Jump to content

A Congressional Insider On Why The U.s. Political System Is Broke


Recommended Posts

I think he had some problems with some things in it and voted against it. So what, you move it forward for debate. Paul Ryan being against it is irrelevant and his vote is not the only vote in town.

 

And yes there were a lot of good things in it. And yes there was Republicans lined up behind it including conservatives.

 

Every Republican Member of Congress on the commission voted against submitting the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

eyeroll. Are your academic studies somehow better than the hundreds that disagree with you?

 

You don't win in politics if you don't go negative unfortunately

 

This really is the most unfortunate aspect of politics these days. And, for me, it's not so much that they go negative, it's that they only tell half truths, make things up and out and out lie in their ads. I'm talking about all of them, republicans and democrats. Most people are not going to take the time to do their own research so they take their preferred candidate at face value. Which is exactly what the politicos count on.

 

While I definitely have my own strong opinions, I really don't care how people vote. And, while I enjoy a good debate, I don't ever expect to change peoples opinions because of them. As long as they do their research and form their own opinions, rather than relying on what they hear from tv ads, their friends, facebook or, yes, forums, I want them to vote for who best fits their values and beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Republican Member of Congress on the commission voted against submitting the report.

 

"Every Republican being against it is irrelevant because I hate Democrats. But, in my head, there was tons of conservative support for a deficit reduction plan that included tax increases."

 

---JustDoIt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you could, but you'd be wrong. Bush was going to win that election while we were in the middle of a war. To say he tried to distract from the war is ignorant.

 

2nd DJ's lol at "finally". Apparently you need to work on your political history. Going back to Bush 1 and especially during Bush 2's years (and after), the Dems and their media puppets drug each of them through the mud mercilessly. Hell, people still try to say that Bush "stole" the election versus Gore and still blame him for the current economy.

 

If the world could be turned upside down and a republican said half the things Obama has said, not produced a budget, spend $800 million on a stimulus that promised to lower employment which failed miserably, and on and on, the media would be using them for a pinata daily.

 

Wake up.

 

But, I'm sure you find everyone calling Obama un-American is just "the truth". At least I can recognize what's happening, you actually believe that Democrats are the only ones playing the game.

 

Wake up, yourself.

 

The idea that he was totally going to win in 2004 no matter what was good for a laugh though. He barely won even with the swift-boating and gay marriage nonsense. To try and argue he wasn't trying to distract from a war that was already going terribly is delusional.

 

lol at it being absurd to blame Bush for the economic mess that he created. Please direct the partisan hackery at someone who is ignorant enough to think that global financial meltdowns should be completely solved in 4 years. More Americans still blame Bush for the economy than Obama.....you should let them know how stupid they all are too.

 

The stimulus failing miserably is a nice partisan opinion but when you look at what happened before it (hundreds of thousands of jobs lost per month) and what happened after (two years of job growth) it's hard to make the claim that it failed miserably. It may not have lived up to how it was hyped but that's a marketing failure. If they had just said the stimulus was a tourniquet for a bleeding economy (created by Bush), it would be a huge success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Republican Member of Congress on the commission voted against submitting the report.

 

The President did not lead on this. That's what President's do. They accomplished every thing he asked for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Every Republican being against it is irrelevant because I hate Democrats. But, in my head, there was tons of conservative support for a deficit reduction plan that included tax increases."

 

---JustDoIt

 

Also, they could have just not liked a part supported and included by Democrats, so it forced them to vote against it. One or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Every Republican being against it is irrelevant because I hate Democrats. But, in my head, there was tons of conservative support for a deficit reduction plan that included tax increases."

 

---JustDoIt

 

Cute, I will be voting for a lot of Democrats this fall. Obama NO!!!

 

Sorry I am not a Partisan.

 

Bottom Line Obama did not lead!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, they could have just not liked a part supported and included by Democrats, so it forced them to vote against it. One or the other.

 

Then, I guess Obama gets a pass for not promoting it because it included parts from Republicans he didn't like, right?

 

 

The President did not lead on this. That's what President's do. They accomplished every thing he asked for!

 

So, he was supposed to what....bring it up for a vote after the GOP already said "No!"? Or was he supposed to cave on the changes the GOP wanted because that's leadership in your eyes? If the GOP says emphatically no, then what's the point of bothering to move forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, I guess Obama gets a pass for not promoting it because it included parts from Republicans he didn't like, right?

 

I don't know what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

If it's ok for Paul Ryan to vote against it because it has provisions he just can't live with, then it has to be ok for Obama to not promote it because it has provisions he just can't live with.

 

It's called fairness and I understand why that's a mystifying subject for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, I guess Obama gets a pass for not promoting it because it included parts from Republicans he didn't like, right?

 

 

 

 

So, he was supposed to what....bring it up for a vote after the GOP already said "No!"? Or was he supposed to cave on the changes the GOP wanted because that's leadership in your eyes? If the GOP says emphatically no, then what's the point of bothering to move forward?

 

Amazing, he moved forward on ObamaCare.

 

And of course we know that the Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate to pass a budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I'm sure you find everyone calling Obama un-American is just "the truth". At least I can recognize what's happening, you actually believe that Democrats are the only ones playing the game.

 

Wake up, yourself.

 

The idea that he was totally going to win in 2004 no matter what was good for a laugh though. He barely won even with the swift-boating and gay marriage nonsense. To try and argue he wasn't trying to distract from a war that was already going terribly is delusional.

 

lol at it being absurd to blame Bush for the economic mess that he created. Please direct the partisan hackery at someone who is ignorant enough to think that global financial meltdowns should be completely solved in 4 years. More Americans still blame Bush for the economy than Obama.....you should let them know how stupid they all are too.

 

The stimulus failing miserably is a nice partisan opinion but when you look at what happened before it (hundreds of thousands of jobs lost per month) and what happened after (two years of job growth) it's hard to make the claim that it failed miserably. It may not have lived up to how it was hyped but that's a marketing failure. If they had just said the stimulus was a tourniquet for a bleeding economy (created by Bush), it would be a huge success.

 

How about you don't put words in my mouth, or at the very least include me in "everybody". I have never once said, here or elsewhere, that Obama is "un-American". I do believe that some of his policies and visions for the country are un-American. But only in the sense that they do not follow the constitution and/or the original vision for the country. Two vastly different things.

 

And for someone as smart as you are you need some work on your reading comprehension. I already said in this thread that both republicans and democrats are guilty of the mud slinging. From my post that you quoted "...it's that they only tell half truths, make things up and out and out lie in their ads. I'm talking about all of them, republicans and democrats."

 

So when does Obama become liable for the current state of the economy? I could care less about him fixing the global financial meltdowns (though before you start, yes, I understand their influence on our negative economy) what has he done to improve the enonomy here? Cash for clunkers? $10.000 first time homebuyer credits? There are more people un or under employed now than at almost any other time since the great depression. The unemployment rate has hardly budged since he took office. If things are not vastly improved after 8 years will it then be Obama's fault or will you still be blaming Bush?

 

A "marketing failure". Talk about laughable. It was the Presidents "marketing" that assured the country, and congress that his plan was the right one to stimulate the economy. I suppose you believe Bush's claims about WMD's in iraq were just a "marketing failure" too? I suppose if he had just said that killing Hussein was a torniquet for dealing with the problems in the middle east he wouldn't have come under such scrutiny for the war in Iraq?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said the Democrats do more mud-slinging, have elevated it to an art form, won by doing so in 2008 (hilarious), and I'm just pointing out that given the things the GOP calls Obama on a daily basis......that's pretty amusing.

 

The stimulus did stimulate the economy. That's why I posted the whole 'was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs pre-stimulus, gained hundreds of thousands of jobs post-stimulus'. Pretending it didn't is ridiculous. You may believe another way would have worked better but that's about as good as you can do.

 

Yes, I do believe if Bush had just said we're going to Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous dictator who can't be left unchecked in a post 9/11 world that would have been a lot better than saying there were WMDs and he had ties to Al-Qaeda that we know about (both false). How you sell the reasons for going to war is, in essence, marketing. The false reasons Bush chose to champion to the public were much easier to sell obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said the Democrats do more mud-slinging, have elevated it to an art form, won by doing so in 2008 (hilarious), and I'm just pointing out that given the things the GOP calls Obama on a daily basis......that's pretty amusing.

 

The stimulus did stimulate the economy. That's why I posted the whole 'was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs pre-stimulus, gained hundreds of thousands of jobs post-stimulus'. Pretending it didn't is ridiculous. You may believe another way would have worked better but that's about as good as you can do.

 

Yes, I do believe if Bush had just said we're going to Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous dictator who can't be left unchecked in a post 9/11 world that would have been a lot better than saying there were WMDs and he had ties to Al-Qaeda that we know about (both false). How you sell the reasons for going to war is, in essence, marketing. The false reasons Bush chose to champion to the public were much easier to sell obviously.

 

27-Months-Bush-v-Obama1.png

 

So tell me again how much good the stimulus did creating jobs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think comparing 2003-2005 and 2010-2012 is completely absurd for two reasons.

 

1) the recession in Bush's early first term was miniscule in comparison to the one he helped cause in 2008-2009.

 

2) the "recovery" in 2003-2005 was built on BS home loans and a BS increase in housing prices fueled by a non-existent regulatory environment and that directly led to the collapse in 2008.

 

Otherwise, great chart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait, there's more!

 

That fantastic chart shows that even though his recovery was founded on bullshit, Bush still barely did better than Obama in total job growth. And Obama did better in private sector growth by the slimmest of margins which means that Bush was actually better at Obama at creating public-sector jobs.

 

Which is funny because we always hear how much Obama loves growing government and hates the private sector. Apparently, Obama's biggest job failing is not growing the government workforce enough.

 

Thank you for posting a chart that proves some of my points while obliterating the idea that Obama is obsessed with growing the public sector. You're a fair guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my guy had nothing to point to I would also just slam the other side. I mean you got nothing else but excuses.

 

Which is why he didn't answer my question.

 

The point of posting the chart was to show that Obama's vaunted stimulus package, all $800 MILLION of it, did nothing to spur job growth.

 

Which, you know, is what we were talking about.

 

Nice diversion with the public vs. private sector jobs though. I mean, the fact that nobody had been bashing Obama for creating government jobs doesn't matter. Gotta get your digs in where you can, amiright?

 

And, no mention of Bush inheriting a country that was weeks from recession. Or that freaking 9/11 happened less than a year after taking office. I guess none of that had anything to do with anything happening to the economy though.

 

Or the fact that the mortgage fiasco was started by Clinton policies to encourage banks to lend to low income/poor credit families.

 

It must really be nice, all rainbows and puppy dogs, in the idylistic world you live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why he didn't answer my question.

 

The point of posting the chart was to show that Obama's vaunted stimulus package, all $800 MILLION of it, did nothing to spur job growth.

 

 

 

And you would be wrong. Look at the last link especially as it's a review of academic studies on the issue.

 

Except , it did exactly what it was supposed to.

 

Think Again: Obama's New Deal The president's Republican critics are dead wrong. The stimulus worked.

 

Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked

 

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus

 

 

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would be wrong. Look at the last link especially as it's a review of academic studies on the issue.

 

Yeah, and I can post articles which state that the stimulus failed. Or, at the most, "possibly" prevented the economy from falling deeper into recession or depression.

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/21/Obamas-Stimulus-Plan-What-Worked-What-Didnt.aspx#page1

 

What did it do to create jobs? How did it lower the unemployment rate? How did it stimulate business to grow and hire? How did it put more money in the publics pocket

so that they could go out and spend it to help the economy?

 

The stimulus built bridges, tribal schools, tunnels and other infrastructure improvements that are still going on, I'll give you that. What it didn't do is stimulate the economy as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's ok for Paul Ryan to vote against it because it has provisions he just can't live with, then it has to be ok for Obama to not promote it because it has provisions he just can't live with.

 

It's called fairness and I understand why that's a mystifying subject for you.

 

What's mystifying is why the hell you would be bringing that up in response to me, since I never said anything about Obama. eyeroll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would be wrong. Look at the last link especially as it's a review of academic studies on the issue.

 

eyeroll. Are your academic studies somehow better than the hundreds that disagree with you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...