WombatControl: RyogaM: WombatControl: All Romney has to do is ask the country whether they're better off now than they were four years ago. Even Democratic pollsters are telling Obama that he can't run on the idea that the economy is recovering because that doesn't match with what voters are feeling. All he has to run on is trying to scare people about Romney.

Except, if you lived in a swing state, you would know Obama is running ads that specifically feature the unemployment bikini graph thus showing that the economy is recovering, so, yeah, you are wrong, again. Again, because you mentioned this particular talking point in another thread, and were corrected there. But, you seem to have difficultly giving up this particular talking point, so I expect you will use it again, and again and again.

As for whether Romney will win, that is completely dependent on whether we continue to see anemic job numbers in the next several months, and will have little to nothing to do with Romney's campaign.

Yeah, that's a great strategy for Obama. Hope he keeps it up:

The spots that simply talk about progress on the economy did not do well.  The first offered a graphic depiction of job decline during the early months of the recession and job growth under President Obama.  The second highlighted progress on jobs in the automobile industry.  These ads did not win over most Obama voters.

It is possible the auto industry spot would have worked better in the northeastern part of the state, or that it did not imply it was a metaphor for the economy getting better in general.  Half the participants in the groups had voted for Obama, but less than a quarter gave this spot a positive rating.

The spot displaying the job growth graph did not fare much better: only about one-third (12 out of 34) gave this a positive rating.

Source: Carville and Greenberg swing-state focus group.

Christ, that's not what they're saying at all. Of course Obama is not going to focus solely on the economic recovery in his ads. You are stating that he can't run on the idea the economy is recovering at all, which is not what the focus group data says. Even if half the people viewing the ad were not persuaded, you still run the ad so you get the half that are persuaded. Then you use other means to go after the left-over 50%, namely, going after Romney as a weak governor in Mass., as a vulture capitalist or as someone who just can't be trusted to look out for the concerns of the middle-class. It's about using a combination of punches to knock out Romney, not just relying on the jab.

And, in the end, it won't matter, because only the job numbers between now and October will.

TheShavingofOccam123: Mikey1969: 5. He hires a shoe boy that gets his shoes on the correct feet.

4. He hires competent hair sculptors.

3. he runs his entire OS on a single 32 MB USB 1.0 thumb drive.

2. He rocks his 'anti reality sunglasses'.

And the #1 thing 'Mitt Romney is doing correctly, and frustrating the crap out of Democrats in the process'?

Remembering if he is Pro-Romney or Anti-Romney...

You left one out. Romney hates Mexicans. And he's half Mexican. And he hates irony.

Yeah, but it was only a top 5 list...

Mrtraveler01: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: You think that the GOP is "deceiving Americans" by merely pointing out that 40% of Americans' net worth have evaporated?

Since the time frame stretches from 2007-2012. Which was 2 years before Obama took office...

Then yes, the GOP is deciding Americans by blaming that completely on Obama.

I lied. It's actually between 2007-2010:

So that includes 2 years that Bush was President and 2 years that Obama was President. Ergo it's all Obama's fault.

That's not trying to deceive Americans at all...

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 475x278]

No, it isn't.

For one, those were all years with a Democratic Congress. Civics 101: what part of the government controls appropriations and budgeting? (Hint: starts with "L" and ends with "egislative.")

The recession did not have to last as long as it did and the recovery did not have to be as weak as it was. Obama can't bear the blame for starting the problem, but the recovery is on him, and the recovery was incredibly weak in comparison to prior recessions. That's because Obama pursued policies that benefitted his allies in the public sector rather than spurring private-sector job growth.

Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

WombatControl: For one, those were all years with a Democratic Congress. Civics 101: what part of the government controls appropriations and budgeting? (Hint: starts with "L" and ends with "egislative.")

So the GOP would just be "deceiving Americans" by saying the president can do anything about these things?

WombatControl: The recession did not have to last as long as it did and the recovery did not have to be as weak as it was. Obama can't bear the blame for starting the problem, but the recovery is on him, and the recovery was incredibly weak in comparison to prior recessions. That's because Obama pursued policies that benefitted his allies in the public sector rather than spurring private-sector job growth.

FOR fark'S SAKE, YOU CONTRADICTED THE LAST farkING THING YOU SAID! Or you contradicted the implications you were attempting to make. Either way, I have to call bullshiat.

Yo bullshiat, where you at?

WombatControl: For one, those were all years with a Democratic Congress. Civics 101: what part of the government controls appropriations and budgeting? (Hint: starts with "L" and ends with "egislative.")

Yes, that's why net worth went down. Not because of the recession but solely because Democrats were in charge of Congress.

I knew you made your posts so wordy to try and cover up your stupidity and this proves it.

Scerpes: Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

Another market we've taken for granted for years as a stable and longterm gains-building investment but was twisted through greed and the attempt to make a quick buck without actually doing anything useful.

Scerpes: Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

All Obama's fault mind you.

RyogaM:

Read the full survey - it makes it clear that pushing a narrative that the economy is recovering does not work and alienates voters.

But hey, if Obama wants to tell Americans to trust him rather than their lying eyes, that's perfectly cool with me. It would be very nice for Romney to win and to win with enough of a margin to give him political leverage with Congress.

Mrtraveler01: Scerpes: Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

All Obama's fault mind you.

I never said that.

Bloody William: Scerpes: Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

Another market we've taken for granted for years as a stable and longterm gains-building investment but was twisted through greed and the attempt to make a quick buck without actually doing anything useful.

And through making cheap credit available to everyone - even those who didn't deserve it.

Bloody William: WombatControl: The recession did not have to last as long as it did and the recovery did not have to be as weak as it was. Obama can't bear the blame for starting the problem, but the recovery is on him, and the recovery was incredibly weak in comparison to prior recessions. That's because Obama pursued policies that benefitted his allies in the public sector rather than spurring private-sector job growth.

FOR fark'S SAKE, YOU CONTRADICTED THE LAST farkING THING YOU SAID! Or you contradicted the implications you were attempting to make. Either way, I have to call bullshiat.

Yo bullshiat, where you at?

I just had to post this again because it just baffles me how fast one can contradict themselves like our friend WombatControl just did.

Truely a stunning thing to witness IMO.

WombatControl: RyogaM:

Read the full survey - it makes it clear that pushing a narrative that the economy is recovering does not work and alienates voters.

But hey, if Obama wants to tell Americans to trust him rather than their lying eyes, that's perfectly cool with me. It would be very nice for Romney to win and to win with enough of a margin to give him political leverage with Congress.

Yes, and we'll finally enact policies completely different from those leading up to 2008, which were... I'm sorry, what policies? Could you explain what things the Democrats did that Romney and a Republican congress would do differently not to re-fark us over?

lennavan: AirForceVet: Telling people they'll overturn the Obamacare law that no one has any idea what is in anyways? bans insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions?" Oh, that's not a gaffe.

Nope.

And 5 things Mitt is doing correctly? More like 5 things the Republican Party does correctly. The Republicans have been significantly better at playing the political game than the Democrats for quite some time now. Democrats are stuck on issues and policy and reality. Issues, policy and reality are essentially meaningless these days. The (D)'s need to wake upgo to sleep.

got that for ya

Scerpes: And through making cheap credit available to everyone - even those who didn't deserve it.

At least this isn't as stupid as the notion that the government held the banks at gunpoint and forced the banks to lend money to risky borrowers instead of the fact that banks jumped at the opportunity because they could make money off of it.

So kudos for that at least.

Scerpes: And through making cheap credit available to everyone - even those who didn't deserve it.

Which clearly was the reason more than the real estate market turning into a get-rich-quick scheme of buying, hoarding, and "flipping" houses without actually living in them, putting the "demand" part of supply and demand in a ridiculous bubble. Or the insane derivatives trading and financing tricks banks pulled, swapping around credit, loans, and debt again to make money quick.

Scerpes: Mrtraveler01: Scerpes: Bloody William: It's almost like the net worth of households that have been shown for decades that the stock market can provide a reliable rate of growth and can be a safe investment if you don't put money in risky businesses hoping to make it big will decrease when an across-the-board crash makes the entire value of the stock market drop by a third.

Most of that loss was in the value of their homes.

All Obama's fault mind you.

I never said that.

No but a lot of Republicans are implying it.

Satanic_Hamster: Bloody William: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Jjaro: The Obama-all-good, Republicans/Mitt-all-bad circlejerk in this thread is hilarious to watch.

To be fair, that is nearly every thread.

[scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com image 640x366]
[fc04.deviantart.net image 602x340]

WombatControl: For one, those were all years with a Democratic Congress. Civics 101: what part of the government controls appropriations and budgeting? (Hint: starts with "L" and ends with "egislative.")

So Obama is to blame for things that happened before he took office because of a democratic congress? If congress is the blame holder than you have to blame the republicans in the house since they took over, right?. But of course you're not trying to be consistent, you've just trying to spin everything to blame Obama.

I have to ask, since you believe it to be the primary factor in the election, are you personally doing better now than four years ago? If not, whose fault do you believe that is?

thisisyourbrainonFark: [yeahnewyork.com image 350x249]

Fluorescent Testicle: thisisyourbrainonFark: [yeahnewyork.com image 350x249]

[i49.tinypic.com image 500x356]

Love it!

6. Having a Mormon candidate whose religion provides race card immunity

Bloody William: So the GOP would just be "deceiving Americans" by saying the president can do anything about these things?

He can if he has a majority in Congress willing to go along. Bush did not from 2007 onwards. Obama did from 2009-2010. That's why Bush got very little done in the last part of his term, while Obama got a stimulus and a sweeping health-care bill passed (along with the Ledbetter Act, financial reform bills, etc.)

So yes, the makeup of Congress matters.

FOR fark'S SAKE, YOU CONTRADICTED THE LAST farkING THING YOU SAID! Or you contradicted the implications you were attempting to make. Either way, I have to call bullshiat.

Yo bullshiat, where you at?

Your lack of comprehension does not mean that a statement is contradictory. Again, Obama and the Democrats had the opportunity to get their agenda through in Obama's first term. And what did they do? Instead of doing something to fix the economy they created a "stimulus" bill to line the pockets of their political allies. They passed a massive health-care reform bill on a nearly pure party-line vote that caused massive disruption to labor and employment markets. They passed bills like Lily Ledbetter that erased the statute of limitations on pay claims, hurting employers and adding more risk.

Obama had two years of immense political power that he could have used to reduce spending, reduce the deficit, and promote job growth. Instead he sent spoils to his favored interest groups - which is why the Democrats lost so decisively in 2010.

Bloody William
Yes, and we'll finally enact policies completely different from those leading up to 2008, which were... I'm sorry, what policies

lol.....what the hell have you been doing for the last 4 years?

You had the largest one party majority in 50 years and couldn't get it done?

Either....
A. Obama is a pathetic leader.
B. He is a good leader of a pathetic ideology.

WombatControl: They passed bills like Lily Ledbetter that erased the statute of limitations on pay claims, hurting employers and adding more risk.

Yes, God forbid we do anything to cut down on gender discrimination when it comes to pay.

WombatControl: Your lack of comprehension does not mean that a statement is contradictory. Again, Obama and the Democrats had the opportunity to get their agenda through in Obama's first term. And what did they do? Instead of doing something to fix the economy they created a "stimulus" bill to line the pockets of their political allies. They passed a massive health-care reform bill on a nearly pure party-line vote that caused massive disruption to labor and employment markets. They passed bills like Lily Ledbetter that erased the statute of limitations on pay claims, hurting employers and adding more risk.



The fact that you're trying to frame the Lily Ledbetter act as a smoking gunshows how without a point you are and how desperate you are to find SOMETHING to blame Obama and Democrats for things being so bad.

I assume you won't answer, but I'll ask again:

What did the Democratic Congress do in 2007 that led to the crisis that the Republican president and split Congress didn't do in the years leading up to it? What will Romney and a Republican Congress do differently to improve the recovery? Legislation, decisions, actions, show me something beyond "The Democrats were in control of Congress the year before the crash, that PROVES THEY CAUSED IT!!! And Obama sucks too!"

For that matter, look at the numbers of growth we've been seeing since Obamacare and Lily Ledbetter passed. I'm not saying they caused it, but you sound like the people who say FDR caused and prolonged the Great Depression, because "It would have gotten better faster if a Republican was in charge and there was no socialism!"

Yo bullshiat, where you at?

WombatControl: He can if he has a majority in Congress willing to go along. Bush did not from 2007 onwards. Obama did from 2009-2010. That's why Bush got very little done in the last part of his term, while Obama got a stimulus and a sweeping health-care bill passed (along with the Ledbetter Act, financial reform bills, etc.)

Too late, you outed yourself as a partisan shill when you posted that stupid 40% drop in net worth statistic when trying to convince me that the GOP isn't distorting facts in order to deceive Americans by blaming the whole thing on Obama/Democrats.

Bloody William: Yes, and we'll finally enact policies completely different from those leading up to 2008, which were... I'm sorry, what policies? Could you explain what things the Democrats did that Romney and a Republican congress would do differently not to re-fark us over?

Sure.

First, we have to control spending. We cannot keep government expenditures at close to 25% of GDP over the long term. It's not fiscally sustainable. We need to make real cuts to get our fiscal house in order. That means making politically dangerous cuts too. For example, Head Start is extremely popular. It's also a total waste of money, and doesn't confer any lasting benefits on the kids in it. So why are we paying for it? Why did Obama single it out yesterday. We need to reevaluate these programs and not blindly assume that every federal program is great and should never be cut.

Second, we have to get rid of ObamaCare (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't kill the whole thing). It doesn't work, it was sloppily written, and there are a million better solutions to the problem of health care, which isn't even nearly the problem that Obama made it out to be. The real solution is to end the tax preference for employer health care and make it easy for people to buy their own plans on the free market while making more health spending first-party rather than third-party spending. But just about anything is better than the bureaucratic nightmare that is ObamaCare.

Third, we have to revisit regulation. We have too many conflicting regulations made by too many agencies that prescribe too many contradictory rules that no business can follow. If there are legitimate health, safety, and welfare concerns that can be addressed through regulation, fine, but make those regulations simpler and more transparent. We've been waiting for real regulatory reform since Al Gore half-heartedly championed it back in 1992. The Code of Federal Regulations needs to be overhauled completely to reduce regulatory burdens on business.

Finally, we need to put in place policies that foster private-sector investment. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We can't compete with that. We have rules that make it difficult for companies that earn money overseas to repatriate that money to the U.S. and spend it here. That's stupid, and needs to be fixed. We have rules like Lilly Ledbetter than were written by plaintiff's attorneys that massively increase the risks faced by employers while doing little to actually protect workers. Those rules need to go.

That's the broad answer, and doesn't even touch stuff like entitlement reform, cutting the Pentagon's budget (the F-22 is a prime example of how not to run a military hardware program), etc. But that list would be a good start for a President Romney and a Republican Congress.

WombatControl: Obama had two years of immense political power that he could have used to reduce spending, reduce the deficit, and promote job growth. Instead he sent spoils to his favored interest groups - which is why the Democrats lost so decisively in 2010.

Do you actually have a completely distorted perception of reality or are you just pretending here on fark because you have nothing better to do with yourself?

WombatControl: Third, we have to revisit regulation. We have too many conflicting regulations made by too many agencies that prescribe too many contradictory rules that no business can follow. If there are legitimate health, safety, and welfare concerns that can be addressed through regulation, fine, but make those regulations simpler and more transparent. We've been waiting for real regulatory reform since Al Gore half-heartedly championed it back in 1992. The Code of Federal Regulations needs to be overhauled completely to reduce regulatory burdens on business.

Aren't you the same guy who told us that your best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who had to pay $10,000 for a shower permit?

Why the fark should I take you seriously when it comes to talking about regulation?

Fluorescent Testicle: thisisyourbrainonFark: [yeahnewyork.com image 350x249]

[i49.tinypic.com image 500x356]

Hah! Awesomeness is you.

WombatControl: The real solution is to end the tax preference for employer health care and make it easy for people to buy their own plans on the free market while making more health spending first-party rather than third-party spending.

Yes, because a free market works with an oligopoly.

Just look at how great the free market works when I have the honor to choose between AT&T and Comcast for my cable/internet/phone or between AT&T and Verizon when it comes to choosing my cell phone provider.

WombatControl: We have rules like Lilly Ledbetter than were written by plaintiff's attorneys that massively increase the risks faced by employers while doing little to actually protect workers.

So what should be done to prevent gender discrimination when it comes to pay?

WombatControl: First, we have to control spending. We cannot keep government expenditures at close to 25% of GDP over the long term. It's not fiscally sustainable. We need to make real cuts to get our fiscal house in order. That means making politically dangerous cuts too. For example, Head Start is extremely popular. It's also a total waste of money, and doesn't confer any lasting benefits on the kids in it. So why are we paying for it? Why did Obama single it out yesterday. We need to reevaluate these programs and not blindly assume that every federal program is great and should never be cut.

You feel the same about military spending, or do you agree with Republicans who panic and cry at the thought of saving any money on the military after screaming about debt?

You want to cut Head Start? Fine. You can make a case for it. Can you make a case for it actually making a dent in the farking deficit compared to shaving the military?

Second, we have to get rid of ObamaCare (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't kill the whole thing). It doesn't work, it was sloppily written, and there are a million better solutions to the problem of health care, which isn't even nearly the problem that Obama made it out to be. The real solution is to end the tax preference for employer health care and make it easy for people to buy their own plans on the free market while making more health spending first-party rather than third-party spending. But just about anything is better than the bureaucratic nightmare that is ObamaCare.

The free market will not offer a solution for a "commodity" so fundamentally inelastic as health care. We need to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with a single payer system. That will actually help, by taking pressure off of employers and families for getting basic medical treatment.

Third, we have to revisit regulation. We have too many conflicting regulations made by too many agencies that prescribe too many contradictory rules that no business can follow. If there are legitimate health, safety, and welfare concerns that can be addressed through regulation, fine, but make those regulations simpler and more transparent. We've been waiting for real regulatory reform since Al Gore half-heartedly championed it back in 1992. The Code of Federal Regulations needs to be overhauled completely to reduce regulatory burdens on business.

I would agree, but the Republican idea of regulation reform is deregulation. Many markets need to be regulated for different reasons, and Republicans have objected to any attempt to do so. I won't go with shaking that etch-a-sketch until you're ready to draw a new picture on it.

Finally, we need to put in place policies that foster private-sector investment. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We can't compete with that. We have rules that make it difficult for companies that earn money overseas to repatriate that money to the U.S. and spend it here. That's stupid, and needs to be fixed. We have rules like Lilly Ledbetter than were written by plaintiff's attorneys that massively increase the risks faced by employers while doing little to actually protect workers. Those rules need to go.

Welcome to the cost of globalism. There is no way legislatively we can bring back manufacturing to the U.S. without either extreme protectionist measures which you disagree with or with reducing the benefits and protections afforded to workers to levels similar to China and Vietnam, which would hurt with the actual demand side of the economy by further damaging the buying power of millions of Americans.

That's the broad answer, and doesn't even touch stuff like entitlement reform, cutting the Pentagon's budget (the F-22 is a prime example of how not to run a military hardware program), etc. But that list would be a good start for a President Romney and a Republican Congress.

Again, I call bullshiat. Is there any indication over the last ten years of Republican policy, majority or not, that shows they would actually do this? They would cut, sure. They would deregulate, sure. But would they ever follow through with writing new regulations to replace the old ones that were put in place to protect Americans, or with addressing military spending, or with doing anything to actually generate demand rather than obsessing over supply?

Bloody William:

There needs to be a rule that the people who post pony pictures must be hunted down and given a massive cockpunch (or falcon punch, as the case may be).

No, Obama and the Democrats didn't cause the financial crash. They missed a big opportunity to help reduce its effects by not removing "too big to fail" from the GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it's not like Bush went to the mat for that either.

What they did do to make things worse is 1.) pass a wasteful and debt-expanding stimulus; 2.) fark up the health care and employment markets with ObamaCare; 3.) spend even more on top of that; 4.) sat and let our corporate tax rate be the highest in the industrialized world; 5.) dramatically expanded regulation on business with Dodd-Frank and other rules.

And that's just off the top of my head...

And, no Lily Ledbetter doesn't do anything to protect workers - the discovery rule already did that. What it does do is let someone sit on their rights for years knowing that they're getting discriminated against, run up their damages, and then sue - which could be years later when all the people who made those decisions had left or died. It was a sop to the trial attorneys, utterly unnecessary, and a harm to job growth in this country. If you're a business owner, why hire more women when 30 years down the line they could sue you for "paycheck discrimination" after sitting on their rights for years? At the very least, give judges discretion to determine those issues rather than have a federal law tell them how to decide a key element of a discrimination case.

WombatControl: There needs to be a rule that the people who post pony pictures must be hunted down and given a massive cockpunch (or falcon punch, as the case may be).



No, Obama and the Democrats didn't cause the financial crash. They missed a big opportunity to help reduce its effects by not removing "too big to fail" from the GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it's not like Bush went to the mat for that either.

What they did do to make things worse is 1.) pass a wasteful and debt-expanding stimulus; 2.) fark up the health care and employment markets with ObamaCare; 3.) spend even more on top of that; 4.) sat and let our corporate tax rate be the highest in the industrialized world; 5.) dramatically expanded regulation on business with Dodd-Frank and other rules.

And that's just off the top of my head...

And, no Lily Ledbetter doesn't do anything to protect workers - the discovery rule already did that. What it does do is let someone sit on their rights for years knowing that they're getting discriminated against, run up their damages, and then sue - which could be years later when all the people who made those decisions had left or died. It was a sop to the trial attorneys, utterly unnecessary, and a harm to job growth in this country. If you're a business owner, why hire more women when 30 years down the line they could sue you for "paycheck discrimination" after sitting on their rights for years? At the very least, give judges discretion to determine those issues rather than have a federal law tell them how to decide a key element of a discrimination case.

All of this reeks of historical revisionism with FDR. "It would have gotten better faster if we were in charge!"

Things aren't good now, but they're certainly better than they were in 2008.

WombatControl: 5.) dramatically expanded regulation on business with Dodd-Frank and other rules.

Wait you actually think Dodd-Frank actually does something and is not the watered-down toothless POS it is?

Let me laugh even harder.

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: 5.) dramatically expanded regulation on business with Dodd-Frank and other rules.

Wait you actually think Dodd-Frank actually does something and is not the watered-down toothless POS it is?

Let me laugh even harder.

Regulations are too complicated! We need to deregulate and make new, streamlined regulations without making new, streamlined regulations because the crash was caused by the markets not being regulated!

Mugato: I don't want to judge but this unicorn stuff is creeping me out.

It's an amusing series of memes from a surprisingly high-quality cartoon. No different from memes from Adventure Time or Regular Show. Also, it's good for trolling people who are creeped out by it..

Bloody William: 3) They don't plan ahead at all. They embrace ideology fanatically and assume policy will follow suit when it never does. They don't consider the effects of their actions.

Not true, they absolutely consider the effects of their actions. You're just using the wrong lens. I bet you think they don't consider the effects of their actions on poor people for instance. Your lens assumes they care about poor people. They don't. You can be sure they consider the effects of their actions on being elected. There's a reason the GOP has systematically gone after unions.

Bloody William: Tentatively true on a large scale, but small altercations

I guess I'm talking about elected politician (R)'s.

Bloody William: Bullshiat. Reckless disregard of safety for self or others... like wanting to repeal food, working, and industrial safety regulations?

No no no, you're conflating active, reckless disregard for safety with the passive not caring about others. Reckless disregard for safety would be like knowingly driving at 60mph without brakes. The GOP more like simply allowing others to drive without brakes. The GOP is not reckless, it is for allowing others to be reckless. Slight distinction I draw here.

Bloody William: 6) They fail to be consistent in their work behavior and don't honor financial obligations. Remember the Republicans trying to renege on the across-the-board spending cut because it included military spending?

They have been amazingly consistent for decades in their attacks on the poor, minorities, women and so on. They absolutely honor financial obligations. You're focused on the wrong financial obligations. Think Rick Perry kicking back to his donors, or Scott Brown saving the banks $19 Billion in the wall street reform thing.

Bloody William: 7) Remorseful of what? I've yet to see a genuine apology from any major Republican leader for any of the horrible shiat they say or do.

Perhaps you forgot the apology a Republican gave to BP after the gulf fiasco. He was very sorry the government got in BPs grill over the oil spill thing and I think he meant it.

Bloody William:

1.) Yes, I'm for fiscal discipline in miltary spending. (See my example of the F-22 - paying billions for a plane that asphyxiates its farking pilots is a waste of taxpayer money.) We should eliminate cost-plus defense contracts and make contractors work for their pay.

2.) Head Start doesn't work - study after study shows this, including objective government studies. What other justification is needed to get rid of it? And why is Obama talking about spending more on a program that doesn't work?


3.) Single payer does not work - the only way other countries do it is through a level of fiat rationing that would be unacceptable in any other country. The argument that health care cannot exist in a free market is ridiculous - market mechanisms would reduce costs, increase quality, and create efficiencies. Right now nearly all health care spending is a third party paying for another third party. That is the most wasteful way to finance something possible, and that's why our system doesn't work. Single payer just concentrates power ever more.

4.) The idea that all Republicans are totally anti-regulation is stupid. Which party passed Sarbanes-Oxley again?

5.) You're wrong on globalization. We can compete globally, and we do. But we have to realize that commodity manufacturing is not going to come back any more than buggy whips are - technology has moved on. We can either embrace the idea that the 1950s industrial model no longer applies in this century or we can lose our competitive edge. The Democrats are clinging to the 1950s industrial model, while the Republicans are not. The GOP needs to embrace its own view more clearly, but that's only going to matter if they can retake the Senate and the White House.

6.) Yes - remember my question about Sarbanes-Oxley.

And no, demand stimulus does not work. "Generating demand" does not restart an economy because you have to produce something in order to have the money to fund demand. Without production, all "stimulating demand" does is create inflation. The second you stop throwing money into the system your demand evaporates, and you usually end up worse off because you've taken productive money out of the system to try to "stimulate demand." Jean-Baptiste Say figured this out in the 19th Century. Look at what happened in Japan's lost decade to see a more modern example of why "stimulating demand" does not work in the real world.

Demand stimulus is economic creationism - it's dogma, not rationalism.

WombatControl:
No, Obama and the Democrats didn't cause the financial crash. They missed a big opportunity to help reduce its effects by not removing "too big to fail" from the GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it's not like Bush went to the mat for that either.

What they did do to make things worse is 1.) pass a wasteful and debt-expanding stimulus; 2.) fark up the health care and employment markets with ObamaCare; 3.) spend even more on top of that; 4.) sat and let our corporate tax rate be the highest in the industrialized world; 5.) dramatically expanded regulation on business with Dodd-Frank and other rules.

Could we get some donuts in here? I participate in test market research better when I have donuts.

1. Picking his nose.
2, Wiping his ass.
3. Smiling when a camera points at him.
4. Tying his shoes unassisted.
5. Not falling down a lot.

The biggest obstacle in Obama's presidency is the fact that History called.

The stars were aligned for greatness......and he blew it. Leaders thrive when times are tough. They embrace the burden and lead.

It's been 4 years and this president is still pointing fingers and placing blame.

Sad really.