, the Dems already controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities... you know, when they also signed off on all of Bush's heaviest spending under Nancy "Pay as you Go" Pelosi.

 

[Ajidica]

1st, Wikipedia is certainly not enough.

Are you seriously challenging wikipedia on basic factual information?
If it makes you feel any better, my AP US Government textbook says the exact same thing. Are you going to challenge that now?

 

[kochman]

Are you seriously challenging wikipedia on basic factual information?
If it makes you feel any better, my AP US Government textbook says the exact same thing. Are you going to challenge that now?

Yes, I am challenging wikipedia, seriously, as a legitimate source. It is FULL of errors, and not worth the time of sorting through.

You're AP US Government textbook says exactly what? That's rhetorical... because, so what?

It doesn't matter... Do you guys really argue that the Repubs were successful in mounting all sorts of filibusters in the Senate?

The Dems controlled both houses of Congress from 2006-2010. They had, from the day Arlon Spector flipped parties, 60 senators caucusing with them until the newly elected senators from the 2010 elections to their seats.



What is the argument you are making?

Mine is that the Dems controlled the Congress and the WH for 2 years (including a supermajority)...
The Dems controlled Congress for 4 years... setting budgets.

The Dem Party owns this economy and this deficit. The debt is definitely bipartisan, because Hastert (Repub house leader before Pelosi) was only slightly better than Pelosi when it came to outrageous spending in the Budgets he pushed through the house.

 

[Cutlass]

2nd, everyone knows the Dem party had a caucus of 60 voters. That is a "supermajority". Why are you trying to deny this still?

What everybody knows is that you can only even pretend this was true for about 4 months. And that assumes you include a guy so far left that he left the Democratic party, and a guy so far right that he lost the party primary. Plus a dozen people who are even further conservative than most Democrats. All those people had to be pleased before the Democrats had any "supermajority".

edit: And I almost forgot. You also have to add in the fact that Kennedy was on death's door those 4 months. Not really in attendance.

 

[Ajidica]

It is FULL of errors, and not worth the time of sorting through.

If you know it is full of errors, why not fix them? Well sourced wikipedia articles tend to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, sometimes more accurate too.

The Dems controlled both houses of Congress from 2006-2010. They had, from the day Arlon Spector flipped parties, 60 senators caucusing with them until the newly elected senators from the 2010 elections to their seats.

For two of those four years, they didn't hold the executive and they lacked a veto proof majority. For the other two years, they still had to contend with a large, recaltriant minority that would not be filibuster proof if even one democrat senator flipped sides, hardly a rare occurance.

The Dem Party owns this economy and this deficit. The debt is definitely bipartisan, because Hastert (Repub house leader before Pelosi) was only slightly better than Pelosi when it came to outrageous spending in the Budgets he pushed through the house.

Forgive me, I didn't see the democrats in the executive passing spending bills for the first eight years when we should have been accumulating a surplus. Just because the Congress passes a bill does not mean the president has to sign it. You know, the whole separation of powers thing and checks and balences.

 

[kochman]

If you know it is full of errors, why not fix them? Well sourced wikipedia articles tend to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, sometimes more accurate too.

Is this a job offer?

For two of those four years, they didn't hold the executive and they lacked a veto proof majority. For the other two years, they still had to contend with a large, recaltriant minority that would not be filibuster proof if even one democrat senator flipped sides, hardly a rare occurance.

So, yes, you are still arguing that they just didn't have enough power... that was the problem... yet, you are quick to blame the repubs when they also didn't have anywhere near as much power.
Can we please approach these things with an even hand?
This is an example of your far left bias... you give dems the benefit of the doubt in all occasions, and condemn repubs in all occasions, even if the circumstances are largely the same.

Forgive me, I didn't see the democrats in the executive passing spending bills for the first eight years when we should have been accumulating a surplus. Just because the Congress passes a bill does not mean the president has to sign it. You know, the whole separation of powers thing and checks and balences.

The House sets the budget... the WH approves. Bush didn't veto a single bill until something like 2007 or 2008, because he was weak.


Bush was still accumulating surpluses under Bush until we decided to invade two far away nations...
By the time Pelosi came in, and made the deficits worse yet, it was already going the wrong way...

Then Obama came in, and completely destroyed out chances of balancing the budget.

 

[classical_hero]

Speaking as an actual party worker, we just letterbox everybody come election time.

Most people just throw them away anyway. I do say that is not very environmentally friendly of your party to be doing that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

First, you have no idea what my economic theory is...

Yes I do. It's a dreamworld of classical economics, devoid of understanding of both the fundamentals of that theory as well as the realities of the modern world. There's a very good reason that people like Keynes started thinking the way that they did: it's because classical economics had become both irrelevant and a proven failure.

 

[pi-r8]

1st, Wikipedia is certainly not enough.

2nd, everyone knows the Dem party had a caucus of 60 voters. That is a "supermajority". Why are you trying to deny this still?

3rd, Before the 2 years that Obama had supermajority, the Dems already controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities... you know, when they also signed off on all of Bush's heaviest spending under Nancy "Pay as you Go" Pelosi.

LOL this is just beautiful. "don't check the facts, don't read the details. Everyone knows that I'm right! Stop looking up sources that disprove me!"

I guess there's not much more I can say, if you're going to reject any facts that go against your opinions.

 

[BasketCase]

The Democratic Party ran Carter against Reagan because they wanted Regan to be a one term president?

Exactly. Carter's goal was to defeat Reagan.

Politicians run in elections for one reason, and one reason only.

TO WIN.

I really don't know what to say, to someone who thinks Reagan was a centrist, but Obama is a huge liberal.

Reagan was a centrist because both Democrats and Republicans found him acceptable. When opposites compromise and agree on something, where is the point of agreement? In between. Opposites always meet in the middle. (Something you hardly ever see these days.)

And yes. Obama is a huge liberal. We finally agree on something.

Even though Republican polices caused the fail

Wrong. The fail was caused by Barney Frank--a Democrat. Bush Jr. tried to prevent the fail at least twice. The Democrats blocked him because they wanted to keep loans going for affordable housing. Right up until the Crash, Barney Frank was saying specifically that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis".

 

[Dachs]

Exactly. Carter's goal was to defeat Reagan.

Politicians run in elections for one reason, and one reason only.

TO WIN.

Dude, you are aware that Carter was the President in 1980, not Reagan, right? If Carter had WON the election, Reagan would have been a no-term President, not a one-term President.

 

[pi-r8]

Reagan was a centrist because both Democrats and Republicans found him acceptable. When opposites compromise and agree on something, where is the point of agreement? In between. Opposites always meet in the middle. (Something you hardly ever see these days.)

So someone is a centrist just because they win a huge percentage of the vote? OK, I'll remind you of that when Obama slams Bachman in the 2012 election .

 

[Rashiminos]

I guess there's not much more I can say, if you're going to reject any facts that go against your opinions.

It's more opinions-opinions than it is facts-opinions until some large organizations experience criminal trials followed by bankruptcy proceedings and things are allowed to actually correct instead of reanimate.

 

[Ajidica]

I would like to point out that while politicians may run to win in the major parties, in minor parties politicians often run just to raise awareness of an issue. They have no hope of winning, but they can at least have the possibility of getting an interview to draw attention.