U.S. 2012 Election

[Redeye]

That seals it.  You *are* delusional.  By your logic then, Clinton is to blame...but that goes back to Bush I, thence to Reagan....ad infinitum.

Or we can lay the blame on the guy who first promised change and then failed to deliver, who is saying verbatim the same message and whose party last night had a message that said "we all belong to the government."

Yep..blame Bush.....

The poster is wrong in saying "everything". However, the state of the economy is in no small part directly attributable to policy decisions made during the Bush administration. That simply cannot be denied.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The current state of the economy goes back to decisions taken in the Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter ... McKinley and Hayes administrations.

The primary impetus for derivatives based on junk mortgages, as just one example, was not financial industry deregulation (which was, largely, but not exclusively, a Republican initiative but which was, also, only an enabler), it was social engineering, led by (mostly) Democrats, who wanted to make home ownership easier and easier for low income Americans, their electoral base.

Every president, including Barack Obama, has made economic mistakes - they, and their advisors are, after all, just human; how could they be expected to be perfect? But President Obama has been "on watch" for nearly four years; it is, now, his economy and he must answer for it.

 

[Redeye]

Every president, including Barack Obama, has made economic mistakes - they, and their advisors are, after all, just human; how could they be expected to be perfect? But President Obama has been "on watch" for nearly four years; it is, now, his economy and he must answer for it.

I'm not suggesting he hasn't made any mistakes. However, the claim that "everything is Bush's fault" is not something he's done - but to argue "nothing is Bush's fault" or that it's in any way wrong to highlight that the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts are the two major contributors to the current budget deficit position and national debt of the United States is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not suggesting he hasn't made any mistakes. However, the claim that "everything is Bush's fault" is not something he's done - but to argue "nothing is Bush's fault" or that it's in any way wrong to highlight that the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts are the two major contributors to the current budget deficit position and national debt of the United States is absolutely incorrect.

Nonsense ... the US public debt began to grow on Carter's watch and has grown at a steady pace through Democrat and Republican regimes, alike. It appears to have slowed, when measured as a % of GDP, during the Clinton adminsitration but only because the US economy was booming. Who caused the boom? Clinton or Reagan before him?

 

[Redeye]

Nonsense ... the US public debt began to grow on Carter's watch and has grown at a steady pace through Democrat and Republican regimes, alike. It appears to have slowed, when measured as a % of GDP, during the Clinton adminsitration but only because the US economy was booming. Who caused the boom? Clinton or Reagan before him?

While Reagan's proposed sainthood isn't something I'm a fan of, Clinton did enjoy a booming economy, and more importantly, a time when a GOP Congress actually worked with him to eliminate the deficit, reform welfare, and generally set America on a decent path. Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same? Just for political expediency in the hopes of denying him re-election?

 

[Journeyman]

Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same? Just for political expediency in the hopes of denying him re-election?

Perhaps on the extreme outside chance that it wasn't a Congressional conspiracy......but because they were doing their mandated 'checks/balances' role and acting on behalf of an electorate that disagreed with the path the President was taking?

I know -- crazy talk. It's almost like pointing out that "saying 'nothing is Bush's fault' is absolutely incorrect" is perfectly true.....notwithstanding not a soul here had said that.

Carry on with the :deadhorse: 
(That's meant for both pro- and anti- in this thread, since no one will convince the other)


Some days I'm glad that this thread is here......for those days when when the intellectual rigour of the Recruiting threads actually moves up a notch or two.  :

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same?

Because it was President Clinton who went to Congress to work with them, not vice versa.  Understanding who goes to whom with cap in hand - where the burden of concession really lies - is key to understanding how it is possible for bipartisan executive-legislative productivity.  Ditto Reagan going to Tip O'Neill.  Obama?  "I won."  And he just keeps digging that hole deeper, laying accountability nearly everywhere but at his own feet and complaining about the intransigence of Republicans while assigning himself the role of "reasonable man".

 

[tomahawk6]

Obama actually spent more money than all his predecessors combined and he aint done yet. Obamacare will be a huge drag on the economy unless it gets rolled back.

 

[Redeye]

Obama actually spent more money than all his predecessors combined and he aint done yet. Obamacare will be a huge drag on the economy unless it gets rolled back.

Not according to the CBO, the Council of Economic Advisors, or any study I can find that wasn't produced by the Heritage Foundation or some other hideously partisan organization. Most who vehemently oppose it, I've noticed, have no idea what Obamacare actually is, so it's kind of hard to take them seriously.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not according to the CBO, the Council of Economic Advisors, or any study I can find that wasn't produced by the Heritage Foundation or some other hideously partisan organization. Most who vehemently oppose it, I've noticed, have no idea what Obamacare actually is, so it's kind of hard to take them seriously.

The same can be said for organizations on all sides, including the one's you use, according to whose opinion is being voiced.

Adjectives such as this are not conducive to calm and even discussion.

Have the opinions you want. Leave the vindictiveness out of it.

Your opinions fall outside most here, but you wish to be taken seriously. It's a two way street, try learning to walk it.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Haletown]

There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.


Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.

 

[Redeye]

The same can be said for organizations on all sides, including the one's you use, according to whose opinion is being voiced.

Adjectives such as this are not conducive to calm and even discussion.

Have the opinions you want. Leave the vindictiveness out of it.

Your opinions fall outside most here, but you wish to be taken seriously. It's a two way street, try learning to walk it.

Milnet.ca Staff

It's not vindictive. It's reality. It's also found on both sides, though far more on the right. Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality. Selling any other story is simply not true.

 

[Redeye]

There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.

He's also slowed the growth of them dramatically - was it Forbes or WSJ that reported that, I can't remember... either way it wasn't a "liberal media" bastion. And how much of those deficits, again, are products of HIS policy decisions, and how much are the product of policies in place before he was elected? If you may recall, he wanted to let the sun set on the Bush tax cuts on the richest, but didn't - and couldn't - because he had to make deals.

Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.

When did he call President Bush a traitor? He made a promise on the deficit that he did not, and probably could not have kept. But he made an impact on them apparently. Not ideal outcome, but political realities and promises rarely align.

 

[Haletown]

Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality.

That has to be the funniest line you have ever come up with.  Absolute comedy gold.

 

[Redeye]

Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality.

That has to be the funniest line you have ever come up with.  Absolute comedy gold.

Ever heard of the CBO?

 

[Haletown]

Ever heard of the CBO?

The CBO costed what the Democrats put in front of them to cost.  Which just happened be be 10 years of revenues but 6 years of costs.  Duh!

Ever heard of Forbes?

"In the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision, President Obama’s signature policy achievement is safe, and the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) will continue as planned. The U.S. economy is another story. Obamacare’s projected economic consequences were negative when the legislation passed in 2009, and they remain so today, increasing the likelihood that national economic growth will lag expectations, and budget crises at the national and state levels will persist. 

The reason is simple: Obamacare increases government regulations, increases taxes, and increases spending, but it never addresses the central problems with the current health care system. That is, it neither improves health outcomes nor controls skyrocketing health care costs. At a time of trillion dollar federal deficits and state and local budgetary stress, the legislation burdens the federal and state governments (to the extent they choose to participate) with additional expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will cost an additional $1.5 trillion through 2021, some of which may be financed by the states through higher Medicaid and other health programs. This $1.5 trillion is equivalent to an additional annual cost of $1,261 per U.S. household, or a diversion of 2.5% of the average household’s gross income."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/11/the-supreme-court-cannot-rewrite-obamacares-economic-consequences/

 

[TheHead]

There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.


Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.

He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.  Do you have a source to back that up?

 

[Redeye]

The CBO costed what the Democrats put in front of them to cost.  Which just happened be be 10 years of revenues but 6 years of costs.  Duh!

Ever heard of Forbes?

"In the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision, President Obama’s signature policy achievement is safe, and the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) will continue as planned. The U.S. economy is another story. Obamacare’s projected economic consequences were negative when the legislation passed in 2009, and they remain so today, increasing the likelihood that national economic growth will lag expectations, and budget crises at the national and state levels will persist.

The reason is simple: Obamacare increases government regulations, increases taxes, and increases spending, but it never addresses the central problems with the current health care system. That is, it neither improves health outcomes nor controls skyrocketing health care costs. At a time of trillion dollar federal deficits and state and local budgetary stress, the legislation burdens the federal and state governments (to the extent they choose to participate) with additional expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will cost an additional $1.5 trillion through 2021, some of which may be financed by the states through higher Medicaid and other health programs. This $1.5 trillion is equivalent to an additional annual cost of $1,261 per U.S. household, or a diversion of 2.5% of the average household’s gross income."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/11/the-supreme-court-cannot-rewrite-obamacares-economic-consequences/

So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...

 

[Redeye]

He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.  Do you have a source to back that up?

I doubt that, since I don't think it ever happened. Oddly enough, a whole lot of conservative hacks seem to throw that word around in connection to the President.

I can find one reference to the President, then a candidate, referring to President Bush's borrowing from China to fund tax cuts as unpatriotic. That's a lot different than calling him a traitor.

 

[a_majoor]

He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.  Do you have a source to back that up?

Not a traitor, but unpatriotic for allowig the debt to rise $4 trillion dollars in eight years. If that is the case, then it must be even more unpatriotic to raise the debt $5 trillion in three years, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q