I'm pretty sure this is actually the most important election in my lifetime.

[Direckshun]

Forum's pretty slow today. Allow me to speed things up with a super-wide view of the current political landscape.

You can thank me later.

I never like the idea of saying "this is the most important election of my lifetime" because it feels to hyperbolic. The only time I actually felt that way was during 2004 in the middle of the Bush presidency, but the Bush presidency gave way to the Obama administration, which is starting to unwind a bunch of the things I considered the Bush administration to have screwed up (the wars, the recession, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare's financial unsustainability). So it's pretty clear I overreacted in 2004. If only I had been a ChiefsPlanet poster then so you all could mock me for it.

All the other elections just seemed to be very important, because you can do a lot of things in 4 years when you've got the White House on your side.

The reason I think this election is so important, however, is because I don't think this election is about the next four years. I think the next decade of policy rests on this election's shoulders.

Obama was and is a game changer, politically. He represents the nation's fresh breath of anti-neoconservativism that the nation felt it needed in 2008 after Bush. Obama is unabashedly liberal, but incredibly charismatic and likeable (hardcore conservatives don't feel this way, but I assure you the polling has always suggested that everybody else does). The moment we elected him to was huge, as well, putting him right behind the 8 ball with the wars and the economy, a situation which clearly set him up for an extremely difficult four years.

If he is able to win reelection, it's possible that this country could face a true electoral realignment of Reagan proportions (or maybe even greater) within the next decade, the realignment that Rove so desperately wanted for Bush in 2004 but failed to achieve. I'm talking about a realignment that fundamentally changes the way the vast majority of the population views these two political parties.

I've written about this a lot on this forum, but I predict that no matter who wins the election in 2012, unemployment will drop like a rock in 2014 as the job openings/job applicant mismatches start to vanish and the pool of applicants adapt to all the job openings. Again, this is despite Obama or Romney being President.

But assume it is Obama. Then you're talking about, at the conclusion of 2016, a presidency that would have presided over a gradual but successful recovery from the worst recession in our and our parents' lifetimes, withdrawals from both wars in the Middle East, the killing of OBL, the passing and now implementation of full healthcare reform, and at least three SCOTUS judges... Even without Republican cooperation in Obama's second term, all these things would happen, with the only significant question mark being the unemployment situation, which I do believe will recover like gangbusters in a couple years.

If all these things happen, the contrast of the past two decades will be unbelievably stark in 2016: you can do it the Democratic way, like the charistmatic and successful Obama and Clinton admistrations did, and preside over successful economies and sane foreign policy, or you can do it the Republican way, like... George W. Bush.

Combine that with the demographic changes this country will be going over the next decade (Texas could genuinely become a swing state by 2020, for starters), and I believe we could be facing a realignment.

I think this would be especially likely if Hillary were to run in 2016. Barring a complete shitfit, she couldn't lose, running on the records of Obama and Clinton, who would both extensively campaign for her, giving her a 3-to-1 advantage over whomever the Republicans trot out. Thinking of what she could accomplish in the wakes of what these two Presidents have laid for her in terms of policy foundations, is mind boggling.

The Republican Party, in the face of this, would absolutely have to evolve from their current exclusivity, their current regressive tax policies, and embrace something more inclusive, more moderate, and less reactionary. More conservative, less reactionary regressive. And then you'd finally have the post-Boomer conversation about the true value of liberalism and conservativism that this nation has lost since the Vietnam war embedded the Boomer population in a decades-long culture war. This development would change the entire dynamic, and provide those weird things like "hope" and "change" that we've ridiculed for five years.

On the other hand, what if the Republicans win? Romney/Ryan '12.

Most of Obama's accomplishments would obviously be trashed. Healthcare reform would either be outright repealed, or simply not enforced and de-fanged until it could no longer accomplish much of anything. The Democratic goal of bringing back the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy would be a thing of the past; in fact, Romney and Ryan would move the offensive forward, attempting to bring their tax rates down even lower. The landmark regulations for the financial industry passed under Obama would almost certainly be neutered to the point of irrelevancy, in particular Consumer Protection.

But even more than his policies, the idea of what Obama represented would be defeated. The idea of providing more for the less fortunate, for collectivism and the social safety net, would suffer irreperable harm as Romney and Ryan get to benefit from an employment boom in 2014, something they will understandably take credit for and the public will understandably reward them for, embedding in the public psyche the idea that regressive policies somehow accounted for all of this, and cementing trickle-down economics as vindicated once and for all.

And while Ryan seems very green now, assuming Romney wins reelection, Ryan would be a powerful candidate under this philosophy in 2020 running against whomever the Democrats could put up. By then, barring any huge screwups or scandals by the Romney administration, the conversation between conservativism and liberalism would almost certainly vanish, and instead be between conservativism and libertarian regressivism.

You're talking about two radically different futures for the next decade-plus, one with generational realignment possibilities in my opinion.

All of it sparked from one election.

That's why I think this could be the most important election in our lifetimes.

Thoughts?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

Fannie and Freddie were late to the subprime game. They got into the game because they were losing market share, not because of a government mandate.

Fannie and Freddie are peanuts in the grand scheme of the financial crisis.

I won't rehash this argument with you.. but your facts are simply wrong or at the least a big fat INCOMPLETE. I'll agree that Greenspan's monetary policy and a myriad of other factors including the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act played a part as well... but you're blind defense of Fannie and Freddie is based on.. well, nothing. You don't know the Fannie or Freddie figures because they consistently distorted them... which is why they are currently being sued by the SEC.

[AustinChief]

BTW if anyone wants to blame Bush for this, you may as well blame Obama. Obama sued for looser restriction on sub-prime loans back in 1994.

At least Bush warned congress multiple times about what could happen.. .even if he didn't prioritize it high enough to push harder and get something done.

Blaming Bush, or Clinton or Obama is just dumb.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Did you bother reading beyond the headline? the only substantial bits are about the fact that Bush failed to stop an out of control process that started before he took office. The author also claims that Bush encouraged it... yet points out that he in fact wanted to reign it in but was blocked by Congress. As has already been stated. The blame on Bush for not doing more to stop it is a valid one. But a weak ass argument when it is clear where it all started.

You(not you in particular, but anyone) are lying to yourself if you can't see that this has little to nothing to do with Bush. To be fair, it has little to with Clinton even though most of it went through during his time in office. The bipartisan blame is at the doorsteps of Barney Frank and Phil Gramm. Both succeeded in setting the stage for this back in the 90s. Of course, there are many more factors to blame as well, some American, many global.. but if we are pointing fingers at individuals.. those two get first point.

Of course and I am not saying it was all his fault, it certainly wasn't. Clinton shares blame for repealing Glass-Stegall.

The majority of the blame goes to greedy Wall Street firms and banks.

I will add though that your statement about Bush failing to stop an out of control process is a little off. He encouraged it by pushing for no-down payment mortgages, cutting regulations and putting people in charge of the SEC that looked the other way.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Of course and I am not saying it was all his fault, it certainly wasn't. Clinton shares blame for repealing Glass-Stegall.

The majority of the blame goes to greedy Wall Street firms and banks.

I will add though that your statement about Bush failing to stop an out of control process is a little off. He encouraged it by pushing for no-down payment mortgages, cutting regulations and putting people in charge of the SEC that looked the other way.

That's true but that was a culture that had also been pushed under Clinton.

I also think you are underselling the role of Fannie and Freddie they are right there with empowering the Wall Street greed. With Wall Street we EXPECT irresponsible greed, we should expect more from GSEs.

[PornChief]

[RubberSponge]

The most important election is always the next election.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by KC native

the financial crisis was caused primarily by Greenspan's easy money policy and deregulation of the financial sector.

Show us some tangible evidence of this. What regulations were deregulated?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I won't rehash this argument with you.. but your facts are simply wrong or at the least a big fat INCOMPLETE. I'll agree that Greenspan's monetary policy and a myriad of other factors including the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act played a part as well... but you're blind defense of Fannie and Freddie is based on.. well, nothing. You don't know the Fannie or Freddie figures because they consistently distorted them... which is why they are currently being sued by the SEC.

Please point out where I've said anything incorrect or incomplete when it comes to Fannie and Freddie. You are wrong on this.

Greenspan's ultra low rates for an unreasonable time simply due to asset prices falling (the tech bubble) is by far the biggest driver in the financial crisis.

Next was the Gramm Leach Bliley Act. Not only did it repeal Glass Steagall and clear the way for megamergers, but it also exempted derivatives from oversight. The CDS and CDOs were exclusively carved out to be separate and exempt. The CDS and CDOs were written under faulty models so when those actually came do, companies like AIG went bankrupt. They viewed the CDS money as basically free money because they couldn't fathom that they would have to pay out.

Those are your two prime drivers. Fannie and Freddie didn't even get into buying and guaranteeing subprime stuff until 2006. The only reason they moved into that area is because of their profit motive. They were losing market share so in a short sighted "Let's pump up the bottom line" decision they got into subprime.

Fannie and Freddie's accounting scandals have nothing to do with the financial crisis. This is a red herring.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

That's true but that was a culture that had also been pushed under Clinton.

I also think you are underselling the role of Fannie and Freddie they are right there with empowering the Wall Street greed. With Wall Street we EXPECT irresponsible greed, we should expect more from GSEs.

Why? Why should the GSEs, which are profit seeking corporations, be held to a different standard?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

Show us some tangible evidence of this. What regulations were deregulated?

Adults are talking dipshit. Kill yourself already.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by KC Rectum

Adults are talking dipshit. Kill yourself already.

That's what I thought, you are a lying scumbag.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

That's what I thought, you are a lying scumbag.

Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you is a scumbag?

You act like a five year old child.

And you still haven't revealed your career or experience.

Scared? Or just a pussy? I'm betting on the latter.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you is a scumbag?

You act like a five year old child.

And you still haven't revealed your career or experience.

Scared? Or just a pussy? I'm betting on the latter.

shitsprayer not scared, him plenty brave...

him spray shit all over...

him no need no stinkin career, him shitsprayer...

shit sprayer good shitsprayer, him spray warm greasy shit all over...

like heap big asshole fountain...

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you is a scumbag?

He's a scumbag because he lies and disrespects everybody he has a conversation or argument with.

He said that "deregulation caused the financial meltdown in 2008" and I asked his to simply name one regulation that was "deregulated" and he couldn't.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by DaneMcClown

Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you is a scumbag?

You act like a five year old child.

And you still haven't revealed your career or experience.

Scared? Or just a pussy? I'm betting on the latter.

Why are you so obsessed with getting personal information from people? You want to report me to the Stasi? My local block leader?

I'll tell you what Dane, I'll meet anybody on this board face to face any time.

I don't say nothing here I wouldn't say to your face.

As for putting personal information out there, I already got burned once by one of you spineless moonbats, which is all you want to do because like KC Rectum, you're a ****ing scumbag, too.

Does that answer your question? Good. Now go **** yourself.