logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Well, that's that, Obama is still President, and Republicans can still block him
Julian
post Nov 7 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,932
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



No preamble to speak of, just questions for debate:

What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2012, 12:20 AM
Post #41


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 7 2012, 05:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 04:33 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 7 2012, 04:26 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 03:50 PM) *
I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...xhxtvCvlRbCf84Q

"Last year, 136,222 American-made vehicles were exported to China, ..."

So, when do Americans start buying imported Jeeps from China?

You mean you don't know the specifics of that Republican ruse? Jeep has been exporting cars to China. No jobs are being shipped to China from the United States. The Chinese have somewhat of a protectionist, "Buy Chinese" stance, and so there is a plant being built in China to sell Chinese-built cars to Chinese people.

Nobody in this country is being laid off because of this plan.

Now are you going to (try to) tell me that Romney, if he were part of this venture, wouldn't do the same thing? And if he would, isn't it just a tad bit hypocritical (and dishonest) to be a former(?) venture capitalist and yet condemn Jeep for doing something that isn't going to close their American operations?

I can understand why you might not believe me, but how about Jeep's CEO (Google it)?

Did you really need to ask that question?

Can we get back to the thread topic questions?



How does losing exports to China not cost Americans? Starting production of Jeeps in China is shipping jobs to China. If Fiat doesn't increase its market for American made Jeeps to cover the loss of exported Jeeps, American made Jeep production must be reduced. It's only logical to assume more losses of exports from American plants...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...RnVmc4n1ANVgjvg
QUOTE
Though Jeep is one of the few 100% global brands of Fiat-Chrysler alliance, its dependence on North America's car market is still its major problem. At the same time Jeep is highly well-recognized world-wide, which means the off-road company has a big potential. It is why Sergio Marchionne, Fiat and Chrysler CEO, wants more from Jeep. Recently he confirmed Fiat's intentions to establish a new factory in Russia
...
Indian specialized press has said that Jeep will arrive in late 2013


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...BT41oc_2zHWpqqg
QUOTE
China exports 1 million vehicles a year, but they are sold in other emerging markets


Whether Romney would see the merits of doing the same thing is irrelevant. I thought the topic was about key factors that allowed Obama to win.

QUOTE
What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

Successfully building a false narrative was a key factor.
I see you're persisting in this argument. So there will be fewer Jeep vehicles shipped to China from the United States. If Jeep still profits from them, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting that Democrats should want to remove the corporation's automomy completely? If so, you are falsely attributing things to my party's ideology. You have bought into the notion that we want to get rid of free enterprise, while we just don't like Rick Perry's close-to-accurate term: vulture capitalism.

It was clear that the GOP ad was insinuating that somehow, because of the Obama administration, Jeep was going to outsource existing American jobs to China.

THAT WAS A LIE.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2012, 12:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 8 2012, 12:45 AM
Post #42


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 07:20 PM) *
I see you're persisting in this argument. So there will be fewer Jeep vehicles shipped to China from the United States. If Jeep still profits from them, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting that Democrats should want to remove the corporation's automomy completely? If so, you are falsely attributing things to my party's ideology. You have bought into the notion that we want to get rid of free enterprise, while we just don't like Rick Perry's close-to-accurate term: vulture capitalism.

It was clear that the GOP ad was insinuating that somehow, because of the Obama administration, Jeep was going to outsource existing American jobs to China.

THAT WAS A LIE.

I don't consider this an argument. I consider it vetting the issue properly, especially before using it to demonize a candidate. This article does a fairly good job of vetting the issue.

http://wecheck.org/wiki/Is_Jeep_moving_U.S...uction_to_China
QUOTE
On October 29, 2012, the National Legal and Policy Center noted[7] that the CEO of Fiat, Sergio Marchionne said in a Bloomberg interview that:[8]

QUOTE
To counter the severe slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said.
NLPC editorializes that "The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary. Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.


Not properly vetting an issue before doing a hatchet job on a candidate is part of our problem. The same thing occured with the blogosphere doing a hatchet job on the Romney conversion of a campaign stop to a Sandy relief rally instead of just cancelling. I'm sure you'll get millions of hits calling the event a fake relief rally. Politicians are guilty of disinformation and whoever shouts the loudest and longest wins the gullible.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2012, 12:52 AM
Post #43


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 7 2012, 07:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 07:20 PM) *
I see you're persisting in this argument. So there will be fewer Jeep vehicles shipped to China from the United States. If Jeep still profits from them, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting that Democrats should want to remove the corporation's automomy completely? If so, you are falsely attributing things to my party's ideology. You have bought into the notion that we want to get rid of free enterprise, while we just don't like Rick Perry's close-to-accurate term: vulture capitalism.

It was clear that the GOP ad was insinuating that somehow, because of the Obama administration, Jeep was going to outsource existing American jobs to China.

THAT WAS A LIE.

I don't consider this an argument. I consider it vetting the issue properly, especially before using it to demonize a candidate. This article does a fairly good job of vetting the issue.

http://wecheck.org/wiki/Is_Jeep_moving_U.S...uction_to_China
QUOTE
On October 29, 2012, the National Legal and Policy Center noted[7] that the CEO of Fiat, Sergio Marchionne said in a Bloomberg interview that:[8]

QUOTE
To counter the severe slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said.
NLPC editorializes that "The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary. Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.


Not properly vetting an issue before doing a hatchet job on a candidate is part of our problem. The same thing occured with the blogosphere doing a hatchet job on the Romney conversion of a campaign stop to a Sandy relief rally instead of just cancelling. I'm sure you'll get millions of hits calling the event a fake relief rally. Politicians are guilty of disinformation and whoever shouts the loudest and longest wins the gullible.

I am talking about the commercial that Romney's campaign put out that suggested that jobs are leaving the country because of Obama. Tell you what: You point out to me the group of Americans that "vet" these commercials before having a gut reaction. It was dishonest and you know it, and no matter how much you want to inject some xenophobia or nativism into it (i.e. the Italians owning Jeep), it doesn't change the fact that it was a dishonest ad designed to scare Ohioans employed by Jeep (in particular) into voting against Obama. Fortunately a majority of Ohioans saw through this.

I think this has been "vetted" quite enough. And remember, when the auto industry was in turmoil, one Mitt Romney did not step forward to buy part of it. No, his advice was to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," preferring that to propping the auto industry up until investers from the private sector COULD be found.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2012, 12:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Nov 8 2012, 03:02 AM
Post #44


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?


The key factors include that I think Obama was judged on the policies and positions of his presidency and given a passing grade by the electorate. At least a c plus.
Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

I think Obama's problems are overstated. He did not succeed so tremendously in accomplishing legislative goals that he created a backlash against major initiatives. It was generally health care, and I think American consumers are ready to try something to improve healthcare. I think he won on his merits. I also think that the Republican policies lost on some key issues. For one, attacking the auto bailout didn;t work well in the rust belt. The blue collar American worker voted more democratic this year. I think this demographic tends conservative. But it was not won over by Romney. I hear the phrase "failed to make a connection" with regard to this demographic.
Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

I think Romney had a lot of bad moments. I think he oversold arch conservatism in the primaries. Stayed too conservative in the convention and basically ran on the argument that Obama is really bad so you are going to need to choose me. Not enough specifics. No clear vision.

The Republican Party had a really bad campaign. How it lost Senate races in Indiana and Missouri this election mystifies me. Key moments alienated women and Hispanics and mobilized poor and minority voters.
Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?
Well I think the republican party has been intentionally obstructionist and them has the gall to blame the Democrats for being recalcitrant and unwilling to compromise. Democrats need to be willing to compromise but something needs to be put on the table as a goal. I hope that the feeling from the Republicans in Congress is that something needs to get done to avoid the continued ire of the American public. I would like to see compromises that lead to deficit reduction. I would like the government to act like it is 1995 and look for common ground or fair win-win trades. Like allowing some Bush tax cuts to expire and looking for targeted spending cuts. I hope that if the Republicans bounce back at the midterms the new wave will be moderates and we can celebrate moderate policies that push for the efficacy of government when it is the needed solution. I hope for middle class targeted policies that stimulate consumption in this country and help keep us pushing out of recession and grow revenues and decrease the need for government spending as a major stimulant in the economy. I look for reduced government spending with this growth to begin to tackle to huge debt run up since 1980 in this country.

Obama will negotiate. But he won the election and he shouldn't be expected to sell out his political values to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 8 2012, 03:53 AM
Post #45


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 08:52 PM) *
I am talking about the commercial that Romney's campaign put out that suggested that jobs are leaving the country because of Obama. Tell you what: You point out to me the group of Americans that "vet" these commercials before having a gut reaction. It was dishonest and you know it, and no matter how much you want to inject some xenophobia or nativism into it (i.e. the Italians owning Jeep), it doesn't change the fact that it was a dishonest ad designed to scare Ohioans employed by Jeep (in particular) into voting against Obama. Fortunately a majority of Ohioans saw through this.

I think this has been "vetted" quite enough. And remember, when the auto industry was in turmoil, one Mitt Romney did not step forward to buy part of it. No, his advice was to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," preferring that to propping the auto industry up until investers from the private sector COULD be found.

Right, this is another dead debate, although there wasn't one to begin with. I doubt Jeep USA was exporting to China at all, but that's neither here nor there.

The entire game has changed. It's taking some people longer than others to get it. It's like the Romney/Ryan signs that are still up, some of them, like the ghosts of hopes crushed beneath reality. In this county that went two-to-one for Romney, I'm seeing and hearing the wails and moans going on in million dollar houses, grief for the lost Mormon and his promise of a 20 percent tax cut.

Meanwhile, the rest of us wait until some sense of proportion and, well, sanity prevails. From my experience with 9/11, Republicans tend to take twice as long as Democrats to get over emotional turmoil. They are really weeping little girls underneath the bluster. There there, now now, your bodies will adjust to the pummeling your just took, and will resist pregnancy too! How cool is that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Nov 8 2012, 04:53 AM
Post #46


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 04:51 PM) *
QUOTE
This is almost true...if you don't take into account the continuing influx of people into the workforce at a rate nearly twice the rate of job growth.


This part of what you said is not true. Because of higher retirement rates vs. lower birth rates, the latest number of "new jobs needed" per month is below 125K now. We've been doing better than that for a while (average I saw for this year is somewhere around 160K). People will flow in and out of the job market over time when they get to retirement age, depending on whether jobs are available. They might work for a few months to supplement their income, then leave again to to their house in Florida for the winter. Same with students. Your are misinterpreting the stats.

You are almost right...if we take into consideration the number of people giving up on finding a job and put them back into those looking for a job, the estimated number could raise up to as much as 250K per month. By excluding this segment, 125K is correct, but that would mean we would maintain the number of jobs we have today which is not a healthy economy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 8 2012, 12:39 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
You are almost right...if we take into consideration the number of people giving up on finding a job and put them back into those looking for a job, the estimated number could raise up to as much as 250K per month. By excluding this segment, 125K is correct, but that would mean we would maintain the number of jobs we have today which is not a healthy economy.


Well, if you also consider all the people working for McDonalds who are looking for a better job and all those people who recently died who might still be looking for work and all those people who have jobs but would rather be not working and all those people...

You can make up a stat for anything. But economists and people who are concerned with real economic data don't care about anything but the number of people who actually tried to get jobs recently and could not. Economists consider U-6 to be meaningless for anything other than to determine the elasticity of the current job market (which has a bearing on wage inflation). Political hacks use it to beat up their opponents hoping that it's a big sounding number that will scare people into voting their way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 8 2012, 03:46 PM
Post #48


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 7 2012, 04:48 PM) *
One, he did an effective and convincing job of defending his record. The alternate-reality conservasphere portrays his presidency as an unmitigated disaster, but a job creation rate of minus 800,000/month on Jan 20, 2009 vs. positive ~170Kish today is the opposite of disaster (Hobbes's dismay over the similar unemployment rates on those two days notwithstanding). Couple that with foreign policy successes, reining in Wall Street, saving GM and Chrysler and bringing health insurance reform, and Obama has much to crow about -- though the die hard on the right will never afford him credit for that.


You would do yourself well to refrain from inferring context in my thinking when you have clearly no insight into it. My only 'dismay' over the economy is just that...dismay over the economy. You can jump for joy at the current unemployment rate and relatively stagnant growth, but that is your issue, not mine (and one that doesn't speak well for you, fwiw). As for the election results, they were about what I expected. Republicans lost some ground in the House and Senate, but they did that mainly due to their own stumblings. Am I dismayed over that? Hardly...it has been going on for many years now. My political viewpoint hasn't changed, but the Republicans has. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me. So, in short, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, and hence any dismay you confer to me over the election is misplaced. My only dismay is that I have no candidates that really represent my viewpoint. I will, as usual (and as my moniker suggests) point to flaws in the thinking and viewpoints of both sides on any and all issues. And saying that Obama has done well on the economy is certainly flawed thinking. OK, maybe, but well? Really? Only politics would allow one to even think that thought. So, when I see such ridiculous statements made, I will point that out. If that causes consternation among anyone, again, that is their issue, and one they should look in mirror and have a conversation about. If one sets a low hurdle, then that is all one will achieve. I aspire to more. You should too.

QUOTE
Two, the GOP, who have created a bubble of alternate reality in their broadcast and social media that is not the reality experienced by those outside the bubble, forced a situation where the only candidate with a whisker's chance of winning would have to veer hard to the right in the primaries -- too hard right to be a candidate with general election appeal -- and then swing back to the center for the general. The "Etch-A-Sketch" is the only path a GOP candidate can take to victory -- which leaves him justifiably vulnerable to accusations of flip-floppery.


This is very true.

QUOTE
And three, Mitt Romney was a feckless candidate, who could not credibly perform that zig-zag without looking utterly unprincipled. The Mitt of the general election was very similar to the Mitt before he began running for the nomination, but the Mitt in between was something very different. It left many people unsure if Mitt stood for anything at all. As I said - "A man who believes nothing can say anything." He was gaffe-prone and often appeared completely out of touch.


Again, true, but it has as much to do with the previous statement as with the candidate. The same was true of the Democrats when running against Bush, although perhaps to a lesser degree. One of the great advantages of the incumbent in today's polarized environment, with candidates having to cater to their ever more extreme base, is that he/she doesn't have to really go through the primary process, hence doesn't have to make that sharp turn back to the center in the general election.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 02:50 PM) *
I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.


AMEN!!! Wouldn't it be nice to have an objective discussion over the direction of our country, without it being clouded by politics?

Will that happen? Unlikely. We are too polarized ourselves, and politicians not just know it, they rely and prey on it. And the more they do, the more polarized we become.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 8 2012, 03:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2012, 04:26 PM
Post #49


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 8 2012, 09:46 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 7 2012, 04:48 PM) *
One, he did an effective and convincing job of defending his record. The alternate-reality conservasphere portrays his presidency as an unmitigated disaster, but a job creation rate of minus 800,000/month on Jan 20, 2009 vs. positive ~170Kish today is the opposite of disaster (Hobbes's dismay over the similar unemployment rates on those two days notwithstanding). Couple that with foreign policy successes, reining in Wall Street, saving GM and Chrysler and bringing health insurance reform, and Obama has much to crow about -- though the die hard on the right will never afford him credit for that.


You would do yourself well to refrain from inferring context in my thinking when you have clearly no insight into it. My only 'dismay' over the economy is just that...dismay over the economy. You can jump for joy at the current unemployment rate and relatively stagnant growth, but that is your issue, not mine (and one that doesn't speak well for you, fwiw). As for the election results, they were about what I expected. Republicans lost some ground in the House and Senate, but they did that mainly due to their own stumblings. Am I dismayed over that? Hardly...it has been going on for many years now. My political viewpoint hasn't changed, but the Republicans has. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me. So, in short, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, and hence any dismay you confer to me over the election is misplaced. My only dismay is that I have no candidates that really represent my viewpoint. I will, as usual (and as my moniker suggests) point to flaws in the thinking and viewpoints of both sides on any and all issues. And saying that Obama has done well on the economy is certainly flawed thinking. OK, maybe, but well? Really? Only politics would allow one to even think that thought. So, when I see such ridiculous statements made, I will point that out. If that causes consternation among anyone, again, that is their issue, and one they should look in mirror and have a conversation about. If one sets a low hurdle, then that is all one will achieve. I aspire to more. You should too.


Dial it back, Hobbes. You read far too much into what I said. I said you showed dismay at the unemployment rate -- which you did. I did not express nor imply that you had any particular opinions on the political implications thereof.

My statement was to suggest that your expressed unhappiness with the unemployment rate was an incomplete observation: namely, that the jobless rate on Jan 20, 2009 was in complete free-fall, and the jobless rate on Nov. 6, 2012 was stabilized and slowly declining.

In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

As intelligent people, you and I may disagree on the efficacy of those initiatives in mitigating the disaster the policies of the Bush Administration brought upon us, of course. But all I said about your POV was that you noted the unemployment rate on those two days was similar and that you were dismayed by that fact -- which you acknowledge is true. ("My only 'dismay' over the economy is just that...dismay over the economy.") Okay?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 8 2012, 04:49 PM
Post #50


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 11:26 AM) *
In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

We were in the 1920's version of financial shenanigans. We haven't hit the Greatest Depression yet. A repeat of the 1930's is coming. This could be the reason no one is stepping up to the plate. Focusing on utopia is not going to solve anything. One must have a global and historical perspective. It's never an exact repeat, but they're so close, it's scary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2012, 05:08 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 11:26 AM) *
In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

We were in the 1920's version of financial shenanigans. We haven't hit the Greatest Depression yet. A repeat of the 1930's is coming. This could be the reason no one is stepping up to the plate. Focusing on utopia is not going to solve anything. One must have a global and historical perspective. It's never an exact repeat, but they're so close, it's scary.


Well, do you have facts to back up your assertions or are you just screaming that the sky is falling?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 8 2012, 05:41 PM
Post #52


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 12:08 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 11:26 AM) *
In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

We were in the 1920's version of financial shenanigans. We haven't hit the Greatest Depression yet. A repeat of the 1930's is coming. This could be the reason no one is stepping up to the plate. Focusing on utopia is not going to solve anything. One must have a global and historical perspective. It's never an exact repeat, but they're so close, it's scary.


Well, do you have facts to back up your assertions or are you just screaming that the sky is falling?


http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section4.rhtml

This is not the extent of my research, but it's concise. Notice any similarities?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2012, 05:56 PM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 11:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 12:08 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 11:26 AM) *
In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

We were in the 1920's version of financial shenanigans. We haven't hit the Greatest Depression yet. A repeat of the 1930's is coming. This could be the reason no one is stepping up to the plate. Focusing on utopia is not going to solve anything. One must have a global and historical perspective. It's never an exact repeat, but they're so close, it's scary.


Well, do you have facts to back up your assertions or are you just screaming that the sky is falling?


http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section4.rhtml

This is not the extent of my research, but it's concise. Notice any similarities?


Yes, I also note distinct differences - such as Hoover's laissez-faire approach and the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in response to the crisis, where President Obama took a markedly different approach.

1929 had much in common with 2008, not 2012.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 8 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #54


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 12:56 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 11:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 12:08 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 11:26 AM) *
In short, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when the President took office and that disaster has been averted, by this President's administration and its initiatives to stabilize and repair the economy.

We were in the 1920's version of financial shenanigans. We haven't hit the Greatest Depression yet. A repeat of the 1930's is coming. This could be the reason no one is stepping up to the plate. Focusing on utopia is not going to solve anything. One must have a global and historical perspective. It's never an exact repeat, but they're so close, it's scary.


Well, do you have facts to back up your assertions or are you just screaming that the sky is falling?


http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section4.rhtml

This is not the extent of my research, but it's concise. Notice any similarities?


Yes, I also note distinct differences - such as Hoover's laissez-faire approach and the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in response to the crisis, where President Obama took a markedly different approach.

1929 had much in common with 2008, not 2012.


I believe that is too myopic. I should have started with the previous section 1919-1929 and continued to 1940. The debt problem didn't resolve itself until WWII rationing allowed debt to be paid off since they couldn't buy anything. We aren't on the Gold Standard and we don't save in banks anymore, so you'd have to substitute fiat money, money markets, and mutual funds, and possibly housing for agriculture. President Obama hasn't solved anything. We still have an embedded bureaucracy that protects the unions, only now it's public sector unions too. I'm not the sky is falling type.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section3.rhtml

QUOTE
1929 had much in common with 2008, not 2012.
blink.gif I suppose this time it will be different.

I apoligize for taking us off topic. I tend to be a responder.

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Nov 8 2012, 06:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2012, 07:23 PM
Post #55


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 12:17 PM) *
We still have an embedded bureaucracy that protects the unions, only now it's public sector unions too.


The unions were not in any way the problem in either 1929 or 2008.

QUOTE
I'm not the sky is falling type.


If you say so.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section3.rhtml

QUOTE
QUOTE
1929 had much in common with 2008, not 2012.
blink.gif I suppose this time it will be different.

It is and has been different because the government's response to the crisis was markedly different. We're four years out from the inception of the crisis. Compare 2012 to 1933.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 8 2012, 07:39 PM
Post #56


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 10:26 AM) *
Dial it back, Hobbes. You read far too much into what I said. I said you showed dismay at the unemployment rate -- which you did. I did not express nor imply that you had any particular opinions on the political implications thereof.

...

As intelligent people, you and I may disagree on the efficacy of those initiatives in mitigating the disaster the policies of the Bush Administration brought upon us, of course. But all I said about your POV was that you noted the unemployment rate on those two days was similar and that you were dismayed by that fact -- which you acknowledge is true. ("My only 'dismay' over the economy is just that...dismay over the economy.") Okay?


Fair enough, if that was indeed all you were inferring.

FWIW, there is also plenty of room to disagree over who or what caused that situation, but I only mention that because if one doesn't recognize the cause, one can't fix it, not because of any political reasons. Frank-Dodd addresses some of them, but to my knowledge the real culprit (the fact that non bank entities could get into all the various businesses that led to crisis, and as non bank entities they were largely unregulated) has only partially been addressed. I don't think the utter failure of the various ratings agencies to do their job was addressed much at all, and I certainly haven't seen any calls for prosecution based on criminal incompetence (collusion?) which should have been raised, from either the Bush or the Obama administration--probably due to fears of making the concerns worse, but still failing to address the real problem.

I would also add that it is the fact that we are only about where we started that would lead to the discussions of those efficacies. Obama himself expected to be much farther along in the recovery than that (or at least that is the position he took), as I think we all did. When recovery lags, one should look into why that is, or, again, steps can't be taken to correct it. I personally couldn't care less if it was Democrats, Republicans, or aliens from space that enacted the changes---the point is they need to be enacted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2012, 08:20 PM
Post #57


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 8 2012, 01:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 10:26 AM) *
Dial it back, Hobbes. You read far too much into what I said. I said you showed dismay at the unemployment rate -- which you did. I did not express nor imply that you had any particular opinions on the political implications thereof.

...

As intelligent people, you and I may disagree on the efficacy of those initiatives in mitigating the disaster the policies of the Bush Administration brought upon us, of course. But all I said about your POV was that you noted the unemployment rate on those two days was similar and that you were dismayed by that fact -- which you acknowledge is true. ("My only 'dismay' over the economy is just that...dismay over the economy.") Okay?


Fair enough, if that was indeed all you were inferring.


If my unequivocal word isn't good enough to assure you of that, then there's nothing else I can do about that.

QUOTE
FWIW, there is also plenty of room to disagree over who or what caused that situation, but I only mention that because if one doesn't recognize the cause, one can't fix it, not because of any political reasons. Frank-Dodd addresses some of them, but to my knowledge the real culprit (the fact that non bank entities could get into all the various businesses that led to crisis, and as non bank entities they were largely unregulated) has only partially been addressed. I don't think the utter failure of the various ratings agencies to do their job was addressed much at all, and I certainly haven't seen any calls for prosecution based on criminal incompetence (collusion?) which should have been raised, from either the Bush or the Obama administration--probably due to fears of making the concerns worse, but still failing to address the real problem.


Obama has said that the issue is that because of the lack of regulation, many of the acts of malfeasance by the banks are not prosecutable, because there's no law or regulation that these actions were in vioaltion of. Which is why he and Democrats have been pushing for more regulation of these industries to protect us from these things.

I hope he's earned enough political capital from his reelection to get some more needed reform in place. Dodd-Frank, as you said, doesn't go nearly far enough.

QUOTE
I would also add that it is the fact that we are only about where we started that would lead to the discussions of those efficacies. Obama himself expected to be much farther along in the recovery than that (or at least that is the position he took), as I think we all did. When recovery lags, one should look into why that is, or, again, steps can't be taken to correct it. I personally couldn't care less if it was Democrats, Republicans, or aliens from space that enacted the changes---the point is they need to be enacted.


Recovery is slow, but steady. Remember, the day Obama took office was not the low point. It peaked at nearly 12% in mid-2009, just before the stimulus began to take effect. Unemployment has dropped four points since then, and this is despite unified obstructionism from the GOP ever since then.

Obama's success has been remarkable, and the election shows the voters agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 8 2012, 09:00 PM
Post #58


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 02:23 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 8 2012, 12:17 PM) *
We still have an embedded bureaucracy that protects the unions, only now it's public sector unions too.


The unions were not in any way the problem in either 1929 or 2008.

QUOTE
I'm not the sky is falling type.


If you say so.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american.../section3.rhtml

QUOTE
QUOTE
1929 had much in common with 2008, not 2012.
blink.gif I suppose this time it will be different.

It is and has been different because the government's response to the crisis was markedly different. We're four years out from the inception of the crisis. Compare 2012 to 1933.



"If you say so." ermm.gif Responding earlier only amounts to kicking the can down the road. Pretty much the same programs tried by FDR, just earlier. It's the agenda, not the time frame. The embedded bureaucracy protects the masters' access to jobs, putting the American journeymen and apprentices out of business... not dissimilar to the immigration issue mentioned in the 1920's. Giving journeymen the ability to pull permits and certified to buy parts would be a good first step to alleviating this jobs disaster. That would at least make them competitive with migrant workers working under the masters' permits. You'd still have the union bosses to deal with though, but their guys would be working. The apprentices still have a problem if they aren't employable, since they can't compete and make a living, not while following the rules, like zoning laws.

President Obama's idea of a middle class is the public sector jobs. It has been one of his main talking points for his entire administration. Of course, he only talks about the teachers, police, and firefighters as if that's all it amounted to. Those aren't federal jobs. Only a private sector middle class can support the country. A public sector middle class consumes and spends taxes wrecklessly.

Despite a recent video I watched, talking about the fiscal cliff (I'll have to find the link), where the four million federal workers in all its agencies are described as costing us around half a trillion dollars annually, it's the future retirement and healthcare costs, and the program costs they promote and support that put the number much higher.

I could get into a lot more about how much we waste on things that don't put food on the table, but why bother? You could make a correlation to the oversupply of goods and services (education included) with the inability to pay for them without the use of credit. We can't afford to be doing what we're doing. Yet, any attempt at austerity is met with Red Herring social issues to drive the reformer away. So, you protected your right to _________ just in case somebody was going to succeed at taking it away, but the nation goes bankrupt (already downgraded), and that's considered a win. blink.gif hmmm.gif Just as long as it's my right that's not being trampled on, it's fair game, right?

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Nov 8 2012, 09:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 8 2012, 09:17 PM
Post #59


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Julian @ Nov 7 2012, 01:11 PM) *
No preamble to speak of, just questions for debate:

What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?
He told the truth FAR MORE than Romney. No one is saying that Obama never lied, he did sometimes. But Romney lied FAR MORE
Romney doesn't lie just a little bit, or "about as much" as Obama.
According Politifact.com about FOUR times more, but EVEN according to rightwing fact-checker Kessler he lies about 20 percent more:
Obama 2 Pinocchio's
Romney 2.4 Pinocchio's

According to non-partisan Politifact he lies about FOUR times as much: the factchecking site categorizes what politicians say in six categories, which we can give points to:

+3 points True
+2 points Mostly True
+1 points Half True
-1 points Mostly False
-2 points False
-3 points Pants on Fire

This would get Obama 419 points for 446 statements or 94 percent and it'd get Romney 56 points for 196 statements or 27 percent.

Even with the cruder measure of just true to false
Romney has 1.39 true statements to every false one, while Obama has 2.57 true statements to every false one.

Finally check out the Pants-on-fire ratio:
Obama 7 out of 446 , vs Mittens SEVENTEEN (17) out of 196.
Breathtaking stuff.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
Why I think Kessler can be classified as rightwing: he found Obama's statement "Romney will change Medicare as we know it" his Lie of the Year, and found that Romney's claim that he didn't lead Bain after 1999 accurate, but hey ....)

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?
Perhaps it was less Romneys to lose than the overdramatizing media want us to believe. But Obama did win on the issues.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?
It was largely Romneys failure to be a flip flopper, and to not stand up to the out and out fascists of his party, the Akins, the Murdocks, the Angles etc. the party's failure.
Let's not kid ourselves. The Tea party has fascist tendencies, they believe they're better because they're white evangelicals. Many Republicans agree that the level of racism is high in their party. To hide that, they accuse the Democrats of being racist, and ask us to believe that HELPING poor blacks is racist, and taking money AWAY from poor blacks via defunding organisations like Planned Parenthood is not.



Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?
It should go more progressive, we should abandon the insanity that regressive or even flat taxation is "fair". Millionaires should pay a LOT more than poor people
"Job creators", "trickle down", these concepts are vicious lies, which the rich have used very effectively to keep the masses down. The gaping income gap is not just a story in the paper, but a real and present danger to the stability of regular people.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2012, 09:39 PM
Post #60


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2012, 03:20 PM) *
...
... Remember, the day Obama took office was not the low point. It peaked at nearly 12% in mid-2009, just before the stimulus began to take effect. Unemployment has dropped four points since then, ...
...

Other than the fact that unemployment peaked not at 12% but at 10%, not in mid '09 but in late '09 (October, to be exact), when the stimulus was already 6 months into its implementation, and that it has since dropped not by 4% but by 2.1%, the above is 100% correct.

For additional fun, a comparison:

Oct' 12: Unemployment peaks at 10% and spends the ensuing 36 months declining to 7.9% (i.e. 0.7% per year).

Nov '82: Unemployment peaks at 10.8% and spends the ensuing 36 months declining to 7.0% (i.e. 1.3% per year).



This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 8 2012, 10:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 21st, 2018 - 03:16 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.