PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Interesting WSJ Article


Amnorix
07-27-2011, 07:27 AM
There was an interesting article in the WSJ yesterday explaining the political backdrop for our inability to resolve the debt ceiling issue. Essentially the article discussed the vanishing political middle -- Blue Dog Democrats from the South who would often be to the right of liberal Republicans, mostly from the Northeast.

This is partly a result of redistricting, where the states are gerrymandering lines to try to optimize things for their party, but as a result often eliminate more moderate members of the House, and/or group the opposition party into overwhelming majorities in their district, resulting in more extreme members of that party gaining the seat.

Last, but not least, the tactics employed by grassroot organizations to threaten and remove those who don't completely toe the line, which also has the effect of eliminating moderates.

As a result, the article suggested, Washington is increasingly polarized, and the other side is increasingly demonized. And less functional.

The article seemed on the whole accurate and insightful, and led me to believe that as we go forward we are more likely to see more of this type of dysfunctionality rather than less. When the freshmen members of the House think they can control all branches of government by holding firmly to their positions, we are unlikely to see compromise. More likely, the Democrats will learn that to negotiate with the hard-core Republicans, they must also be extremely firm in their resolve -- i.e. stubborn.

mlyonsd
07-27-2011, 07:32 AM
So back to same as usual? Great.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 07:52 AM
Probably because people are seeing the status quo is getting us into trouble.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 07:55 AM
Probably because people are seeing the status quo is getting us into trouble.

You like how this debt ceiling issue is being handled then?

blaise
07-27-2011, 08:06 AM
I think message boards, twitter, election campaigns, and TV are helping to push things this way. Politics is like sports now. People get as much joy from rubbing their opposition's failure in their noses as they do their own party's successes. Every time something happens people run to message boards and twitter to post hyperbolic trash talk. So, the other side gets defensive and does the same thing. Then it goes around and around.
You've got people on both sides making stupid statements, veiled threats of violence, accusations of racism, homophobia, Marxism, vast conspiracies, etc. Half the time it doesn't even matter if the person saying it believes the charges to be true or not. They'd rather attempt to discredit the other side than to have a respectful debate. I'm just as guilty as anyone, I guess.
Those are the voices heard by the politicians. They're the people writing letters, protesting, emailing, and calling. So, those are the people that they respond to a lot of the time.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 08:13 AM
I think message boards, twitter, election campaigns, and TV are helping to push things this way. Politics is like sports now. People get as much joy from rubbing their opposition's failure in their noses as they do their own party's successes. Every time something happens people run to message boards and twitter to post hyperbolic trash talk. So, the other side gets defensive and does the same thing. Then it goes around and around.
You've got people on both sides making stupid statements, veiled threats of violence, accusations of racism, homophobia, Marxism, vast conspiracies, etc. Half the time it doesn't even matter if the person saying it believes the charges to be true or not. They'd rather attempt to discredit the other side than to have a respectful debate. I'm just as guilty as anyone, I guess.
Those are the voices heard by the politicians. They're the people writing letters, protesting, emailing, and calling. So, those are the people that they respond to a lot of the time.

I think that is certainly all true and throw in the 24-hour media cycle and it just makes the situation worse.

I will say IMVHO it seems the debate is always controlled by the fringe's on both side and the media pushes that. Where in reality 60-70% of the people in this country are in the middle and just want fairness, compromise and cut the bullshit.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:17 AM
I think message boards, twitter, election campaigns, and TV are helping to push things this way. Politics is like sports now. People get as much joy from rubbing their opposition's failure in their noses as they do their own party's successes. Every time something happens people run to message boards and twitter to post hyperbolic trash talk. So, the other side gets defensive and does the same thing. Then it goes around and around.
You've got people on both sides making stupid statements, veiled threats of violence, accusations of racism, homophobia, Marxism, vast conspiracies, etc. Half the time it doesn't even matter if the person saying it believes the charges to be true or not. They'd rather attempt to discredit the other side than to have a respectful debate. I'm just as guilty as anyone, I guess.
Those are the voices heard by the politicians. They're the people writing letters, protesting, emailing, and calling. So, those are the people that they respond to a lot of the time.


I think that's right.

It's also easy to forget that some HUGE percentage of Americans doesn't pay all that much attention to politics. They certainly never write their Congressperson, and aren't politically active in any way. This pretty much constitutes Nixon's old Silent Majority or whatever the phrase was.

It's the rabid dogs on the extreme ends of the political spectrum that are constantly barking in their Congressman's ear, who have $$ backing them, and who threaten to try to push them out of office if they don't get their way on such and such a bill. One example is that guy, forget his name, who has a hundred or whatever Congressmen's signatures on a no tax increases pledge. Now they feel their hands are completely tied and they practically have to go to him -- just this random guy -- to get PERMISSION to vote for any kind of tax increase without charges that they broke their solemn oath, etc. etc.

Is eliminating tax loopholes a tax increase? Yes.

What if they're offset by tax cuts elsewhere so it's revenue neutral? No.

So sayeth Bob from Indiana or whatever the hell, and so our government is run in part by some guy with a drawer full of papers that Congressmen signed to get his support when running for office. Never mind if America defaults on its obligations. Never mind if it's bad policy. Never mind what else is going on. Can't make Bob mad.

:spock:

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:18 AM
I think that is certainly all true and throw in the 24-hour media cycle and it just makes the situation worse.

I will say IMVHO it seems the debate is always controlled by the fringe's on both side and the media pushes that. Where in reality 60-70% of the people in this country are in the middle and just want fairness, compromise and cut the bullshit.

:LOL: I was typing my wordier statement when you posted this, but we're saying the same thing.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:21 AM
This isn't the article I read, but here's an article about the guy I was talking about. Grover Norquist.

Who, btw, says that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is NOT a tax increase. So our country is ruled by some fuqtard named Grover who holds the balls of the Republican party in his hands. JFC.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_story.html


And you can't make this shit up and nothing personal, but Grover? GROVER? Seriously?

Republicans balls held by:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRts3H2d6pUuIgYlZ1ya_Ls7oD0KK9kr0gGb1cAti6fB8W8Hf2hZg

mlyonsd
07-27-2011, 08:35 AM
You like how this debt ceiling issue is being handled then?What's it hurting? Do you think any of the proposals that were set forth really addressed the real underlying problems anyway? Do you think any of those proposals actually fixed anything?

Where would the discussion have gone if it weren't for the tea party? I know you agree that we spend way too much. You don't see the tea party doing any good?

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:39 AM
What's it hurting? Do you think any of the proposals that were set forth really addressed the real underlying problems anyway? Do you think any of those proposals actually fixed anything?

Where would the discussion have gone if it weren't for the tea party? I know you agree that we spend way too much. You don't see the tea party doing any good?

I think the tea party's positions are a good, healthy addition to the discussion. I think rigid inflexibility isn't. I applaud the Republicans for bringing the deficit situation to the foreground. Not sure if credit for that is limited to the tea party, but if so, kudos for that.

I agree we spend too much, though drastic cuts in times of recession are of questionable wisdom.

I think a 3:1 spending cut (if real) to tax increase program would have been reasonably decent. I never heard specifics on how that program would work, so I can't comment further, but in concept, it's good.

I heard that increasing SS age to 70 was on the table. I would support that.

I heard that SS COLAs being indexed to actual costs rather than whatever it is -- white collar worker income -- was on the table. I would support that also.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:41 AM
What's it hurting?


What is Congress doing lately to try to improve the weak employment situation? Nothing. It's all about the debt ceiling.

This kind of unending, all-consuming focus on the debt ceiling means other important things aren't happening at all.

mlyonsd
07-27-2011, 08:44 AM
I think the tea party's positions are a good, healthy addition to the discussion. I think rigid inflexibility isn't. I applaud the Republicans for bringing the deficit situation to the foreground. Not sure if credit for that is limited to the tea party, but if so, kudos for that.

I agree we spend too much, though drastic cuts in times of recession are of questionable wisdom.

I think a 3:1 spending cut (if real) to tax increase program would have been reasonably decent. I never heard specifics on how that program would work, so I can't comment further, but in concept, it's good.

I heard that increasing SS age to 70 was on the table. I would support that.

I heard that SS COLAs being indexed to actual costs rather than whatever it is -- white collar worker income -- was on the table. I would support that also.Ok, thought you were going all libtard on me for minute. You're one of the sane ones and I'd hate to lose you.

I agree the tea party can take it too far. Too far in that at some point compromise should happen. They look like fools for not accepting the lates Boehner bill.

FD
07-27-2011, 08:47 AM
Gerrymandered districts have been blamed a lot for the increase in partisanship and I've been a believer in that theory, but I'm not sure anymore how true it is. The Senate is not subject to the same process and has shown similarly increasing levels of partisanship and extremism. I know they seem more reasonable in the current debate, but over the past decade its often seemed like the Senate is a place where nothing can be accomplished. It will be interesting to see the result of California's recent referendum which stripped the legislature of the ability to draw districts, placing that power in a non-partisan commission.

I do think the disintegration of mass media has played a role. As more people get their news from sources specifically tailored to their preexisting ideology causing their beliefs to become more extreme and tightly held.

mlyonsd
07-27-2011, 08:50 AM
What is Congress doing lately to try to improve the weak employment situation? Nothing. It's all about the debt ceiling.

This kind of unending, all-consuming focus on the debt ceiling means other important things aren't happening at all.I'm not defending congress. But both sides have equal blame in any stalemate. You might not see it that way but I think it's true.

When it comes to jobs what do you propose? I see nothing other than making businesses feel comfortable about taxes and maybe shooting Obama's new regulation writers as doing much. The economy woes aren't just a US thing. The uncertainty all over the globe isn't helping.

I sure wouldn't blow another trillion dollars on a fake stimulus. That train has left the station.

Otter
07-27-2011, 08:53 AM
What is Congress doing lately to try to improve the weak employment situation? Nothing. It's all about the debt ceiling.

This kind of unending, all-consuming focus on the debt ceiling means other important things aren't happening at all.

Don't worry, lots of other things going on. Yesterday barry was giving his bi-weekly hand job to La Raza all but promising amnesty in one capacity or another to criminals within our borders and Illinois Congressmen Luis V. Gutierrez was arrested in a deportation protest all while the debt ceiling looms.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/hispanic-congressman-is-arrested-in-deportation-protest/

That should help unemployed Americans and debt; add a couple million more to the labor pool and make them eligible for assistance as a reward for crashing the borders.

blaise
07-27-2011, 08:56 AM
This thread will probably end up having a self fulfilling prophecy.

Chiefshrink
07-27-2011, 09:01 AM
You like how this debt ceiling issue is being handled then?

Of course I do, Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama(why? because he still continues to buy into this bi-partisan BS and still lets Obama make them do all the work while he still has no plan of his own and yet he is the Pres:rolleyes:rolleyes: Obama gets his immediate spending but the Repubs have to wait for their cuts over 10yrs?:doh!:

Let the default occur and do not raise the ceiling and let the chips fall where they may I say. And the "Alinskyizing" of the Repubs afterwards will not be as nearly effective as in years past IMO because America see right thru this guy especially after his "malaise speech" the other night.

Baby Lee
07-27-2011, 09:10 AM
I heard that SS COLAs being indexed to actual costs rather than whatever it is -- white collar worker income -- was on the table. I would support that also.

If the local radio guy had his facts straight, the change in COLA is going from a 'static breadbasket' to a dynamic one.

That is, they presently index COLA on the price of a set group of goods. So if, say, beef, bread and gasoline go up 3%, COLA does too. But the real world reality is that, if beef, bread and gasoline go up, people adjust to cheaper chicken, salads and riding bikes/reducing commutes. So the proposal is to index COLA on dynamic consumption data as opposed to price fluctuations in static goods.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 09:18 AM
Gerrymandered districts have been blamed a lot for the increase in partisanship and I've been a believer in that theory, but I'm not sure anymore how true it is. The Senate is not subject to the same process and has shown similarly increasing levels of partisanship and extremism. I know they seem more reasonable in the current debate, but over the past decade its often seemed like the Senate is a place where nothing can be accomplished. It will be interesting to see the result of California's recent referendum which stripped the legislature of the ability to draw districts, placing that power in a non-partisan commission.

I do think the disintegration of mass media has played a role. As more people get their news from sources specifically tailored to their preexisting ideology causing their beliefs to become more extreme and tightly held.

I agree with this as well. I can't believe the Senate allows 1 Senator to place an anonymous hold on nominations or bills and they are just stuck at that point.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 09:30 AM
Of course I do, Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama(why? because he still continues to buy into this bi-partisan BS and still lets Obama make them do all the work while he still has no plan of his own and yet he is the Pres:rolleyes:rolleyes: Obama gets his immediate spending but the Repubs have to wait for their cuts over 10yrs?:doh!:

Let the default occur and do not raise the ceiling and let the chips fall where they may I say. And the "Alinskyizing" of the Repubs afterwards will not be as nearly effective as in years past IMO because America see right thru this guy especially after his "malaise speech" the other night.

.

http://pixdaus.com/pics/1310456666hF7v159.jpg

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 09:33 AM
If the local radio guy had his facts straight, the change in COLA is going from a 'static breadbasket' to a dynamic one.

That is, they presently index COLA on the price of a set group of goods. So if, say, beef, bread and gasoline go up 3%, COLA does too. But the real world reality is that, if beef, bread and gasoline go up, people adjust to cheaper chicken, salads and riding bikes/reducing commutes. So the proposal is to index COLA on dynamic consumption data as opposed to price fluctuations in static goods.

I'm no expert, but that isn't how I heard it (wherever the hell that was). SS seems to suggest that the COLA is based on a certain group of workers' income:

Q. What is a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)?

A. A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually. The purpose of the COLA is to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits is not eroded by inflation. It is based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a COLA was determined to the third quarter of the current year. If there is no increase, there can be no COLA.


http://www.ssa.gov/cola/2011/2011faqs.htm#q1


My understanding of the change was to make it based on COSTS of living, not some random group's change in income. My further understanding is that this group's income has historically increased by more than the actual cost of living.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:31 AM
There was an interesting article in the WSJ yesterday explaining the political backdrop for our inability to resolve the debt ceiling issue. Essentially the article discussed the vanishing political middle -- Blue Dog Democrats from the South who would often be to the right of liberal Republicans, mostly from the Northeast.

This is partly a result of redistricting, where the states are gerrymandering lines to try to optimize things for their party, but as a result often eliminate more moderate members of the House, and/or group the opposition party into overwhelming majorities in their district, resulting in more extreme members of that party gaining the seat.

Last, but not least, the tactics employed by grassroot organizations to threaten and remove those who don't completely toe the line, which also has the effect of eliminating moderates.

As a result, the article suggested, Washington is increasingly polarized, and the other side is increasingly demonized. And less functional.

The article seemed on the whole accurate and insightful, and led me to believe that as we go forward we are more likely to see more of this type of dysfunctionality rather than less. When the freshmen members of the House think they can control all branches of government by holding firmly to their positions, we are unlikely to see compromise. More likely, the Democrats will learn that to negotiate with the hard-core Republicans, they must also be extremely firm in their resolve -- i.e. stubborn.

I wish the Congress was more partisan. The less they do the better.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:33 AM
I agree with this as well. I can't believe the Senate allows 1 Senator to place an anonymous hold on nominations or bills and they are just stuck at that point.

Blame the forefathers. Today's politicians don't even like getting 3/5 of the Senate to vote (when it originally required unanimous agreement and one Senator could filibuster).

2bikemike
07-27-2011, 10:38 AM
Of course I do, Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama(why? because he still continues to buy into this bi-partisan BS and still lets Obama make them do all the work while he still has no plan of his own and yet he is the Pres:rolleyes:rolleyes: Obama gets his immediate spending but the Repubs have to wait for their cuts over 10yrs?:doh!:

Let the default occur and do not raise the ceiling and let the chips fall where they may I say. And the "Alinskyizing" of the Repubs afterwards will not be as nearly effective as in years past IMO because America see right thru this guy especially after his "malaise speech" the other night.

I have reached the point of saying don't raise the debt ceiling. The cuts they are talking about are pure B.S. What good is cutting 400 Billion a year when you blow through your budget by 800 billion to a trillion or more per year.

In using Obama's quote of "kicking the can down the road" IMHO thats what raising the debt ceiling is doing.

Its way past time to rein in this run away freight train. The problem is only going to get worse and the pain is only going to be greater the farther we kick that can down the road.

Taco John
07-27-2011, 10:40 AM
What is Congress doing lately to try to improve the weak employment situation? Nothing. It's all about the debt ceiling.

This kind of unending, all-consuming focus on the debt ceiling means other important things aren't happening at all.

I would make the argument that the reforms that are being tied to this debt ceiling are the most important thing that can be done today to improve the economics of tomorrow.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:01 AM
The article seemed on the whole accurate and insightful, and led me to believe that as we go forward we are more likely to see more of this type of dysfunctionality rather than less. When the freshmen members of the House think they can control all branches of government by holding firmly to their positions, we are unlikely to see compromise. More likely, the Democrats will learn that to negotiate with the hard-core Republicans, they must also be extremely firm in their resolve -- i.e. stubborn.


Interesting point. Generally over the last 40 years it has been the Republicans giving ground to the Dems en masse (Excluding one term of the Reagan era). From my point of view it has been a 50/50 shot as to whether it had been beneficial to the nation as a whole. The problem isn't compromise, it is Expectation vs. Amenity. When an amenity becomes an expectation, you cannot reduce or remove that amenity without animosity, e.g. unemployment. We have moved from "it would be nice to continue benefits for the unemployed longer than we normally do" to "YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY BENEFITS FROM THE UNEMPLOYED, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVING THEM FOR 18 MONTHS!"

Once that amenity becomes an expectation we are trapped and locked. Honestly, I don't think it is a matter of freshmen being stubborn and Dems needing to learn to be stubborn. I think it is a matter of freshmen with FRESH eyes and looking long term while Dems who are used to caving Republicans don't look 30 years down the line to the effects of the solutions they create.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 11:03 AM
I would make the argument that the reforms that are being tied to this debt ceiling are the most important thing that can be done today to improve the economics of tomorrow.

And I would agree absolutely, 100%.

But something like this pushes everything else aside and it has been quite a long time now that everyone has focused on this. So when I'm asked "what's the harm", that's worth mentioning.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:07 AM
You like how this debt ceiling issue is being handled then?

In some ways yes I do.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 11:09 AM
Of course I do, Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama(why? because he still continues to buy into this bi-partisan BS and still lets Obama make them do all the work while he still has no plan of his own and yet he is the Pres:rolleyes:rolleyes: Obama gets his immediate spending but the Repubs have to wait for their cuts over 10yrs?:doh!:

Let the default occur and do not raise the ceiling and let the chips fall where they may I say. And the "Alinskyizing" of the Repubs afterwards will not be as nearly effective as in years past IMO because America see right thru this guy especially after his "malaise speech" the other night.

Your understanding of the world is fucked.

LOCOChief
07-27-2011, 11:23 AM
Your understanding of the world is ****ed.

When I read your posts in DC I'm left thinking that you have no understanding of the real world probably due to lack of experience / youth.



What specifically in sportshrinks post makes you think that his "understanding of the world is fucked up"?

Fed govt spends $4 billion a day in borrowed money An increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans would'nt begin to touch this.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 11:26 AM
When I read your posts in DC I'm left thinking that you have no understanding of the real world probably due to lack of experience / youth.



What specifically in sportshrinks post makes you think that his "understanding of the world is ****ed up"?

Fed govt spends $4 billion a day in borrowed money An increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans would'nt begin to touch this.

"Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama"

Anyone who comes away looking at this process thinking that is as retarded as a person who thought there was going to be a Dewey defeats Truman upset the week leading up to the last election.

Of course this is the same guy.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Poor Loco...defending Glenn Beck and sportsshrink. That would be absolutely exhausting.

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 11:35 AM
You like how this debt ceiling issue is being handled then?What was the debt ceiling when Nancy got the gavel?

LOCOChief
07-27-2011, 11:55 AM
Poor Loco...defending Glenn Beck and sportsshrink. That would be absolutely exhausting.

I'm defending neither. I've asked you to explain yourself regarding your comments about sprotshrink which you've done. I don't have to defend anything or anyone. I do think you lack experience and you really don't know what you don't know.

orange
07-27-2011, 12:31 PM
What was the debt ceiling when Nancy got the gavel?

Was that before the fifth, sixth, or seventh time Bush raised it?

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 12:32 PM
What was the debt ceiling when Nancy got the gavel?

Dunno. What was it when Dennis Hastert got the gavel?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 12:35 PM
Was that before the fifth, sixth, or seventh time Bush raised it?

So it isn't an evil thing to review and raise it annually as we are being told by the Dems today? I wonder why they want to delay another review until after the next election... hmmmm.

orange
07-27-2011, 12:40 PM
Of course I do, Obama wants a default and Boehner continues to keep throwing a life line to Obama(why? because he still continues to buy into this bi-partisan BS and still lets Obama make them do all the work while he still has no plan of his own and yet he is the Pres:rolleyes:rolleyes: Obama gets his immediate spending but the Repubs have to wait for their cuts over 10yrs?:doh!:

Let the default occur and do not raise the ceiling and let the chips fall where they may I say. And the "Alinskyizing" of the Repubs afterwards will not be as nearly effective as in years past IMO because America see right thru this guy especially after his "malaise speech" the other night.

Speaking of WSJ Articles, the WSJ has a message just for you:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits* could return to Middle Earth* having defeated Mordor*.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903591104576470061986837494.html


* p.s. to other CPers (you know who you are) - Cultural Literacy is your friend.

blaise
07-27-2011, 12:42 PM
Great, orange is here.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 12:46 PM
Great, orange is here.

Thread killing loony isn't he? As obama sinks further and further in the hole Orange turns more and more limp-wrist aggressive.

(Graphs, pictures and huffpo responses to follow.)

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Dunno. What was it when Dennis Hastert got the gavel?You will get no argument from me that Bush was a big spending liberal.

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 01:58 PM
Was that before the fifth, sixth, or seventh time Bush raised it?Bush was a big spending liberal,but, with that said, we need a whole new definition for your hero.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 02:15 PM
Again with the "oh yeah well look at President Bush" from the obama defenders. Sad frigging state of affairs.

Easy 6
07-27-2011, 02:17 PM
I think message boards, twitter, election campaigns, and TV are helping to push things this way. Politics is like sports now. People get as much joy from rubbing their opposition's failure in their noses as they do their own party's successes. Every time something happens people run to message boards and twitter to post hyperbolic trash talk. So, the other side gets defensive and does the same thing. Then it goes around and around.
You've got people on both sides making stupid statements, veiled threats of violence, accusations of racism, homophobia, Marxism, vast conspiracies, etc. Half the time it doesn't even matter if the person saying it believes the charges to be true or not. They'd rather attempt to discredit the other side than to have a respectful debate. I'm just as guilty as anyone, I guess.
Those are the voices heard by the politicians. They're the people writing letters, protesting, emailing, and calling. So, those are the people that they respond to a lot of the time.

Great, great post.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 02:56 PM
You will get no argument from me that Bush was a big spending liberal.

I think all parties share blame in this financial mess, and frankly, I don't care if it's 50/50 or 60/40 or what. It sure as hell ain't 90/10, but it's really a waste of time to debate it.

I'm much more interested in a fix...

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 02:57 PM
Again with the "oh yeah well look at President Bush" from the obama defenders. Sad frigging state of affairs.

For so long as the right tries to pretend that this is 100% Obama's fault, the left will point out it's not. So sorry.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 02:59 PM
Again with the "oh yeah well look at President Bush" from the obama defenders. Sad frigging state of affairs.
Blah
Yeah because the House Dems never did any of that sort of thing to Bush. :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:03 PM
For so long as the right tries to pretend that this is 100% Obama's fault, the left will point out it's not. So sorry.

The inexperience shows badly for Mr. Obama. I honestly think a great candidate from the right (the operative word being "Great) will be able to use this to his advantage and make him look like a petulant, childish, and unprepared rookie Senator who was handed the keys to the family car way too early.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 03:03 PM
For so long as the right tries to pretend that this is 100% Obama's fault, the left will point out it's not. So sorry.

Does it not bother you at all that obama has been so ineffective that the best that can be said about his presidency is that some of it is President Bush's fault?
It does me.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:04 PM
The inexperience shows badly for Mr. Obama. I honestly think a great candidate from the right (the operative word being "Great) will be able to use this to his advantage and make him look like a petulant, childish, and unprepared rookie Senator who was handed the keys to the family car way too early.

Well all you have is spineless candidates and a fractured voting base. Enjoy.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:04 PM
Does it not bother you at all that obama has been so ineffective that the best that can be said about his presidency is that some of it is President Bush's fault?
It does me.

Pretty much what I said as well... but I beat you to the punch, HA!

vailpass
07-27-2011, 03:14 PM
Well all you have is spineless candidates and a fractured voting base. Enjoy.

Petulant today are we?

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:16 PM
Petulant today are we?

Not at all just calling out the obvious.

The GOP is fractured and made up of a bunch of people that are itching to cut off their noses to spite their face.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 03:17 PM
Not at all just calling out the obvious.

The GOP is fractured and made up of a bunch of people that are itching to cut off their noses to spite their face.

Thank God the Dems are different.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:19 PM
Thank God the Dems are different.

The dynamic on the democratic side is completely different. It is no big deal...you will see when the Tea Party tries to punish all the RINO's and the moderates are turned off by all the bending backwards the GOP is attempting to please the fringe.

You get enough of a feel for the climate when you ask straight up...who is going to beat Obama in '12. The mental gymnastics it takes some to throw out an answer is hilarity.

Does not compute.

JohnnyV13
07-27-2011, 03:20 PM
I heard that increasing SS age to 70 was on the table. I would support that.



I would have no problem with this, BUT we need some exceptions for physical laborers.

Its one thing to increase retirement age if you write briefs for a living, another thing entirely if you build houses.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:22 PM
Well all you have is spineless candidates and a fractured voting base. Enjoy.

It isn't a matter of one team beating another, Zach. It's a matter of exposure of a failed attempt to capture Camelot II, instead we have ended up with Jimmy Carter II. If you are looking at this like "My team won 3 years ago and dominate today", congratulations to your team. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver what you promised. I can think of 6 campaign promises right off the top of my head that have not been met, the worst being about that stupid wasteful stimulus bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. Do you believe ANY campaign manager or candidate won't mention the same? They would be stupid not to do so.

As I said, ANY candidate from the right who has the right demeanor or the right Campaign Manager will stomp the current POTUS in an open format. He has no excuse except MAYBE "It was worse than we thought when we took over". And the second he says that he opens himself to the concept that obviously he was unqualified since he underestimated the problem. The economy is Barack Obama's Weapons of Mass Destruction - and he failed at it much worse than George W Bush failed at his.

Keep that team mentality going, I hope that many running the POTUS' campaign do the same thing you are doing. It will make America's decision much easier in about 2 years. Meanwhile, your best hope isn't for improvement (which is sad), it is that there is a third party due to all this fracturing.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 03:23 PM
The dynamic on the democratic side is completely different. It is no big deal...you will see when the Tea Party tries to punish all the RINO's and the moderates are turned off by all the bending backwards the GOP is attempting to please the fringe.

You get enough of a feel for the climate when you ask straight up...who is going to beat Obama in '12. The mental gymnastics it takes some to throw out an answer is hilarity.

Does not compute.

My point was that if the end result of the Dems process is obama then they certainly aren't any better equipped than the Rs.

And don't kid yourself, there is a blurring of R & D today. Neither party is what they were, what they are supposed to stand for and therein lies the problem. If we don't discover a way to work together and fast we are in trouble.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:24 PM
As I said, ANY candidate from the right who has the right demeanor or the right Campaign Manager will stomp the current POTUS in an open format.

Name names. I am listening.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:28 PM
Name names. I am listening.

Oh, Zac. Would you have named Barack Obama 6 years ago? I am betting not.

You are worried about paring down. The party will coalesce when the Primary is over. Besides, your main aim should be gathering independent votes, which have already swung way out the Liberal hands in the last election. What positive things have they done to get that swing back? Nothing at all that I can see.

It doesn't have to be the best candidate, it has to be a Candidate with a strong voice and a great Campaign Manager, of which there are several right now.

Donger
07-27-2011, 03:30 PM
Name names. I am listening.

I think Perry or Romney would beat Obama, maybe Pawlenty.

What exactly is Obama going to run on? He can't run on "Bush sucks" or "Hope and Change" this time.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:32 PM
Keep that team mentality going, I hope that many running the POTUS' campaign do the same thing you are doing.

You have always thought you were above it for reasons unbeknownst to anyone. Keep that team mentality going Zach!

It is a hat trick! You struck out!

So what's it like to be beaten like an ugly red-headed step child by a bunch of unclever people? POTUS - strike one, Senate - strike two, House - strike three, you're out.

Doesn't say much for your party does it?

BTW - You were right - a hat trick indeed.

House
Senate and
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


Nice call

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 03:34 PM
Oh, Zac. Would you have named Barack Obama 6 years ago? I am betting not.

You are worried about paring down. The party will coalesce when the Primary is over. Besides, your main aim should be gathering independent votes, which have already swung way out the Liberal hands in the last election. What positive things have they done to get that swing back? Nothing at all that I can see.

It doesn't have to be the best candidate, it has to be a Candidate with a strong voice and a great Campaign Manager, of which there are several right now.
Obama was absolutely an ascending figure at this point of the game one which had my attention.

Aside from that you have a fringe element of your party that simply doesn't give a shit. They are not interested in compromise.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:35 PM
You have always thought you were above it for reasons unbeknownst to anyone. Keep that team mentality going Zach!

It is a hat trick! You struck out!

I am not sure what you are referring to Zac. And I don't know what the years old posts are about either.

Again, you are stuck in the mentality that it is your team against ours. If that is the case, as I stated, congratulations, you win. However, your team is doing a horrible job of doing what it promised to do. How does that make you feel? Are you proud of your win?

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:36 PM
It isn't a matter of one team beating another, Zach. It's a matter of exposure of a failed attempt to capture Camelot II, instead we have ended up with Jimmy Carter II. If you are looking at this like "My team won 3 years ago and dominate today", congratulations to your team. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver what you promised. I can think of 6 campaign promises right off the top of my head that have not been met, the worst being about that stupid wasteful stimulus bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. Do you believe ANY campaign manager or candidate won't mention the same? They would be stupid not to do so.

As I said, ANY candidate from the right who has the right demeanor or the right Campaign Manager will stomp the current POTUS in an open format. He has no excuse except MAYBE "It was worse than we thought when we took over". And the second he says that he opens himself to the concept that obviously he was unqualified since he underestimated the problem. The economy is Barack Obama's Weapons of Mass Destruction - and he failed at it much worse than George W Bush failed at his.

Keep that team mentality going, I hope that many running the POTUS' campaign do the same thing you are doing. It will make America's decision much easier in about 2 years. Meanwhile, your best hope isn't for improvement (which is sad), it is that there is a third party due to all this fracturing.

Has there been a POTUS in our lifetime that has kept every promise they made on the campaign trail? Certaintly not. They all over-promise and under deliver.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:40 PM
Has there been a POTUS in our lifetime that has kept every promise they made on the campaign trail? Certaintly not. They all over-promise and under deliver.

I would say there probably has been one in the last 150 years or more (since before Lincoln). However, this aren't campaign scratches, they are GOUGES.

Honestly answer me this, if you were a campaign manager could you present a decent attack with a chance of winning against the current POTUS with a marginal candidate?

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:41 PM
I think Perry or Romney would beat Obama, maybe Pawlenty.

What exactly is Obama going to run on? He can't run on "Bush sucks" or "Hope and Change" this time.

I am not one to make predictions 15 months out but with the exception of Romney I really don't see anyone that can beat Obama.

Donger
07-27-2011, 03:42 PM
I am not one to make predictions 15 months out but with the exception of Romney I really don't see anyone that can beat him Obama.

Why not? Again, what is Obama going to run on?

blaise
07-27-2011, 03:42 PM
If Obama does lose it will be one of the biggest failures of a Presidency in history. To go in and replace a guy Democrats say was one of the most unpopular Presidents ever, and not get two terms out of it will be a disaster.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:42 PM
I am not one to make predictions 15 months out but with the exception of Romney I really don't see anyone that can beat him Obama.

The same was said of President Obama over Hillary at this stage.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:43 PM
If Obama does lose it will be one of the biggest failures of a Presidency in history. To go in and replace a guy Democrats say was one of the most unpopular Presidents ever, and not get two terms out of it will be a disaster.
Hello Jimmy Carter II

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:43 PM
I would say there probably has been one in the last 150 years or more (since before Lincoln). However, this aren't campaign scratches, they are GOUGES.

Honestly answer me this, if you were a campaign manager could you present a decent attack with a chance of winning against the current POTUS with a marginal candidate?

Of course. Jobs and the economy is the issue to attack him on. As it stands right now foreign policy is off the table.

blaise
07-27-2011, 03:44 PM
Why not? Again, what is Obama going to run on?

"People, there are still private jets. Imagine, you're struggling to pay for your Netflix, and dinner at Applebees, and we have fat cats flying in private jets. I ask you: is this fair? I say, no."

blaise
07-27-2011, 03:45 PM
Didn't Direckshun say he'd stop posting here if Obama lost reelection?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 03:52 PM
Of course. Jobs and the economy is the issue to attack him on. As it stands right now foreign policy is off the table.

I disagree. 5 Stars for the kill on bin Laden, without a doubt.

However, his hemming and hawwing over Afghanistan deciding whether or not to send in more troops for months while record number of our soldiers died is at least 3 stars against.

If I were a campaign manager it would be easy. Fade in to 3 different televised statements in which Senator Barack Obama states the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is to increase the number of troops. Transition over to a graph showing the increased number of military troops killed and maimed during his February through August slow decision to increase troops (Major note superimposed showing this was a record number of American deaths in Afghanistan). Transition over to the Republican Candidate saying the following "I am proud that President Obama followed through with the plan of action set in place prior to his term and finally removed the threat of Usama bin Laden. However, his slow decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as his breach of the War Powers Resolution in Libya shows that he just doesn't get it when it comes to foreign policy." Final Fade in/out to President Obama Just Doesn't Get it. Vote for ____________ a responsible change.

And that is just off the top of my head.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:52 PM
Why not? Again, what is Obama going to run on?

It is hard to say what the economic situation is going to be like in a year. If it has improved he could run on that if not he is going to struggle.

The problem as I see it especially when it comes to Presidential campaigns is how well the candidate is liked. Americans like him he is around 65%-70% in likebility so the other candidate better not be someone that is not likeable sort of like Romney.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:54 PM
The same was said of President Obama over Hillary at this stage.

Not really. Obama announced in February 07 and out raised Hillary in his first 3 months. None of the Republicans so far and it is now August have come close to what he did when he announced.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:56 PM
I disagree. 5 Stars for the kill on bin Laden, without a doubt.

However, his hemming and hawwing over Afghanistan deciding whether or not to send in more troops for months while record number of our soldiers died is at least 3 stars against.

If I were a campaign manager it would be easy. Fade in to 3 different televised statements in which Senator Barack Obama states the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is to increase the number of troops. Transition over to a graph showing the increased number of military troops killed and maimed during his February through August slow decision to increase troops (Major note superimposed showing this was a record number of American deaths in Afghanistan). Transition over to the Republican Candidate saying the following "I am proud that President Obama followed through with the plan of action set in place prior to his term and finally removed the threat of Usama bin Laden. However, his slow decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as his breach of the War Powers Resolution in Libya shows that he just doesn't get it when it comes to foreign policy." Final Fade in/out to President Obama Just Doesn't Get it. Vote for ____________ a responsible change.

And that is just off the top of my head.

People in this country are tired of the wars and want our troops to come home. He is bringing the troops home in Iraq and next year troops will come from Aghanistan. Unless some FP disaster happens I don't see that as valuable line of attack. Especially considering all these drone attacks they are using that are just decimating AQ.

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 04:00 PM
Not really. Obama announced in February 07 and out raised Hillary in his first 3 months. None of the Republicans so far and it is now August have come close to what he did when he announced.

They won't have to , Obama needs all the cash he can muster to ward off his poor performance as POTUS.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 04:02 PM
If Obama loses it will be primarily because of the economy, because it has always been, and will always be, about the economy stupid.

And the economy is less within the control of the POTUS than most think/assume.

I indicated before the 2008 election that the next POTUS would have it rough, no matter which party he came from. It was clear what direction the economy was heading, and that it wouldn't be resolved quickly. Instead, it has proven unusually stubborn and resistant the usual remedies. As a result, unemployment is quite high, relatively speaking, and the deficit has ballooned as a result of stimulus spending, inherited wars and greatly reduced tax receipts due to reduced economic activity.

None of this was unforeseeable three years ago. But the buck, as always, stops with the POTUS, and if the American voters blame him for failing to get things moving in the right direction, so be it. Whoever wins in 2012 ought to do reasonably well, with an economy that (please let it be so) starts heading in the right direction.

Obviously, if a Republican wins that election, then they will take all the credit in the world for fixing the problem, even if they haven't done that much. If Obama wins, then he will. Either way, the reality is that we need time to overcome some of these structural issues that are dragging the economy down.

The difficult question is how to balance the drag that IS government borrowing and a massive debt/deficit, and the short-term pain that the economy faces from reduced spending and/or tax hikes.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 04:04 PM
I disagree. 5 Stars for the kill on bin Laden, without a doubt.

However, his hemming and hawwing over Afghanistan deciding whether or not to send in more troops for months while record number of our soldiers died is at least 3 stars against.

If I were a campaign manager it would be easy. Fade in to 3 different televised statements in which Senator Barack Obama states the only way to win the war in Afghanistan is to increase the number of troops. Transition over to a graph showing the increased number of military troops killed and maimed during his February through August slow decision to increase troops (Major note superimposed showing this was a record number of American deaths in Afghanistan). Transition over to the Republican Candidate saying the following "I am proud that President Obama followed through with the plan of action set in place prior to his term and finally removed the threat of Usama bin Laden. However, his slow decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as his breach of the War Powers Resolution in Libya shows that he just doesn't get it when it comes to foreign policy." Final Fade in/out to President Obama Just Doesn't Get it. Vote for ____________ a responsible change.

And that is just off the top of my head.

I think Obama has plenty of ammo to use against the Republicans on Iraq in exchange. Not sure I see this as a winner.

Nor, with American involvement in foreign wars winding down by 2012, is this likely to be a key issue resonating with voters. I think there might be others. Let me think....


UNEMPLOYMENT!!!

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 04:06 PM
Obama was absolutely an ascending figure at this point of the game one which had my attention.

Aside from that you have a fringe element of your party that simply doesn't give a shit. They are not interested in compromise.

Ascending ? Yeah, he had a lot of young kids drinking the Kool Aid.

So much had they of known he wanted to spend their future as much as he has, would they all of voted for him?

Partisan politics ? You mean, I'll veto it before it even passes the House, that sends a clear message to the people he puts party above the people. Why can't he let the people decide ?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 04:08 PM
People in this country are tired of the wars and want our troops to come home. He is bringing the troops home in Iraq and next year troops will come from Aghanistan. Unless some FP disaster happens I don't see that as valuable line of attack. Especially considering all these drone attacks they are using that are just decimating AQ.

Again, very easy to use against him. Just mention Vietnam, failed exercises sanctioned by the POTUS and a couple of clips showing him and Biden saying Afghanistan is their war.

Is foreign policy the kicker or hot spot? Nope, but is does help highlight his inexperience and failure to catch on quickly.

Mainly though w are both in agreement he can be beaten with his current status. Even with the press' constant attacks on the intelligence of his potential opponents.

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 04:10 PM
If Obama loses it will be primarily because of the economy, because it has always been, and will always be, about the economy stupid.

And the economy is less within the control of the POTUS than most think/assume.

I indicated before the 2008 election that the next POTUS would have it rough, no matter which party he came from. It was clear what direction the economy was heading, and that it wouldn't be resolved quickly. Instead, it has proven unusually stubborn and resistant the usual remedies. As a result, unemployment is quite high, relatively speaking, and the deficit has ballooned as a result of stimulus spending, inherited wars and greatly reduced tax receipts due to reduced economic activity.

None of this was unforeseeable three years ago. But the buck, as always, stops with the POTUS, and if the American voters blame him for failing to get things moving in the right direction, so be it. Whoever wins in 2012 ought to do reasonably well, with an economy that (please let it be so) starts heading in the right direction.

Obviously, if a Republican wins that election, then they will take all the credit in the world for fixing the problem, even if they haven't done that much. If Obama wins, then he will. Either way, the reality is that we need time to overcome some of these structural issues that are dragging the economy down.

The difficult question is how to balance the drag that IS government borrowing and a massive debt/deficit, and the short-term pain that the economy faces from reduced spending and/or tax hikes.


I will not disagree with most of this, anybody would have had a hard time following W. But Obama stepped on his foot right away and while the Democrats owned the house & senate, forced fed a HC bill down peoples throats and not putting the economy first. His lost 2 years is going to derail him and his democratic senate come 2012.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 04:58 PM
Again, very easy to use against him. Just mention Vietnam, failed exercises sanctioned by the POTUS and a couple of clips showing him and Biden saying Afghanistan is their war.

Is foreign policy the kicker or hot spot? Nope, but is does help highlight his inexperience and failure to catch on quickly.

Mainly though w are both in agreement he can be beaten with his current status. Even with the press' constant attacks on the intelligence of his potential opponents.

It works both ways. None of the top R candidates have ANY FP experience. All he has to do is run this ad all day long:


http://lolpics.se/pics/19416.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg



He can be beaten I just don't think he will. Contrary to what Sportsshrink thinks you just can't throw up a warm body and expect to win

vailpass
07-27-2011, 05:37 PM
It is hard to say what the economic situation is going to be like in a year. If it has improved he could run on that if not he is going to struggle.

The problem as I see it especially when it comes to Presidential campaigns is how well the candidate is liked. Americans like him he is around 65%-70% in likebility so the other candidate better not be someone that is not likeable sort of like Romney.

WTF?

alnorth
07-27-2011, 10:45 PM
the short-term pain that the economy faces from reduced spending and/or tax hikes.

Honestly, I'm calling BS on this line of thinking. All of it, the entire Republican trickle-down theory of economics. We have basically the lowest tax burden in modern American history, yet the money did NOT roll in and we lost a lot of jobs in spite of the Bush tax cuts. The economy is a lot more complex than 3 or 4% on the top marginal rate. With his wars and his tax cuts, Bush blew a gigantic hole in our budget for little to no perceived gain, and no one can convince me that this economy would somehow be worse if the Clinton rates were never adjusted.

I've never been a tax zealot. My main thing is worrying about the debt and spending because of the possibility of being forced into massive cuts or massive tax hikes. Tax increases just have to be part of the answer, and yes, this is the right time because I don't buy the idea that low taxes are helping us one whit right now. Our tax rates are too damned low, especially on the upper class. Not to say that supply-side economics is crap, but we've gone well past the point where tax cuts help. We're now mostly losing revenue for no good reason.

This chart may be useful:

http://i.imgur.com/NJYUQ.jpg

FD
07-27-2011, 11:35 PM
Honestly, I'm calling BS on this line of thinking. All of it, the entire Republican trickle-down theory of economics. We have basically the lowest tax burden in modern American history, yet the money did NOT roll in and we lost a lot of jobs in spite of the Bush tax cuts. The economy is a lot more complex than 3 or 4% on the top marginal rate. With his wars and his tax cuts, Bush blew a gigantic hole in our budget for little to no perceived gain, and no one can convince me that this economy would somehow be worse if the Clinton rates were never adjusted.

I've never been a tax zealot. My main thing is worrying about the debt and spending because of the possibility of being forced into massive cuts or massive tax hikes. Tax increases just have to be part of the answer, and yes, this is the right time because I don't buy the idea that low taxes are helping us one whit right now. Our tax rates are too damned low, especially on the upper class. Not to say that supply-side economics is crap, but we've gone well past the point where tax cuts help. We're now mostly losing revenue for no good reason.

This chart may be useful:

http://i.imgur.com/NJYUQ.jpg

Even if you don't buy that higher tax rates reduce work/investment incentives, which they certainly do, you have to admit that increasing taxes right now would reduce consumers' and companies' disposable income. Say we were to change policies to bring in $100 billion more revenues next year, that's roughly in line with Obama's requested $1 trillion increase in taxes over the next 10 years.

That's $100 billion, almost 1% of GDP, that is just taken out of the economy. You really think that's not going to hurt the recovery? Historically, a rise or fall of GDP by 1% corresponds to a half percent rise or fall in the unemployment rate. That's a pretty significant effect.

edit: that is a great chart, though.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 11:58 PM
If Obama loses it will be primarily because of the economy, because it has always been, and will always be, about the economy stupid.

And the economy is less within the control of the POTUS than most think/assume.

I indicated before the 2008 election that the next POTUS would have it rough, no matter which party he came from. It was clear what direction the economy was heading, and that it wouldn't be resolved quickly. Instead, it has proven unusually stubborn and resistant the usual remedies. As a result, unemployment is quite high, relatively speaking, and the deficit has ballooned as a result of stimulus spending, inherited wars and greatly reduced tax receipts due to reduced economic activity.

None of this was unforeseeable three years ago. But the buck, as always, stops with the POTUS, and if the American voters blame him for failing to get things moving in the right direction, so be it. Whoever wins in 2012 ought to do reasonably well, with an economy that (please let it be so) starts heading in the right direction.

Obviously, if a Republican wins that election, then they will take all the credit in the world for fixing the problem, even if they haven't done that much. If Obama wins, then he will. Either way, the reality is that we need time to overcome some of these structural issues that are dragging the economy down.

The difficult question is how to balance the drag that IS government borrowing and a massive debt/deficit, and the short-term pain that the economy faces from reduced spending and/or tax hikes.

The only caveat to your otherwise well thought-out POV is that it isn't just a conservative myth that Obama and his policies/regs scare the hell out of business and are likely compounding an otherwise dour economic picture. When the far-left wing is in check there will be a stronger eagerness to risk capital -- at least that's what I think will end up happening.