Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:39 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well I'm not suggesting that they make the windows able to be opened. And as it turns out, some planes do provide the pilot a controlled ability to vent the cabin in such situations. Especially if they don't want to drop the oxygen masks because of the potential fire hazzard.

Look, I think it was a boneheaded thing to say, but not nearly as stupid as some of the comments suggest. Of course, I also heard that the reporter who reported it is saying that Romney was clearly joking, but who knows they always recant that sort of thing.

As to that flight, that was the big windscreen on the front of the plane and even then he wasn't actually blown all the way out, he did survive. I'm talking about the windows on the side of the plane which would require squishing your average adult with forces that I don't think are possible from a pressurized plane. I think the bigger threat is temperature and pressure.


I actually give Romney the benefit of the doubt on this one. And either way, it has been made a mountain out of a molehill.

The way I imagine it, he was talking about it being more effective to air out the plane while it is landed and sitting on the ground afterwards if the windows could open.
The answer to why the windows DON'T open for these sorts of purposes is obviously "because some idiot passenger WOULD open them when he shouldn't".

Regardless, it's not all that important, and we should be discussing substantive issues, not quote-mining for "GOTCHA" moments.

And after all, we shouldn't let one dumb thing Romney said in public overshadow all the dumb things he's said in private. (Lol, sorry, couldn't resist. :P )
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:32 pm

What would be the point exactly of allowing windows to open on the ground? At that point they can open the cabin doors. Maybe I'm just reading into it, but it came across to me that they should be able to vent the smoke in the air so they don't have to make the emergency landing in the first place.

Joking or not, it was still a pretty stupid comment.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:24 pm

Skye1013 wrote:What would be the point exactly of allowing windows to open on the ground? At that point they can open the cabin doors. Maybe I'm just reading into it, but it came across to me that they should be able to vent the smoke in the air so they don't have to make the emergency landing in the first place.

Joking or not, it was still a pretty stupid comment.

I'm sure they'd still have to land, at least they better lol. If I'm in a plane that catches on fire even briefly, I want it on the ground as soon as possible. When I checked I read that some planes do have a way to bring in outside air in a controlled pressurized manner and it can be used to aid with that sort of thing.

I'm pretty doubtful venting the cabin is of much use in a real fire on a plane in just about any situation.

As a joke, the way it was described (apparently he rolled his eyes as he said it) it's certainly not particularly funny, but it's the sort of small talk humor you hear constantly around the office place. Again, I have no idea if that jocular context is true.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9639
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:41 pm

Brekkie wrote:Regardless, it's not all that important, and we should be discussing substantive issues, not quote-mining for "GOTCHA" moments.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:23 pm

Fridmarr wrote:I'm sure they'd still have to land, at least they better lol.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd want them to land as well, but based on the statements I've read and articles and such, it sounded like that's what Romney was implying.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:36 pm

Brekkie wrote:
Brekkie wrote:Regardless, it's not all that important, and we should be discussing substantive issues, not quote-mining for "GOTCHA" moments.

I appreciate that you're trying to emphasize your statement, but when he continuously waffles on the issues, it doesn't really give much of a platform besides knowing that he is against LGBT rights. So since I've already determined that I don't want him as president, I might as well get enjoyment out of his stupidity.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Sabindeus » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:53 am

Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:38 pm

I like what Santorum said in this video better than anything that actually came out of his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:43 pm

Okay, I laughed WAYY too hard at that Rick Santorum BLR. This Michelle Bachhman one is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFB6LQ1- ... ure=relmfu
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4872
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:55 am

By FAR, my favorite Bad Lip Reading is the one for Ron Paul. "If you refuse... I'll HAUNT. YOUR. PROSTATE."


In other news: Romney Campaign: "We're going to lose the debates, badly, but ITS, LIKE, TOTALLY NOT FAIR DUDE!"

Talking about how Obama is more experienced in political debates, when Romney has just come out of dozens of them in the Primaries, as well as having had a far longer and more diverse political career, is just kind of silly.
And it's not just that Obama is a far better communicator, it's that the basis for Romney's campaign has been to NOT tell voters anything specific at all.

Every time he tells the truth or gives any real specifics about his plan, it hurts him. By keeping everything vague and as hand-wavey as possible, he's served as kind of a Candidate Mad Libs, where you can basically just fill in the blanks with whatever YOU imagine the correct answers are and project that onto Romney, who glowing describes how his un-described plan will create a rosy future which solves everything the moment he takes office.
When forced to commit to specifics, such as bringing Ryan aboard effectively signalling that he espouses the Ryan plan to reform (i.e. Cut) Medicare, it jars people out of that Create-Your-Own-Candidate comfort zone and inspires backlash.

But you can only ride anti-incumbent feeling so far.
Many voters are dissatisfied with Obama, but they want somebody with a well-designed and developed PLAN, and Romney doesn't really provide that except some non-specific assertions that we need more tax cuts for high-earners (a group he just HAPPENS to belong to) and less regulation (of industries he just HAPPENS to get most of his income from), which is the same formula that Republicans have been trying to pitch for years. Voters have short memories, but they DO remember that the actions taken during the Bush (and to a lesser extent, the Clinton) administration which are perceived to have led to the recession were big tax cuts for the wealthy and extensive deregulation of the financial industry. So saying that more of the same will be the silver bullet rings pretty hollow.
Maybe there is a case to be made for tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation, and maybe those things are positive, but it sounds like a one-size-fits-all-situations GOP sacred cow, not a directed solution for the economy that people (particularly the grass roots Tea Party and the Libertarians) are looking for.


So going into these debates, Romney really doesn't have any potential winning strategy to pursue.
The way I see it, there are several possible scenarios:

1) Romney narrates the present economic situation, without making any particular specific assertions other than "Things Are Bad", and kind of wink wink nudge nudge at viewers that this is, by implication, Obama's fault by framing comparisons to the peak point during the Bush administration prior to the collapse.

The problem with this is that Obama can counter with the true observation that things are consistently trending better over the past 11 months (unemployment steadily going down, growth and job creation climbing at a steady rate despite cuts in public sector jobs, the market un-fucking its self). We aren't back in the black compared to pre-crash yet, but it's headed in the right direction.
So trying to convince viewers that "Well, yeah, but you didn't fix things fast or well ENOUGH!" is kind of an awkward argument to make in a debate format, no matter whether that assertion is true or false. It would look too much like whining, as well as be conceding that Obama's programs have had an impact.


2) Romney just paints a picture of an entirely different, and contrasting, reality from anything Obama says, and claims that all Obama's statistics are lies and propaganda.

This is probably the best chance Romney has of pulling out at least a draw, and seems to be the strategy his campaign is tending towards (they've issued several statements and articles laying the groundwork for a "Obama is lying about everything! All that stuff about us being in recovery? Don't believe it!" narrative).
If this happens, the liberal-leaning FactChecker sites will declare all of Romney's claims to be bologna, and all the conservative-leaning FactChecker sites will declare all of Obama's claims to be similarly bunk, and no one will be quite sure who to believe.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't transfer very well to the following debates about issues other than the economy. In particular, in debate over social issues and Foreign Policy he'd get thrashed if he tried it, since people perceive these issues to be more black-and-white. It's pretty hard to try to convince people that Osama Bin Laden isn't dead or that Libya isn't a democracy now or that open service by homosexuals in the military has had a negative impact on anything by just throwing a lot of confusing statistics at them like you can with economics.

3) Romney approaches the debate like an attack ad, and tries to spend the whole time discussing Obama's record in order to cash in on anti-incumbent frustrations.

This would work, if it were ANYONE but Romney attempting it. But Romney's notorious flip flopping shoots himself in the foot here.
If Romney brings up Obamacare, all Obama has to do is thank him sincerely for the inspiration.
If he fear-mongers about guns, Obama can casually remind him about his assault weapons ban he signed into law in Massachusetts while bringing up the multiple gun regulations that he, Obama, has gotten repealed.
If Romney brings up the Auto-Industry Bailout, he's trapped in a corner by the fact that he, Romney, was against it, and yet it undeniably worked.
Accusations of crony-capitalism with Solyndra will ring hollow coming from a technocrat like Romney from a corrupt state like Masssachusetts. Similarly, Obama's love for green energy is safe from attack due to Romney's past support for carbon tax legislation.
And any mention of abortion or homosexuals will easily spin out of control and make him look like the religious loony caricature liberals and women fear.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In my opinion, Romney will fail because he is trying to simultaneously serve too many masters.
That's why he has been straight-jacketed into staying so vague; if he commits to anything coherent either way, he will piss somebody off. Attempting to marry small-government fiscal conservative libertarians, with trickle-down supply side economics technocrats, "spread freedom because 'MERICA" neo-cons, and "I just care about stopping abortions and homosexuals" evangelicals, has not been pretty. In particular, the libertarians and the technocrats are almost diametrically opposed, by definition.
So he can't lay out a detailed Ryan-style Grand Plan for the country; it would get picked apart. So instead of making his own Ryan-Budget, he just got Ryan himself; the clear intended message being "I do HAVE a plan! And it will work, TRUST me! Just elect me here real quick and I'll tell you all about it, but I swear it's gonna be great!".

A good example is a comparison of the two candidate's positions on Energy Policy; something I think anyone would agree is of critical importance and deserves serious thought by any candidate.

The President's Plan, a 44 page document broken down by topic, is thoughtful, diverse, and balanced. It does a good job of being focused around ideas which are key bipartisan consensus points; such as the benefit of exploiting the Natural Gas boom (which not only helps our energy independence from imported oil, is also better for the environment because, no matter how you look at it, Natural gas is replacing Coal. And Coal is far worse.). Obama has trouble with branding though, and has not done a good job of communicating his ideas or properly using PR to make Americans aware of the effects his policies have been having.

Romney's Plan, on the other hand, is fundamentally unserious. The document spends most of its time attacking Mr Obama, without paying much attention to the fact that in the hypothetical scenario where Mr Romney gets to be president, Mr Obama would be out of office. This is a 9-page document that devotes 3 pages to an essay from Jim Talent, a former senator from Missouri, who boasts that America is the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas".

The contrast is striking, and holds for pretty much any issue you examine.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So what would be a winning strategy for Romney?

I think he would have had more success if he had branded his image as "Scrooge McRich Guy who HATES waste", and embraced the Small Government movement. There's a developed widespread school of thought supporting that worldview, it contrasts nicely with Obama's strategy and is attractive to independents, and doesn't look like a mere mindless continuation of the Bush Policies perceived to have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

His 47% comments fit in nicely with this strategy, believe it or not.
Obama has made the repeated pitch that "times are hard, and the wealthy need to pay their fair share". This handed Romney the opportunity to point at the lower classes and go "Ah, but so do they!", and use that as justification for supporting large cuts and restructuring of entitlement programs, and for making the tax code more regressive.
He can't do that while simultaneously advocating for tax cuts for the rich, however. Cuts for the wealthy at the same time as gutting social programs for the poor looks like plutocracy and favoritism. Cuts to programs across the board, while keeping taxes static, looks like responsible belt-tightening. It also sets up the democrats to look like the selfish, self-interested, milk-the-system-at-the-expense-of-society ones if they try to fight it.
Last edited by Brekkie on Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:09 pm

Brekkie wrote:Lots of stuff
For the most part I agree with that, in spirit probably all of it. There's a few things I'd like to add and address.

First, I don't think this election ever had a reasonable chance of not going to the incumbent, and I think that was true before Obama got elected. It would be amazing for any politician to take office in the situation that this president did, and lose a re-election bid, outside of something catastrophic happening. To add to that the cult of Obama, and it's pretty much impossible for Romney win. In fact, I don't think if the republicans felt that this election was winnable, that Romney would be their nominee.

Brekkie wrote:Many voters are dissatisfied with Obama, but they want somebody with a well-designed and developed PLAN, and Romney doesn't really provide that except some non-specific assertions that we need more tax cuts for high-earners (a group he just HAPPENS to belong to) and less regulation (of industries he just HAPPENS to get most of his income from), which is the same formula that Republicans have been trying to pitch for years. Voters have short memories, but they DO remember that the actions taken during the Bush (and to a lesser extent, the Clinton) administration which immediately led to the recession were big tax cuts for the wealthy and extensive deregulation of the financial industry. So saying that more of the same will be the silver bullet rings pretty hollow.
...

I think he would have had more success if he had branded his image as "Scrooge McRich Guy who HATES waste", and embraced the Small Government movement. There's a developed widespread school of thought supporting that worldview, it contrasts nicely with Obama's strategy and is attractive to independents, and doesn't look like a mere mindless continuation of the Bush Policies perceived to have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Perceived (emphasis mine) is the big word there, because the top part of that comment block is simply not at all true. There was nothing, frankly, that immediately led to the recession. Certainly no significant deregulation, in fact the worst thing there was the reclassification of mortgage backed securities, but that occurred during Clinton, and it was really only a secondary affect that spread into the financial sector.

Tax cuts leading to recession? That's just nearly impossible, even if you carve out just those that went to the wealthy (which is unfair anyhow), but there's really only two possible ways for that to occur.

A. It accompanies a large drawback in government spending, and we know that did not happen.
B. it massively increases the deficit. That also didn't occur, at least relative to our existing debt.

Besides they were put in force about 7 years earlier, so that wouldn't qualify as immediate. In fact, after these cuts GDP continued to rise, unemployment dropped, rose, and dropped again, on the heals of some tough unemployment years. Also of note, total taxes taken in also actually increased (03 was the only year it was lower than any year in the previous administration) significantly over those years. The truth is, we have, for a very long time propped up and leveraged ourselves on the housing market. That occurred equally across 5 different administrations, and a big part of that (prevailing interest rates) isn't under the control of politicians.

There's nothing Romney can do to battle that, he can argue his economic vision, but that's a debate that has mostly been decided. This is a perpetual problem for republicans because they have a much harder time controlling their message. (Also, Obamacare will cut Medicare for about 200billion over 10 years, and those cuts were included in the fiscals analysis by the CBO). Just look at how effective the Bain Financial comments have been, you can see them in this very thread, but a quick trip to factcheck.org refutes most of them. Several democrats even at one point chided Obama for them, but it does't really matter, they have been effective and they have stuck.

If Romney could create an image as Scrooge McRich guy, I think you are right and he'd have some success with that. The problem is, he can't because as you point out, his own record hurts him.

I think there is only one real area where he can take on Obama, and that's on leadership. Obama is easily the worst leader we've had as president in my lifetime, which dates back to Carter. I posted on this in his opening days of office as the initial stimulus plan was just forming. I think the worst thing that happened to Obama was winning such a huge majority in both houses. He didn't know how to handle that, he blamed his opposition relentlessly (which in an of itself is a significant leadership problem), but expected them to work with him. The truth was, he didn't need a single one of their votes for anything, it was holdouts in his own party that were really his obstacles. He basically told the republicans that their policies got them into this mess, that the american people fired the lot of them during his election cycle, and they need to jump on board his train. He never extended an olive branch, he never gave them anything at all that they could go back to their constituency with, he ignored them and chastised them at the same time. Then the mid term election cycle hit, and his team got wiped out of power, and now he's stuck. He's sleeping in the bed that he made.

Romney on the other hand, was a republican governor in a pretty liberal democratic state. By all accounts he did a pretty fair job, he worked well with the opposition party, and passed his own landmark healthcare legislation. But in order to make the leadership argument stick, he's got to quit being a douche and somehow chip away at Obama's charisma, both are herculean tasks, and the latter may not even be possible.

In the end, it wouldn't matter, there is just too many obstacles to climb, many of which he continues to create himself. That part is because as you point out (well not directly, but in so many words) the republican party is an absolute shit storm.

The religious right is an absolute fucking anchor, and the media loves to latch on to them as a representation of "conservatives". They completely botched the environmental movement to the point that somehow conservatives are openly treated as anti-science. They lost a secondary education system that at one point following vietnam and the draft was anti government and anti corporation, and now it's pro big government anti corporation because the republican party was unwilling to reasonably look environmental policy as anything more than scientific hogwash. So they made their bed too, and they needed a tea partyish group (until they morphed into another version of the religious right) to fix things, but it hasn't happend and I don't expect it too until they keep getting their clock cleaned and abandon these notions that stop them from picking up any sort of culturally positive perception.

At the end of the day most of this is outside of Romney's control, and really his just a placeholder anyhow. The things in his control he hasn't handled well, and the debates are sure to be a debacle. I'd be amazed if the results are anything less than a landslide.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9639
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:42 pm

Thank you for the correction; upon re-reading my wording I didn't phrase that the best.
I didn't mean to imply an ACTUAL causal relationship between the Bush tax cuts and the recession, just the perception of one.

At any rate, if we are intellectually honest, calling them the "Bush" tax cuts is kind of a misnomer. When Obama renewed them, he took ownership of them, so they are just as much the "Obama" tax cuts as they are Bush's. He was right to do so, of course, under the circumstances in which he did. But credit/blame where it is due.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Paxen » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:43 pm

From where I'm standing, a fundamental reason, if not the fundamental reason, for the crisis is this: The boom of the mid-2000's was fueled by the US consumer economy going full steam, but the consumer demand that drove it all was financed by credits and debts. Any profits the US got from their part of the trade balance increasingly went to the top 1% (or fewer). Effectively the megarich stopped paying decent wages and lent the middle class money to make the wheel turn instead, because middle class demand is what drives the world economy. When that collapsed, everything else collapsed too.
Paxen
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:50 pm

Brekkie
I thought that was the case in fact I almost said that I didn't think you were saying that but I wasn't sure. So basically, I took up a lot of space and said pretty much nothing that you hadn't, though airing some of my frustrations with the republican party was therapeutic.

Paxen
I'm not sure how the rich factor in. A lot of those loans were given by publicly owned institutions, they were asset based loans (homes were used as collateral) , and the value of those assets (even those owned by the top 1%) all went tits up. The lenders essentially took a bath too. Some got bailed out, some went under.

And median household wage spiked during the dot com boom, dropped a bit climbed again, actually reaching pretty high right before the crisis (adjusted for inflation). I just don't think there's a strong relationship there. It's really just a matter of the culture we had of leveraging our personal property based on the fact that it always seemed to appreciate in value, and when it started depreciating, that house of cards came down.

If you're saying the rich weren't as affected, well sure but that's a red herring. People with means are always going to be least affected as a group by something like that, and on the flip side they'll always gain the most during prosperous times. It's one of those "99%" arguments that is useless.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9639
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:44 pm

I basically agree with most of what you said, but still, there's a couple of major points to be debated.

Fridmarr wrote:
Tax cuts leading to recession? That's just nearly impossible, even if you carve out just those that went to the wealthy (which is unfair anyhow), but there's really only two possible ways for that to occur.

A. It accompanies a large drawback in government spending, and we know that did not happen.
B. it massively increases the deficit. That also didn't occur, at least relative to our existing debt.

Besides they were put in force about 7 years earlier, so that wouldn't qualify as immediate. In fact, after these cuts GDP continued to rise, unemployment dropped, rose, and dropped again, on the heals of some tough unemployment years. Also of note, total taxes taken in also actually increased (03 was the only year it was lower than any year in the previous administration) significantly over those years. The truth is, we have, for a very long time propped up and leveraged ourselves on the housing market. That occurred equally across 5 different administrations, and a big part of that (prevailing interest rates) isn't under the control of politicians.

Well, tax cuts just worsened the problem which ultimately leaded to the depression: Overproduction.
Enriching the higher shrines brings more investment and less spending, for even more overproduction.
Wasn't the sole cause, or perhaps not even a major one, but to say it had no responsibility at all is quite debatable.
A crisis this long is triggered by something (Oil shock + housing bubble burst), but then keeps going due to worse underlying issues (In this case, overproduction and sticky prices/wages, and if we want to go there, misallocation of talent and capital into non-producing zero-sum schemes such as derivative markets, but that's.. debatable again)

The deregulation didn't happen under Bush (we've seen it going since Reagan), but more than that, what was needed in the wake of electronic fast-communication explosion was the regulation of shadow banking, which didn't happen. And yes, that responsibility was Bush's.
Of course, i highly doubt Gore or Kelly would've done that, either. But "tu quoque" isn't a valid justification.

I think there is only one real area where he can take on Obama, and that's on leadership. Obama is easily the worst leader we've had as president in my lifetime, which dates back to Carter. I posted on this in his opening days of office as the initial stimulus plan was just forming. I think the worst thing that happened to Obama was winning such a huge majority in both houses. He didn't know how to handle that, he blamed his opposition relentlessly (which in an of itself is a significant leadership problem), but expected them to work with him. The truth was, he didn't need a single one of their votes for anything, it was holdouts in his own party that were really his obstacles. He basically told the republicans that their policies got them into this mess, that the american people fired the lot of them during his election cycle, and they need to jump on board his train. He never extended an olive branch, he never gave them anything at all that they could go back to their constituency with, he ignored them and chastised them at the same time. Then the mid term election cycle hit, and his team got wiped out of power, and now he's stuck. He's sleeping in the bed that he made.

The truth is, this is the first time that Filibuster became standard operating procedure. Not counting Lieberman, Obama had filibuster-proof majority for less than six months.
Sure, he could've rushed more in those six months, but telling anyone that there wasn't a ridicolous amount of scorched earth opposition from the GOP is laughable.
Even before i actually sit down and studied what had happened in America in the last years, the whole debt ceiling debate over anything makes one notice that something is wrong in the GOP's idea of "compromise" and "politics".
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest