# Republicans to take over the senate...



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 4, 2014)

Get the lube ready 'Murica, it's all downhill from here 

EDIT. In case the joke is missed. We set our clocks back an hour this weekend, but Republicans just announced they want to go back 200 years


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

The map looks much worse for the Republicans in 2016, but I'm really concerned about damage levels in the mean time.

Plus how much more we may be ....ed in 100 years as we've likely just lost two critical years of time to act on climate change.


----------



## Watty (Nov 5, 2014)

^ What he said.

The one good thing is, just as it took Obama several years to right the shit-storm Bush piloted us into, it will take longer than the Republicans have at the helm to steer us all that far off course.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

Just another 2 years of not a lot getting done. The republican way, maintain the status quo.

I'm more saddened by the low voter turnout. Not particularly surprised, but it disappoints me every election. If everyone who had an opinion voted the extremists wouldn't be in office as the polls would shift to the center where they should be. People with shady pasts wouldn't slip through the cracks and be able to make nation altering decisions. Politicians might actually start giving a damn about what we think of them. There was about 8 positions I voted on that were completely uncontested. It's monumentally frustrating and I don't even vote straight ticket.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Also this was my feeling most of the night:







ed: also

&#8220;The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn&#8217;t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.&#8221;


----------



## goherpsNderp (Nov 5, 2014)

this country is no longer the land of opportunity, but the land of blowing opportunities.

you give the people a chance to remove the corporate shackles and instead we say "ooooo but check out my new Katy Perry shackles that connect to my iphone!"


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 5, 2014)

Glad to see some positive change .
It's not a victory though, only an opportunity that could easily be squandered, just as the democrats squandered their's.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Glad to see some positive change .
> It's not a victory though, only an opportunity that could easily be squandered, just as the democrats squandered their's.



What's changing?


----------



## ferret (Nov 5, 2014)

Dark times ahead. Hopefully only two years, and then this years results can be undone...

At least they can't override a veto without some Senator's crossing party lines?


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

I did expect to lose the senate.

I did NOT expect so many of the Teabagger governors who wrecked their states to win re-election.

OR places like Arkansas to pass a minimum wage bill, and then send a Senator to DC who actively opposes said minimum wage bill.


----------



## Dog Boy (Nov 5, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Glad to see some positive change .
> It's not a victory though, only an opportunity that could easily be squandered, just as the democrats squandered their's.


 
Pretty sure not much will change. 2 more years of gridlock. 

I do agree that the GOP will probably squander this election. It's all on Congress now and if the past few years have been any indication, nothing will get done. I think 2016 will be the REAL bloodbath with incumbents of both parties getting kicked to the curb.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

I dont understand this. American economy has been stagnant for past 6 years, Obama has tripled the deficit, and the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly during his presidency. All this plus health care industry is going down the toilet.

For those of you who are getting govt subsidies for your health care and never had good employee sponsored coverage, all the Obamacare plans are ***t with limited access to physicians and incredibly high deductibles. If you have to pay 5-10K out of pocket for deductibles, that is just as good as NO insurance. If you have looked at the coverage plans, you will find that many specialists are not covered in-network because they are "too expensive" so if you get anything more complicated than a broken arm you will be using out of network physicians and facilities. Obamacare only covers a small percentage (0-50% depending on what plan you have) so your next hospital stay will end up costing 25-100K. 

Furthermore, poor people are forced to register for Medicare, which was available before Obamacare, and this increase in enrollment has caused the Medicare network to come to a screeching halt. Now it takes six weeks to get an appointment with an off site nurse for something simple. But hey, now women get free birth control (which used to be available for $4/mo)

Obama has done nothing good for our country, an increase of 8% in the insured rate may sound good, but it was done at the expense of the middle class in reduced quality of care and much higher dedictibles. The insurance companies LOVE Obamacare, they are guaranteed subsidies, where before the poor people could declare bankruptcy and write off medical debt

I know republicans seem too "establishment" and not cool, but seriously what have the Democrats done for this country but weaken the economy and make us weaker internationally? Just because someone tells you more people are insured does not mean things are better, it was a gift to insurance companies.

Democrats are just destroying the middle class. Republicans are the party of the middle class and anyone in the lower class who wants an improved life. Without a middle class, there is nothing for the poor to aspire to. Democrats are the "scorched earth" part being led by elitist intellectuals who will do anything for power. (The democratic senators have 3x the weath of Republican ones.) DONT BE FOOLED!


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Obama has tripled the deficit,



_Citation needed_.

Because here are the real numbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...nd-all-i-got-was-lousy-poll-numbers/?hpid=z11



GoldDragon said:


> an increase of 8% in the insured rate may sound good



Try 25%: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news#/

Let's not talk about the fact that the vast majority of states refusing Medicare have been red states, leaving hundreds of thousands of their citizens out in the cold *and causing thousands of preventable, needless deaths* by refusing to expand coverage to spite Obama.


As far as the completely risible claim that the GOP is the party of the middle class, we have a perfect experiment of all their economic theories: Kansas. Look at how well they've been doing since implementing Brownback's policies (spoiler: horribly).


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> _Citation needed_.
> 
> Because here are the real numbers:
> 
> ...



Here is the information
Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

The deficit has exploded since Obama took office.

The 7mil new Obamacare enrolles are:

1) People who were eligible for Medicare prior to Obama but were forced to enroll.
*2) People who had insurace but were dropped by their company, so they had to enroll in Obamacare. You will notice that the uninsured rate did not go down much, this is the reason.*
3) People who could not verify eligibility/citizenship and were/are being dropped.
4) People who will not continue to pay their premiums because they misreported their income to take advantage of govt subsides. When the fraud is tracked, these people will drop from the system.
5) Young people who are being overcharged for their insurance to subsidize older people.

The uninsured rate was not changed significantly, but everyone but the RICHEST of the RICH quality of health care went down.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> all the Obamacare plans are ***t



Let's no forget that what we ended up getting of Obamacare was a watered down version that made it through the House and Senate, not the original plan. Or how strongly the GOP opposed the bill, causing it to become watered down.

My biggest concern with Obama when he was running for office and just after he was elected was that he was a Washington outsider without the political capital and favors to call in when necessary. And in the case of Obamacare, that concern proved realistic.




GoldDragon said:


> Republicans are the party of the middle class and anyone in the lower class who wants an improved life.





I'm not affiliated with either party, but how you can conceive of the Republicans as the party of the poor and middle class is absolutely beyond me.

This has to be trolling.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Let's no forget that what we ended up getting of Obamacare was a watered down version that made it through the House and Senate, not the original plan.
> .



Obamacare DID NOT MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE. 

There is a legal challenge in the works because Obamacare was deemed a TAX by Roberts. Because new taxation has to originate in the House, obamacare is illegal. This is one of the fundamental philosophies of our country, NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The House has shorter terms and better represents the will of the people. There would be NO CHANCE IN HELL of a democrat sponsored tax making it through the House! The bill is illegal.

Furthermore, Halbig vs Burwell is going to supreme court for illegal subsidies to states that did not establish an exchange. Essentially they tried to use the free subsidies as a carrot to entice states to establish their own exchanges, but this didnt work, so the IRS has decided to give these subsides to non-eligible states. The IRS DOES NOT F*****G MAKE LAWS--IT IS SUPPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THEM!

Watered down? "You have to pass the bill to know what is in it!" (Pelosi)

Obamacare is a tax that bypassed the House, was forced into existence by a majority senate against popular opinion, and was implemented illegally when the govt gave subsidies to people in states using the federal exchange. It is the most lawless thing to have happened in our Govt in the past century.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> 5) Young people who are being overcharged for their insurance to subsidize older people.



Insurance works as a pool. Everyone puts their money in and those who need to use it get to, whereas those who don't, don't. That's how insurance has always worked. How are you claiming this is any different?


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I'm not affiliated with either party, but how you can conceive of the Republicans as the party of the poor and middle class is absolutely beyond me.
> .



Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.

That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Insurance works as a pool. Everyone puts their money in and those who need to use it get to, whereas those who don't, don't. That's how insurance has always worked. How are you claiming this is any different?



Young healthy people forced to enroll where before they could save that 2.5K/year and put it into a car, downpayment on a house, or music gear.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.
> 
> That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.



Show me the numbers.

And the Heritage Foundation is one of the most laughable, hackish, biased sources you possibly could have picked. It's a Republican think tank known to push crap. Those numbers hardly supercede the Congressional Budget Office.

And, uh, if you'll actually read that article (yeah, right), you'll notice how all of your by-the-books Republican talking points against PPACA are... false.


----------



## ferret (Nov 5, 2014)

I can't tell if I'm being trolled or not in this thread now.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Show me the numbers.
> 
> And the Heritage Foundation is one of the most laughable, hackish, biased sources you possibly could have picked. It's a Republican think tank known to push crap. Those numbers hardly supercede the Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> And, uh, if you'll actually read that article (yeah, right), you'll notice how all of your by-the-books Republican talking points against PPACA are... false.



Here is the Wikipedia article showing the national debt. If you dont agree with it, you are free to edit the page (lol), but dont argue it with me...

National debt of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Look how it exploded in the Obama years.)

I'm not sure if liberals:

1) Dont understand or agree with rule of law (unethical)
2) Are misinformed and misled (stupid)
3) Just want STUFF and will vote for whoever promises it to them. (selfish)


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Notice how it starts exploding at the beginning of 2008. And I can guarantee you that he didn't suddenly overhaul the economy his first month in office.

Know what else happened in 2008?

*The biggest recession since the 1930s*. Which does what? Forces more people onto assistance (up spending), drives revenue way down (bye bye GDP), and not only that, stimulus (temporary increase in deficit!) is the way to deal with it, because it's a demand side crisis.


----------



## ferret (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm not sure you understand the difference between Deficit and Debt.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

ferret said:


> I'm not sure you understand the difference between Deficit and Debt.



Also true.

Your first claim was deficit, then you show debt numbers. Which one do you want to use?


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.
> 
> That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.



Citation needed. Wasn't the economy booming in the Clinton years, and didn't the crash happen on Bush's watch?


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Wasn't the economy booming in the Clinton years, and didn't the crash happen on Bush's watch?



Maybe I shouldn't show him this:







ed: source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Krugman typically uses data from FRED, which is part of the Federal Reserve.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Also true.
> 
> Your first claim was deficit, then you show debt numbers. Which one do you want to use?



Deficit contributes to the overall debt. Duh.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Wasn't the economy booming in the Clinton years, and didn't the crash happen on Bush's watch?



Dot.com boom had nothing to do with Clinton.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Maybe I shouldn't show him this:



Part time jobs.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Man, that makes the Bushes look _really_ bad then. Got any evidence of part time vs. full time job growth to back that hand-wave up?


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Part time jobs.



Citation needed. You're not very good with this data thing, are you?


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

Let me leave you with this thought:

Younger people skew democratic, older people republican. Who has the benefit of experience? Older people or younger people? 

Impetus to vote democratic is not based on intelligence or experience. It is the "feel good" party the "give everyone their stuff" party. Those are powerful vibes man!


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Dot.com boom had nothing to do with Clinton.



And yet we had a Democratic president. Either that matters or it doesn't. Pick one.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Let me leave you with this thought:



Read: I'm losing the argument, but let me have the last word!


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.
> 
> That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.



I'm old (40) and I've been watching these things since before most on this board were even born. And during my tenure on this earth, the greatest prosperity for the middle class occurred while Bill Clinton was in office. The worst time for the middle class was the results of what George Bush left Obama to deal with.

That's not what they tell the liberal or conservative SHEEP, but it IS what actually happened.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Let me leave you with this thought:
> 
> Younger people skew democratic, older people republican. Who has the benefit of experience? Older people or younger people?
> 
> Impetus to vote democratic is not based on intelligence or experience. It is the "feel good" party the "give everyone their stuff" party. Those are powerful vibes man!



Which group tends to get stuck in their ways and resistant to change, older people or younger people?

ed: trying to find a really cool graphic that tracked voting trends (D/R) over life spans by decade born. It was neat, but there are quite a good number of people in the not super old, but older bracket, voting solidly blue.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Man, that makes the Bushes look _really_ bad then. Got any evidence of part time vs. full time job growth to back that hand-wave up?



I could have made that chart in powerpoint, you need to back it up with some data. A powerpoint slide does not communicate the complexity of the issue, but it is known that people are working fewer hours and more jobs in obama admin. This inflates employment figures. If two part time jobs are created, for one person, that does not tell the same story as if everyone gets a full time job.

Large service/retail industries are switching to part-time jobs to avoid Obamacare insurance mandates. Dont have time to prove it, you wouldn't read it anyway.

Last nights election was a referendum on the president. It was not a slight shift, but a "wave" election. Contested elections almost all skewed Republican. People are figuring it out. Hope and change, my ass. . .


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I'm old (40) and I've been watching these things since before most on this board were even born. And during my tenure on this earth, the greatest prosperity for the middle class occurred while Bill Clinton was in office. The worst time for the middle class was the results of what George Bush left Obama to deal with.
> 
> That's not what they tell the liberal or conservative SHEEP, but it IS what actually happened.



dot.com boom. My people did this, perhaps Regan set the stage for economic and technical growth. I am even older than you and when the dot.com boom was in effect, you were still in HS or early college chasing girls. You're not quite old enough to have a perspective on that time.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I could have made that chart in powerpoint, you need to back it up with some data. A powerpoint slide does not communicate the complexity of the issue, but it is known that people are working fewer hours and more jobs in obama admin. This inflates employment figures. If two part time jobs are created, for one person, that does not tell the same story as if everyone gets a full time job.



Nice dude.

I've provided data. You haven't. And I did go back and add where Krugman pulls his data from, generally.



> Large service/retail industries are switching to part-time jobs to avoid Obamacare insurance mandates. Dont have time to prove it, you wouldn't read it anyway.



Large industries want to have to do less for their workers, so aside from paying them below living wages, they're going to cut their hours so they can avoid paying for medical care.

It's the PPACA's fault they're run by greedy fvckwads?


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> dot.com boom. My people did this, perhaps Regan set the stage for economic and technical growth.



You'll *really* have to back that up with SOME kind of evidence.

Also, nice appeal to authority.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I could have made that chart in powerpoint, you need to back it up with some data. A powerpoint slide does not communicate the complexity of the issue, but it is known that people are working fewer hours and more jobs in obama admin. This inflates employment figures. If two part time jobs are created, for one person, that does not tell the same story as if everyone gets a full time job.
> 
> Large service/retail industries are switching to part-time jobs to avoid Obamacare insurance mandates. Dont have time to prove it, you wouldn't read it anyway.
> 
> Last nights election was a referendum on the president. It was not a slight shift, but a "wave" election. Contested elections almost all skewed Republican. People are figuring it out. Hope and change, my ass. . .


You keep asking for data but why don't you back up those claims with some for a change? You don't have time to prove it but expect everyone else to do so?

As for insurance... Weird or not that's how it works, People, young and old, throw in money. Those who need it benefit. I might not live in the states but I'm glad over here we pay for insurance because that paid for my dads MRIs and whatever fancy expensive scans they made him go through. It paid for my glasses, my wisdom teeth getting pulled and it covers my girlfriends contraceptives.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

So if our nations success is only a coincidence under Clinton, why is the recession that started before Obama hit office not also a coincidence? When you aren't consistent for the sake of being right it just makes you look ignorant.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> It's the PPACA's fault they're run by greedy fvckwads?



Perhaps this is what was meant when Pelosi said, "You have to pass it to know what's in it." (In fact, she didn't know what was in it!)

They (Democrats) did not anticipate the affect it would have. Can't blame this on businesses, they are doing what they need to do to survive. This is generally the problem with tinkering with free markets.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> dot.com boom. My people did this, perhaps Regan set the stage for economic and technical growth. I am even older than you and when the dot.com boom was in effect, you were still in HS or early college chasing girls. You're not quite old enough to have a perspective on that time.



I'm also 40, which means I was in my early-to-mid-20s during the late 90s, when the dot-com boom was happening. Are you telling me that the boom *didn't* happen on the backs of 20something programmers more-or-less right out of college?


----------



## celticelk (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I could have made that chart in powerpoint, you need to back it up with some data. A powerpoint slide does not communicate the complexity of the issue, but it is known that people are working fewer hours and more jobs in obama admin. This inflates employment figures. If two part time jobs are created, for one person, that does not tell the same story as if everyone gets a full time job.
> 
> Large service/retail industries are switching to part-time jobs to avoid Obamacare insurance mandates. Dont have time to prove it, you wouldn't read it anyway.
> 
> Last nights election was a referendum on the president. It was not a slight shift, but a "wave" election. Contested elections almost all skewed Republican. People are figuring it out. Hope and change, my ass. . .



Continuing citations needed, plus some reason to think that this is substantially different from the *last* time the political tide turned in the 6th year of a two-term presidency, which you certainly should be old enough to remember.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Perhaps this is what was meant when Pelosi said, "You have to pass it to know what's in it." (In fact, she didn't know what was in it!)
> 
> They (Democrats) did not anticipate the affect it would have. Can't blame this on businesses, they are doing what they need to do to survive. This is generally the problem with tinkering with free markets.



WalMart made $17 billion in profits last year. Bullshit to the claim they can't afford it.

http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-mart-can-afford-to-give-its-workers-a-50-raise/


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

To say Reagan did it is to completely ignore the failure that was Bush Senior as well.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> So if our nations success is only a coincidence under Clinton, why is the recession that started before Obama hit office not also a coincidence? When you aren't consistent for the sake of being right it just makes you look ignorant.



NOt sure what you are saying, but the recession was a result of a credit bubble created by big banks, not a result of Bush administration.

All these greedy people speculated on the housing market when it was going up, they wanted to make a profit and this inflated the housing market.

Unfortunately, todays recession is a result of Obama propping up the housing market and not allowing the market to correct. All those greedy ....s who jumpted into the market, lied on their applications to get mortgages they couldn't afford are to blame.

Who do you blame, the guy who issued the loan, or the guy who lied on his application then defaulted?


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> WalMart made $17 billion in profits last year. Bullshit to the claim they can't afford it.
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - Fortune



OK, take this angst and direct it at big corporations, not against Republicans or middle class. I think you may actually be a Republican but not know it.

Obamacare is the biggest MIDDLE CLASS TAX in our nation's history, yet you seem angry at the richest of the rich. If Democrats really wanted to stick it to the man, they wouldn't have taxed the middle class and began directly paying the subsidies to the insurance companies directly. That is what Obamacare is, tax money paid directly to the richest of the rich, funded by the middle class.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

celticelk said:


> I'm also 40, which means I was in my early-to-mid-20s during the late 90s, when the dot-com boom was happening. Are you telling me that the boom *didn't* happen on the backs of 20something programmers more-or-less right out of college?



I was a mid-20 engineer a few years out of college watching my stock options explode in the late 90s. I woudl say that someone who was in the 19-21 age range probably did not have the perspective of someone who was a few years older and also experienced Regan in HS and Bush Sr in college.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> NOt sure what you are saying, but the recession was a result of a credit bubble created by big banks, not a result of Bush administration.
> 
> All these greedy people speculated on the housing market when it was going up, they wanted to make a profit and this inflated the housing market.
> 
> ...



Never laid any blame for the recession on anyone or anything. Was just pointing out how inconsistent you are being so that your party of choice is always the hero even if it is completely inconsistent with reality or even your own arguments.


----------



## ferret (Nov 5, 2014)

I like how you took his "early-to-mid-20s" and changed it to 19-21, while claiming superiority in your mid-20.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

Anyway, sanity is being restored to our country. Hopefully

1) Obamacare subsidies will be ruled illegal in SC and republicans can offer an alternative. Because Republicans control house and sentate, it would be LEGAL for them to introduce new taxes -- anything that goes across the presidents desk represents what the people want. He will either play ball or further damage his party.

2) Drop the nonsense of executive action for illegals. Such an unpopular move would be the last straw to initiate impeachment hearings. He has no ones support, if he keeps doing this executive order BS he deserves what he gets.

He is the lamest of ducks, his only play now is to try to poison relationships with Republicans so he can say nothing was getting done, blame it on repubs, and pass the baton to Hillary. If he plays ball, signs the bills put on his desk, then the repubs can claim they were responsible for new legislation and they will lock the 2016 presidential election. Will Obama be a good little boy or will he be a?


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

ferret said:


> I like how you took his "early-to-mid-20s" and changed it to 19-21, while claiming superiority in your mid-20.



He didnt say he was in his mid 20s. I was in 99' so I'm pretty sure he was 20-21. I think his math is wrong.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Never laid any blame for the recession on anyone or anything. Was just pointing out how inconsistent you are being so that your party of choice is always the hero even if it is completely inconsistent with reality or even your own arguments.



My party is not the "hero", they enact policy that allows free markets to work and create wealth. The poor people see this, they want their stuff, so they get together behind a social cause (in 2008 it was anti-war rhetoric) and once in office they redistribute wealth.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

Technically speaking, no matter who holds the majority, those in office are not a direct representation of the US as only half this country votes practically ever and on non-presidential years it's usually even lower. The only people voting are the passionate few who tend to hold the more extreme views (compared to the general populace). In reality, America as a whole likely doesn't line up with either party.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> 2) Drop the nonsense of executive action for illegals. Such an unpopular move would be the last straw to initiate impeachment hearings. He has no ones support, if he keeps doing this executive order BS he deserves what he gets.



Impeachment on what actual *legal* basis?

Were executive orders BS when Bush I, II, or Reagan issued them? The last having issued the most of any president since Ike (a Republican, although it was a completely different party then): Executive Orders


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> My party is not the "hero", they enact policy that allows free markets to work and create wealth. The poor people see this, they want their stuff, so they get together behind a social cause (in 2008 it was anti-war rhetoric) and once in office they redistribute wealth.



Well, all I've heard you do so far is inconsistently blame most problems on Democrats and claim that successes actually belong with Bush and/or Reagan (timeline in both cases being largely inconsistent). 

I'm not a democrat or a republican so you're the only one with a dog in this fight.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> He didnt say he was in his mid 20s. I was in 99' so I'm pretty sure he was 20-21. I think his math is wrong.



Good thing that's really easy to check. Just a page back, in fact!



celticelk said:


> I'm also 40, which means I was in my early-to-mid-20s during the late 90s, when the dot-com boom was happening. Are you telling me that the boom *didn't* happen on the backs of 20something programmers more-or-less right out of college?



Let's do some math.

2014 - 40 = 1974. If he was born in 74, how old would he have been in 1999?

Remember, show your work if you want full credit!


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm a Republican. 
I'm 20 years old, and work full-time... Make $40k/year, and go to school part time. 

Only thing I've seen effin _amazing_ come out of Obama's presidency is that gasoline has now gone down to about $2.85/gallon where I live. As I get less than 10 mpg in my truck, $2.85 is pretty awesome. 
Thanks Obama!!! 

Other than that... I haven't seen anything else hes done that affected my life personally.


----------



## wat (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I dont understand this. American economy has been stagnant for past 6 years, Obama has tripled the deficit, and the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly during his presidency. All this plus health care industry is going down the toilet.
> 
> For those of you who are getting govt subsidies for your health care and never had good employee sponsored coverage, all the Obamacare plans are ***t with limited access to physicians and incredibly high deductibles. If you have to pay 5-10K out of pocket for deductibles, that is just as good as NO insurance. If you have looked at the coverage plans, you will find that many specialists are not covered in-network because they are "too expensive" so if you get anything more complicated than a broken arm you will be using out of network physicians and facilities. Obamacare only covers a small percentage (0-50% depending on what plan you have) so your next hospital stay will end up costing 25-100K.
> 
> ...





^This is what many people who have children, drive cars and have the ability to leave their house and make decisions that affect other people actually believe


----------



## Randy (Nov 5, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Only thing I've seen effin _amazing_ come out of Obama's presidency is that gasoline has now gone down to about $2.85/gallon where I live. As I get less than 10 mpg in my truck, $2.85 is pretty awesome.
> Thanks Obama!!!
> 
> Other than that... I haven't seen anything else hes done that affected my life personally.



This is a great, very relevant point I try to remind people of regularly.

I'm a Democrat and I'm not totally buying 'gloom and doom' over the Republican takeover of the Senate. I'm in the same boat as you, very few of Obama's policies have had a direct effect on me and my life. 

Local elections have the most to do with your life from day-to-day (ie: mayor and city council races = property taxes, quality of police force, etc). _THOSE_ also happen to be the races you have the ability to impact most directly. 

That's not to say people should be totally apathetic to federal level politics, but I do believe strongly in 1.) people tempering their expectations, realistically 2.) staying active and involved 3.) focusing your efforts where it matters


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

My city has well over 100K living here and only about 9K even voted. It's pathetic really. The electoral college played it's part as well as a couple of the candidates that I voted for won, but didn't win the majority. I can't wait until the electoral college is no more. Gerrymandering would be a non-issue if the electoral college didn't exist as well.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Sorry, bwah? 

Maybe in 2012, but unless Texas is really weird, the college has no role in the elections that just happened. And gerrymandering very heavily is one of the reasons the Republicans took the House, which is certainly worth a huge amount, and would still be very much an issue if the Presidential races were direct.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

It has to because a few people in my city council won without receiving the majority vote. Gerrymandering is only relevant if the electoral college exist as the idea is to divide the popular vote into small sections. If it were just a popular vote for everything then it wouldn't matter at all, if I understand correctly.

[edit]

Okay, I get what you're saying. You're saying that the house reps are divided by the gerrymandered sections. You're right that it would still be a problem without the electoral college. For senate seats and positions in the capitol of Texas it would still be affected by the electoral college though, as these votes are tallied by district are they not?

If the electoral college has nothing to do with why my city council votes don't add up to majority = win then I have no idea what the hell happened there.

[double edit]

Maybe I'm misreading the results. 

Entirely possible...

[triple edit ]

Yeah, I misread the results. Might have been late with the tally's when I checked last. All well. 

In any case, I wish the act of gerrymandering and the electoral college would resolve itself as the system is severely broken.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

That's probably just how Houston area election rules work. The actual electoral college that does President only does that.

However, the same Congressional districts which the Electoral College draws from are the same districts the House of Representatives draws from, and since gerrymandering basically guarantees who controls the House, it would very much still be a thing.

ed: found the visual aid I was looking for, by the power of not being on my phone any more:







sauce: http://www.motherjones.com/politics...andering-house-representatives-election-chart


----------



## Dog Boy (Nov 5, 2014)

Only thing Golden has left out is "Obama didn't get him, the Seals got him...".


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 5, 2014)

To add some humor to the situation, we recently set our clocks back and our, but Republicans just announced they want to go back in time 200 years


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Nov 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Obama has tripled the deficit



FY 2015 Projected: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln



GoldDragon said:


> and the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly during his presidency.










GoldDragon said:


> All this plus health care industry is going down the toilet.










GoldDragon said:


> For those of you who are getting govt subsidies for your health care and never had good employee sponsored coverage, all the Obamacare plans are ***t with limited access to physicians and incredibly high deductibles. If you have to pay 5-10K out of pocket for deductibles, that is just as good as NO insurance. If you have looked at the coverage plans, you will find that many specialists are not covered in-network because they are "too expensive" so if you get anything more complicated than a broken arm you will be using out of network physicians and facilities. Obamacare only covers a small percentage (0-50% depending on what plan you have) so your next hospital stay will end up costing 25-100K.










GoldDragon said:


> Furthermore, poor people are forced to register for Medicare, which was available before Obamacare, and this increase in enrollment has caused the Medicare network to come to a screeching halt. Now it takes six weeks to get an appointment with an off site nurse for something simple. But hey, now women get free birth control (which used to be available for $4/mo)



Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. And no, they don't have to register for anything.

Also:








GoldDragon said:


> Obama has done nothing good for our country, an increase of 8% in the insured rate may sound good, but it was done at the expense of the middle class in reduced quality of care and much higher dedictibles. The insurance companies LOVE Obamacare, they are guaranteed subsidies, where before the poor people could declare bankruptcy and write off medical debt










GoldDragon said:


> I know republicans seem too "establishment" and not cool, but seriously what have the Democrats done for this country but weaken the economy and make us weaker internationally? Just because someone tells you more people are insured does not mean things are better, it was a gift to insurance companies.










GoldDragon said:


> Democrats are just destroying the middle class. Republicans are the party of the middle class and anyone in the lower class who wants an improved life. Without a middle class, there is nothing for the poor to aspire to. Democrats are the "scorched earth" part being led by elitist intellectuals who will do anything for power. (The democratic senators have 3x the weath of Republican ones.) DONT BE FOOLED!













Literally every single thing you wrote in your post was a fabrication, a misconception, or just your opinion. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Btw, I voted for republicans except for the president in '08.


----------



## thrashmetal85 (Nov 5, 2014)

Australia did the same thing - put in a moronic conservative government because our biased conservative media has around 80% market share and delivers misinformation that silences the truth in favour of supporting corporate greed; that despises proven good long term policy because it doesn't follow their dogma.

Keep the middle class uneducated, ignorant, and feeling persecuted by a non-existent threat


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 5, 2014)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> *Buncha information*
> 
> Literally every single thing you wrote in your post was a fabrication, a misconception, or just your opinion. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul



I have nothing at all to add to this argument except...



You've been politic'd!


----------



## Necris (Nov 5, 2014)

The only thing that bothers me about this is that now that the Midterms are out of the way the 2016 presidential campaigns will probably be beginning shortly, glad I got rid of my television.

Also, I don't know if this applies to anyone here but people who complain about the results who _didn't _take the time out of their day to actually vote can .... right off. That drives me nuts.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> Also, I don't know if this applies to anyone here but people who complain about the results who _didn't _take the time out of their day to actually vote can .... right off. That drives me nuts.



Why? Was a repeal of the 1st Amendment on the table and I failed to vote against it?

You can go right to hell, I'll complain about whatever the hell I want to complain about. This is 'murica.


----------



## Necris (Nov 5, 2014)

You would know if you showed up to the polls and voted.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

Absent voting even for political reasons only makes you look like an apathetic non-voter to politicians and the government. 

Even if you think it's pointless you should still vote, just skip the things you don't want to vote on and vote 3rd party for the hell of it. 

The only absentee voter that has an opinion I'll actually give a shit about hearing is someone who is politically active in other ways. If the only politically active thing someone does is not vote then I couldn't care less what that person thinks as they might as well be an apathetic non-voter.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> You would know if you showed up to the polls and voted.



Except for the fact that it cannot be repealed by popular vote... and no one running in PA has ever given any indication that they would propose or support any such repeal.

but yeah, you have to go to the polls to see what's on the ballot. err wait a minute, no you don't.

Do you know anything about this country?


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Absent voting even for political reasons only makes you look like an apathetic non-voter to politicians and the government.
> 
> Even if you think it's pointless you should still vote, just skip the things you don't want to vote on and vote 3rd party for the hell of it.
> 
> The only absentee voter that has an opinion I'll actually give a shit about hearing is someone who is politically active in other ways. If the only politically active thing someone does is not vote then I couldn't care less what that person thinks as they might as well be an apathetic non-voter.



What purpose does voting for a 3rd party loser serve besides to waste time out of my day?


----------



## Necris (Nov 5, 2014)

Man, the one time I make a dumb joke instead of directly engaging in an argument with you and it's a miss. Oh well.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> What purpose does voting for a 3rd party loser serve besides to waste time out of my day?



It's symbolic at the very least. It shows them you care about your country and politics, but hate the repub and democratic parties. It says a hell of a lot more than doing nothing. It takes less than 10 minutes to vote where I live if you go during early voting, I think you'd survive. 

Apathetic citizens can complain all they want I just won't be on the receiving end of their complaining. If you're active in other ways then I'd happily listen to yours, and anyone else's, thoughts.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> Man, the one time I make a dumb joke instead of directly engaging in an argument with you and it's a miss. Oh well.



Sorry, I have a big problem with people who claim to believe in this country and then simultaneously claim that 50+% of citizens should not be allowed to exercise free speech.

You really should pick a side.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 5, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> What purpose does voting for a 3rd party loser serve besides to waste time out of my day?



This. This perspective is why a 3rd party will never win. The perception that there are only 2 "real" parties or that you have to vote against someone by voting for someone else is why nothing in this fuc king country will ever change, no matter who wins the majority.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> Man, the one time I make a dumb joke instead of directly engaging in an argument with you and it's a miss. Oh well.



I follow a strict never engage rule on this site. It's probably wise in a place with compulsive essayists.


----------



## Necris (Nov 5, 2014)

I have a problem with people who willingly exclude themselves from a process and then complain that the outcome of the process wasn't to their liking.

In the case of the midterm elections if one such person doesn't vote they _can _complain about the outcome, but it's hard to believe they actually care all that much. I don't see why anyone should take such a persons complaints into consideration when when they're a part of the 50+% of the population had an opportunity to participate and willingly excluded themselves.

I don't want a small portion of the country dictating the direction of the country, I want as many people as are legally able to take part.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> I don't want a small portion of the country dictating the direction of the country, I want as many people as are legally able to take part.



I *do* want a small portion to dictate it, but not on a volunteer basis.

I don't believe democracy is the best practice, either direct or representative. Popular votes are not useful for making important decisions.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Third party voting in the US is honestly pretty stupid. It's going to take _way_ more organization than they have ever put out to actually do anything, and frequently they draw votes off the less-worse candidate, not the truly awful one (cough gore nader bush cough).

There are better ways to protest.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I follow a strict never engage rule on this site. It's probably wise in a place with compulsive essayists.



Just means you gotta bring your A-game


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> You would know if you showed up to the polls and voted.


----------



## 7stg (Nov 5, 2014)

Whether christian conservative republicans, neocons, or liberal progressive democrats win I loose. Obama or sanatorium, Feinstein or Palin, Boxer or Bachmann one way or the other these groups will attack my freedoms, ruin the country economically, deface our global image, and/or start new wars. 

I only vote 3rd party. 
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. ~ John Quincy Adams

Employment-Population Ratio - Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 Civilian labor force participation rate - Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Duration of unemployment - FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Graph: Homeownership Rate for the United States - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Graph: Rental Vacancy Rate for the United States - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Graph: New One Family Homes For Sale in the United States - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Graph: New One Family Houses Sold: United States - FRED - St. Louis Fed

George Bush started Jan. 20, 2009 at $5,728 trillion and ended with $10.627 trillion adding $4.899 trillion to the debt. 85.5 percent increase
Barack Obama started Jan. 20, 2009 at $10.627 trillion and is now sitting at $17.922 trillion adding $7.295 trillion to the debt. Sitting at a 59.3 percent increase
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Nations Bombed
Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.
Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
nations bombed Bush vs Obama see conclusion

Here is a good documentary covering fraud in voting.
Hacking democracy on Vimeo


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 5, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Wasn't the economy booming in the Clinton years, and didn't the crash happen on Bush's watch?



Yes, and aside from his first 2yrs (Clinton's) it was a republican majority congress that he was compelled to work with, not against.
The crash was bound to happen and no one wanted to be the whistle blower. Clinton could have blown the whistle also but chose not to so to escape the blame himself.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Nov 6, 2014)

I'll otherwise stay out of this, but as an economist I found the deficit/debt discussion here so misleading I have to comment. The Bush government let the _private_ debt explode by neglect (of regulation). Then the presidency was handed over right when the massive rebalancing began and the automatic stabilizers kicked in (unemployment benefits etc.) Of course the debt shoots up, that's exactly what it should do. The argument is, it should have gone up much more and longer for a faster and more complete recovery. That's what 80 years of economic theory tells us*.

* Usually I see people invoking The Economic Theory when they have a very faint idea what it might actually say, most likely parroting a source they agree upon on entirely other, unrelated matters.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 6, 2014)

As a Pakistani, my main concern is, does this mean more wars?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 6, 2014)

Yes, more than likely. Republicans love shooting missiles at people with little justification other than "'Murica!!!!!!"

Though, to be honest, I think that the government will likely start wars in the Middle East regardless of party.


----------



## asher (Nov 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, and aside from his first 2yrs (Clinton's) it was a republican majority congress that he was compelled to work with, not against.
> The crash was bound to happen and no one wanted to be the whistle blower. Clinton could have blown the whistle also but chose not to so to escape the blame himself.



So when it was Clinton's boom we have to credit the GOP Congress also, but when it's Obama we can't blame the House?



1b4n3z said:


> I'll otherwise stay out of this, but as an economist I found the deficit/debt discussion here so misleading I have to comment. The Bush government let the _private_ debt explode by neglect (of regulation). Then the presidency was handed over right when the massive rebalancing began and the automatic stabilizers kicked in (unemployment benefits etc.) Of course the debt shoots up, that's exactly what it should do. The argument is, it should have gone up much more and longer for a faster and more complete recovery. That's what 80 years of economic theory tells us*.
> 
> * Usually I see people invoking The Economic Theory when they have a very faint idea what it might actually say, most likely parroting a source they agree upon on entirely other, unrelated matters.



Yep. Deficit spending in recessions is exactly how you get out of them. The stimulus wasn't nearly big enough.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 6, 2014)

1b4n3z said:


> I'll otherwise stay out of this, but as an economist I found the deficit/debt discussion here so misleading I have to comment. The Bush government let the _private_ debt explode by neglect (of regulation). Then the presidency was handed over right when the massive rebalancing began and the automatic stabilizers kicked in (unemployment benefits etc.) Of course the debt shoots up, that's exactly what it should do. The argument is, it should have gone up much more and longer for a faster and more complete recovery. That's what 80 years of economic theory tells us*.
> 
> * Usually I see people invoking The Economic Theory when they have a very faint idea what it might actually say, most likely parroting a source they agree upon on entirely other, unrelated matters.



I think its amusing that so many people study economics yet there are so many financial problems. All the economists disagree on policy and because so few of them have actual impact on (any) economy, they are essentially just armchair quarterbacks. 

Its also amusing that someone from the EU would espose liberal policy (regulation). "The BUSH government let the private debt explode..." Did you read that in an economics textbook?

The economy should have been allowed to correct more quickly instead of dragging it out over ten years. The govt buying up properties, the shadow inventory kept the prices inflated - they still are inflated. This kind of tinkering is never good. Sure there would be a ton of people living in shanty towns down by the river, but every ahole and their brother was falsifying their income to get a mortgage so they could profit from the boom. And somehow you come to the conclusion that it was Bush's fault? 

They rewarded all the speculators, gave money to people who lied and took excessive risk, and punished the people who lived within their means. It is/was a moral hazard.


----------



## asher (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> All the economists disagree on policy and because so few of them have actual impact on (any) economy, they are essentially just armchair quarterbacks.



Actually, there have been a large amount of economists saying the exact same thing, at least since 2008 (I wasn't following economics in the Bush years, so IDK). But because it's from a Keynesian, demand-side perspective, talking about deficit spending, stimulus, unemployment insurance, etc, and not hard money, austerity, tighten-your-belts like the Freshwater guys, the MSM paid them no heed. Instead, they show the people who have been screaming "Inflation, inflation I tell you!" for the last *five years*.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 6, 2014)

asher said:


> Actually, there have been a large amount of economists saying the exact same thing, at least since 2008 (I wasn't following economics in the Bush years, so IDK). But because it's from a Keynesian, demand-side perspective, talking about deficit spending, stimulus, unemployment insurance, etc, and not hard money, austerity, tighten-your-belts like the Freshwater guys, the MSM paid them no heed. Instead, they show the people who have been screaming "Inflation, inflation I tell you!" for the last *five years*.



Let me hit up google so I can compose an intelligent sounding response. Be back in 15.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Younger people skew democratic, older people republican. Who has the benefit of experience? Older people or younger people?



Experience my ass. The better question is who has more to lose through changes to the tax code to pay for broader social services, etc. - the older guy who is already working the system and likes those lower taxes on their passive income or the younger people who may benefit from some stimulus to create jobs?




GoldDragon said:


> dot.com boom. My people did this, perhaps Regan set the stage for economic and technical growth.




No, Reagan set the stage for the recession that Bush I and Clinton (first term) inherited.




GoldDragon said:


> I am even older than you and when the dot.com boom was in effect, you were still in HS or early college chasing girls. You're not quite old enough to have a perspective on that time.



Try again - I was in my mid twenties and already married by that point. (For someone who goes on to claim that he is an engineer, I'm appalled at your math skills on display in this thread).




GoldDragon said:


> All these greedy people speculated on the housing market when it was going up, they wanted to make a profit and this inflated the housing market.



Those speculative deals were packaged up by the investment banks (upper class and upper middle class republicans, for the most part) and sold to investors (largely institutional investors) under false pretenses on the part of the investment banks. The bankers should have been locked up for securities fraud, but Bush II failed to take actions against his party's campaign contributors.




GoldDragon said:


> That is what Obamacare is, tax money paid directly to the richest of the rich, funded by the middle class.



Try again.




GoldDragon said:


> Sure there would be a ton of people living in shanty towns down by the river, but every ahole and their brother was falsifying their income to get a mortgage so they could profit from the boom.



There were a lot of sub prime loans made at that time, but the blame goes to the lenders, not the borrowers. Not only are they in a much better position to judge risk/reward, but they made loans available to people who couldn't afford them, brought out ARMs and back loaded balloon loans to trick people into thinking they could afford the mortgage, packaged these deals up and sold them to "investors" (e.g., speculators) for short term profit, avoiding the downside.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I think its amusing that so many people study economics yet there are so many financial problems. All the economists disagree on policy and because so few of them have actual impact on (any) economy, they are essentially just armchair quarterbacks.



Well it's quite frustrating really, but if your leaders (and mine, too) refuse to listen to advice, there's little the discipline can do to help. Sure, there are a few economists who strongly object, but they are a small minority surprisingly well represented in the media. Look up what the leading international organizations (the IMF, World Bank, OECD) have concluded. The IMF recently even apologized it's earlier advice (austerity), a feat almost unthinkable just 10 years ago.

Have you noticed how populist politicians tend to refer to analogies where national economies are actually just like companies/households? Why's that, you think?



> Its also amusing that someone from the EU would espose liberal policy (regulation). "The BUSH government let the private debt explode..." Did you read that in an economics textbook?



Well the whole debacle is very widely researched by now, as you might have guessed. The whole mortgage farce was a small drop in the ocean, the real impact was the shadow banking industry suddenly realizing it had been treading on thin air for quite a while. Hands off policy was of course promoted by all parties involved, the regulators very much included. There were warnings of course, but then, as now, they were ignored. 



> The economy should have been allowed to correct more quickly instead of dragging it out over ten years. The govt buying up properties, the shadow inventory kept the prices inflated - they still are inflated. This kind of tinkering is never good. Sure there would be a ton of people living in shanty towns down by the river, but every ahole and their brother was falsifying their income to get a mortgage so they could profit from the boom. And somehow you come to the conclusion that it was Bush's fault?



It was every bit as much Bush's fault as the current situation is Obama's fault. I'm not the one pulling these accusations out of my, err, backpocket.



> They rewarded all the speculators, gave money to people who lied and took excessive risk, and punished the people who lived within their means. It is/was a moral hazard.



Well yes, that's what happened, and you might do well to find those in favor of less regulation and transparency within the financial sector


----------



## asher (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Let me hit up google so I can compose an intelligent sounding response. Be back in 15.



Or you could actually do some research and realize all the things I said are true, and none of it d have to look up to post.

(yeah, yeah, I know he's banned...)


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> There were a lot of sub prime loans made at that time, but the blame goes to the lenders, not the borrowers. Not only are they in a much better position to judge risk/reward, but they made loans available to people who couldn't afford them, brought out ARMs and back loaded balloon loans to trick people into thinking they could afford the mortgage, packaged these deals up and sold them to "investors" (e.g., speculators) for short term profit, avoiding the downside.



You believe that people were "tricked into thinking they could afford the mortgatge", but the defaults correlate with negative equity.

Isn't it strange how those people were able to make payments when the prices were going up, but when the bubble popped, then they decided to default. Because so many of them began defaulting on their loans, it then became the banks problem. Thats where the bailout came in: "Too big to fail."

These people were not tricked, they were greedy and made bad investments. Someone who rolls the dice at the track and invests their entire net worth in someting risky deserve everything that comes. Instead, the govt bankrolled the whole thing, incentives for loan modifications, buying up shadow inventory to protect the finiancial industry and keep credit flowing. They did everything possible to keep people in their houses. Modifications, forgiveness, etc.

Apparently you feel that the govt should have anticipated peoples greed and designed the system so that they cannot lose the shirt on their back if they risk it all. I say that is not MY responsibility or the governments. But I have done my part to bankroll this though inflation. I knew the housing market was a bubble and I played the board correctly but end up getting punished for my prudence.

What should have happened is that the govt should have allowed the housing market to collapse. IT would more quickly rebound as investors swooped in to pick up property at its real value. There would have been a short depression followed by growth as opposed to this 10+ year recession that was manufactured to protect the people who rolled the dice and lost. Yes there would have bee a huge transfer of wealth, at both ends of the spectrum.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm not absolving those speculative investors of their responsibility for their actions, but I'm not blind enough to pretend it was solely these speculative investors who are responsible for the collapse, either. There were plenty of sub prime mortgages issued that should never have seen the light of day. Lenders packaged these up and sold them to investment banks, passing on the risk in the process and freeing themselves up to issue more bad loans. Then the banks packaged these blocks of mortgages together with other blocks (and sometimes other investments) and sold them as if they were significantly lower risk than they were (which is securities fraud). Then, when the shit hit the fan, the little old ladies, 401(k) and IRA accounts as well as institutional investors like insurance companies took the loss.

As for government involvement, the SEC exists to prevent this type of fraud (even though it has historically been very lax in enforcing rules and laws). And the government should absolutely prevent predatory lending practices. But it would be absurd to think the government should prevent investors from facing risk.

As for the bailout, the government HAD to bail out the banks. Keep in mind we're not talking a bout one company going out of business, we're talking about many large banks failing simultaneously. And its not as if the dollar is tied to anything of inherent value, its only worth what people believe its worth. So if the banking system collapses, people's confidence in the dollar goes down the toilet and the entire economy and monetary system collapses along with it.


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I'm not absolving those speculative investors of their responsibility for their actions, but I'm not blind enough to pretend it was solely these speculative investors who are responsible for the collapse, either. There were plenty of sub prime mortgages issued that should never have seen the light of day. Lenders packaged these up and sold them to investment banks, passing on the risk in the process and freeing themselves up to issue more bad loans. Then the banks packaged these blocks of mortgages together with other blocks (and sometimes other investments) *and sold them as if they were significantly lower risk than they were (*which is securities fraud). Then, when the shit hit the fan, the little old ladies, 401(k) and IRA accounts as well as institutional investors like insurance companies took the loss.
> 
> As for government involvement, the SEC exists to prevent this type of fraud (even though it has historically been very lax in enforcing rules and laws). And the government should absolutely prevent predatory lending practices. But it would be absurd to think the government should prevent investors from facing risk.
> 
> As for the bailout, the government HAD to bail out the banks. Keep in mind we're not talking a bout one company going out of business, we're talking about many large banks failing simultaneously. And its not as if the dollar is tied to anything of inherent value, its only worth what people believe its worth. So if the banking system collapses, people's confidence in the dollar goes down the toilet and the entire economy and monetary system collapses along with it.





Just because bad debt was packaged into securities does not absolve the buyer from understanding what he is buying or taking the inherent risk. If it was misrepresented that could be securities fraud, but that is speculation on your part.

Yes, it is a tangled web, and your argument is easy; just present what was done, point the figer at various sources, and say that what was done was "effective" and had to be done. 

My position is a bit more advanced, to suggest that the government should not have done as much, let the chips fall where they may. My argument can't take the same form because I can't just point to what was done, and parrot past economic policy. Thats the easy line. 

The job market, the shadow housing inventory, the fact that it has never corrected, that Millenials are living in their parents basements or doubling up on rent well into their 30s, that student debt is out of control, and jobs are not available, these are all after effects of the policy that was enacted. Was it really effective?

Regardless of wheter you could concede that a better resolution *may* have been obtained if markets were allowed to correct, I think its undeniable that the culprits in the mess are the ones who were rewarded for their wrecklessness. And I'm not willing to pin that on the banks because I believe in personal responsibility. If the government has/had any responsibility in this is that they did not anticipate this and divert the crisis. Their actions after the fact were highly unethical, a moral hazard. I knew it was a bubble in 2004. Again, all these smart economist with their hand on the wheel yet nothing was done to divert the crisis. And you're just parroting their policy, patting yourself on the back, yet the economy is in the s****er.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

Patting myself on the back? Parroting the party line?

GoldDragon, you're projecting.


----------



## Dog Boy (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> yet the economy is in the s****er.


 
lol

Dow, S&P end at record highs on payrolls optimism#.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.
> 
> That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.



 

dude are you serious? Where did you learn your US history, a heritage foundation flyer?

The middle class in America was it's largest during the 1950's-1960's with massive progressive taxation (though, the relative tax load on the middle class and working poor was actually less than it is today, the rich were taxed much more heavily), massive public investment in education, not for profit healthcare, and protectionist trade policies. The protectionist trade policies had been in place since _the Washington Administration_, until Ronald Reagan rolled back import tariffs to record lows, allowing the outsourcing of our entire manufacturing base. The last time (before Reagan) when the top marginal income tax rate was below %50, was in the year 1928. The resulting hot money in the market created huge bubbles in the market, and those bubbles inevitably burst, leading to this little thing called _The Great Depression_. The freemarket capitalism of the 1920's in America resulted the largest income inequality (no minimum wage, no worker protections what so ever, no consumer protection laws) in the nations history, second only to America in the year 2014. I mean, have you ever even heard of Upton Sinclair? With no regulation on the industrial meat packing industry, people being boiled alive on the job, throwing in rats with ground beef, selling spoiled meat, was all totally kosher in the freemarket economy of the "roaring" 20's. The progressive policies of FDR made this nation what it is today. Seriously, try reading a book man.

Also, wages have stagnated under the Obama adminstration because the REPUBLICAN controlled CONGRESS has failed to enact any legislation that would improve wages. Keywords, Republican, and Congress. Prior to this election, Senate Republicans filibustered every single bill introduced to attempt to move the economy forward, and the house Republicans (specifically the Tea Party Caucus) sat on their ....ing hands and did nothing because they still had the majority and simply blocked any bill introduced, even one's introduced by John Boehner, the speaker of the house, who is also a Republican. Wages stopped keeping pace with productivity under Reagan and still haven't recovered. Are you genuinely so ignorant that you don't even understand that congress is the branch of government in charge of domestic policy? The president has the most power over foreign policy, and the only thing he can do meaningfully are some limited action via executive order, and the veto. Other than that, congress controls national economic policy. This is literally something you should have learned in high school.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 6, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> lol
> 
> Dow, S&P end at record highs on payrolls optimism#.




I thought Obama was going to help mainstreet, not wallstreet .


----------



## celticelk (Nov 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I thought Obama was going to help mainstreet, not wallstreet .



That would be easier if we had a Republican Party that wasn't dedicated to ideology over economics.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I thought Obama was going to help mainstreet, not wallstreet .



I would like to reiterate that promises to improve the economy from ANY president are completely empty unless congress is on his side. In this case, congress has done jack shit.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 6, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> lol
> 
> Dow, S&P end at record highs on payrolls optimism#.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 6, 2014)

Man, .... you guys and your sources. Why aren't you guys using fear-mongering like REAL debaters?


----------



## pink freud (Nov 7, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> As a Pakistani, my main concern is, does this mean more wars?



It depends. If Obama thinks going to war is needed then the Republican-led senate will declare that the US shouldn't be getting involved in foreign affairs and that Obama needs to stop being such a warmonger. If Obama thinks that the US should stay out of any given conflict the Republican-led senate will deem him a coward and say that he is showing the world that the US is weak.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 7, 2014)

pink freud said:


> It depends. If Obama thinks going to war is needed then the Republican-led senate will declare that the US shouldn't be getting involved in foreign affairs and that Obama needs to stop being such a warmonger. If Obama thinks that the US should stay out of any given conflict the Republican-led senate will deem him a coward and say that he is showing the world that the US is weak.



This guy knows his politics.


----------



## JaxoBuzzo (Nov 7, 2014)

Eh. Alabama just banned Sharia Law. How bout it?


----------



## pushpull7 (Nov 7, 2014)

I don't dabble in this stuff regularly but the bottom line is in nearly 50 years of being a USA citizen, it's all the same.

It doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are on, politics is a biz where "winning" is everything.

In another 6 years, there will be another "coup" and it will be all dems...still, nothing will change.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 7, 2014)

pushpull7 said:


> I don't dabble in this stuff regularly but the bottom line is in nearly 50 years of being a USA citizen, it's all the same.
> 
> It doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are on, politics is a biz where "winning" is everything.
> 
> In another 6 years, there will be another "coup" and it will be all dems...still, nothing will change.




Try not to be so optimistic .
Lot of truth to your post, I'll just add that winning has obviously much to do with public perception.
If the GOP is going to obtain a clean sweep in 2yrs then they must showcase Obama's obstructionism by passing bill after bill after bill and then leaving it for him to continually veto them. 
If he doesn't then they get their way, and if he does keep rejecting good progress then they again get their way .

Republicans MUST come together as one to make this happen, which is less than likely but still more likely than ever getting the Democrats to work together.
Also, with the evangelical-wing of the party slowly shrinking, I think it's very important for them to leave the social issues to state-level government and focus on the growth of private sector business.
Granting a 6-month tax amnesty for companies wanting to bring that cash back in to the USA and reinvest it domestically is IMO one good step in the right direction.


----------



## Dog Boy (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Republicans MUST come together as one to make this happen, which is less than likely but still more likely than ever getting the Democrats to work together.


----------



## ferret (Nov 7, 2014)

JaxoBuzzo said:


> Eh. Alabama just banned Sharia Law. How bout it?



You know, I thought about bringing this up. That may have been their "get the vote out" tactic, but what they did sounds stupid on the surface. I believe it was basically worded as forbidding the adoption of "foreign law"...

I wonder if that technically could be seen as legally blocking even adopting something like a new traffic law that happens to be similar or modeled after one from say, Germany?


----------



## Mprinsje (Nov 7, 2014)

I don't know a lot about american politics but after reading this thread i wonder why anyone is still voting, it seems like one party is always blocking whatever the other party wants to do so that in the end nothing happens.

Get your shit together america, so you can throw democracy bombs at other countries without being hypocrites.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 7, 2014)

Mprinsje said:


> I don't know a lot about american politics but after reading this thread i wonder why anyone is still voting, it seems like one party is always blocking whatever the other party wants to do so that in the end nothing happens.
> 
> Get your shit together america, so you can throw democracy bombs at other countries without being hypocrites.



Checks and balances.
They help keep either side from running too wild.
Without them Obama would have by now transformed this country into another socialist failure.
Thankfully we've had Paul Ryan and the boys to block the leftist over the last 6yrs..


----------



## canuck brian (Nov 7, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> As a Pakistani, my main concern is, does this mean more wars?



All depends on how much oil you've got and how much democracy you guys need.


----------



## Dog Boy (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Without them Obama would have by now transformed this country into another socialist failure.
> Thankfully we've had Paul Ryan and the boys to block the leftist over the last 6yrs..


 
Ok, seriously, coffee came out my nose.


----------



## Mprinsje (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Checks and balances.
> They help keep either side from running too wild.
> Without them Obama would have by now transformed this country into another socialist failure.
> Thankfully we've had Paul Ryan and the boys to block the leftist over the last 6yrs..



Another socialist failure like? Germany? Norway? Sweden? UK? even my own country the Netherlands? these countries are all doing pretty well if i remember correctly, sure they're not flawless but i'd gladly pay some more taxes for decent healthcare.


----------



## asher (Nov 7, 2014)

Mprinsje said:


> Another socialist failure like? Germany? Norway? Sweden? UK? even my own country the Netherlands? these countries are all doing pretty well if i remember correctly, sure they're not flawless but i'd gladly pay some more taxes for decent healthcare.



They'd be doing much better, in fact, if they hadn't all imposed harsh austerity measures, just like the Republicans want to happen here in the States.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 7, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Because when Republicans are in power, the middle class thrives, when Democrats are in power the gap between rich and poor grows.
> 
> That is not what they TELL the liberal sheep, but it IS what happens.



Except that wealth distribution is at its most uneven levels ever, and this has been measured regardless of who is in power:
5 facts about economic inequality | Pew Research Center

Republicans were once of the middle class. Then they started getting all necrophiliac with Ronald Reagan and his terrible economic policies and jumping into bed with the religious right. They've been shitting the bed economically ever since. The idea that rich CEOs will use their prodigious tax breaks to create new jobs instead of just chalking that up as extra profits and letting that money sit in a bank in the Cayman Islands tax-free is a pipe dream.

Government services cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Privatizing everything will NOT solve the problem. The private sector can be just as shady and corrupt as any government office. Why? Because people are still involved in the process. As it currently stands, the Republican party has become the worst party to have in charge of finances ever since they started worshipping at the altar of Reagan.

If Repubs want my respect again, they need to go back to the roots of Ike:
Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive Search

Even in there, Eisenhower strongly opposed the removal of anti-trust laws and the growing of monopolies, as well as enough government interference economically to prevent "a downward spiral".

If the Republicans wanted to know where the party went off the rails and forced former repubs like myself to jump ship to the left, well it's when they started trying to use seances to have Reagan make all their decisions for them. Oh, that and their current abysmal track record on social issues.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Thankfully we've had Paul Ryan and the boys to block the leftist over the last 6yrs..



So you believe that every good thing the dems have attempted (including several attempted jobs bills, and even the 2013 federal budget) was completely worth blocking at all costs? IIRC most governmental services were shut down last year and it was the fault of the Republicans (specifically John Boehner and Mitch McConnell) for not wanting to compromise or make any attempts to negotiate, due to Obamacare. The Republican party held a gun to the head of the entire government and millions of people went without vital services (including my disabled aunt that had her disability check delayed for 2 months and was behind on bills for 2 months because of this) all because the Republican party threw a temper tantrum over a watered down bill, that they themselves watered down and then passed.

Literally the biggest temper tantrum in US government history (domestically speaking) over healthcare, but that's something to be applauded? Um... no.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Checks and balances.
> They help keep either side from running too wild.
> Without them Obama would have by now transformed this country into another socialist failure.
> Thankfully we've had Paul Ryan and the boys to block the leftist over the last 6yrs..



Citation needed. Hopefully it'll have more substance than Paul Ryan's magic asterisks. Seriously, Trench, if you think Obama is such a rampaging socialist, then you really have a very poor grasp of political theory. Obama's a Clintonian moderate, which in just about any other democracy puts him just slightly to the right of center.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> If the GOP is going to obtain a clean sweep in 2yrs then they must showcase Obama's obstructionism by passing bill after bill after bill and then leaving it for him to continually veto them.
> If he doesn't then they get their way, and if he does keep rejecting good progress then they again get their way .



If the Republicans pass crazy bills, I don't think there's a political downside to vetoing them, and "crazy" is what I've come to expect from the current Republicans.


----------



## canuck brian (Nov 7, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> So you believe that every good thing the dems have attempted (including several attempted jobs bills, and even the 2013 federal budget) was completely worth blocking at all costs? IIRC most governmental services were shut down last year and it was the fault of the Republicans (specifically John Boehner and Mitch McConnell) for not wanting to compromise or make any attempts to negotiate, due to Obamacare. The Republican party held a gun to the head of the entire government and millions of people went without vital services (including my disabled aunt that had her disability check delayed for 2 months and was behind on bills for 2 months because of this) all because the Republican party threw a temper tantrum over a watered down bill, that they themselves watered down and then passed.
> 
> Literally the biggest temper tantrum in US government history (domestically speaking) over healthcare, but that's something to be applauded? Um... no.




You forgot the part where all the Republicans who backed that motion continued to get paid and when interviewed said things like "but i need my salary", continuing to get paid $175,000 a year on average while they basically fisted every single person who suddenly didn't get paid, receive benefit checks or receive any government support. Insane.

(not directed at the quoted guy!) If you seriously think the Republicans give one iota of a shit about you, you're delusional. You'd need to be white, straight and christian to actually be considered a proper one. At least the Democratic party attempts to actually make it look like they do.

God, after viewing some of the hearings these people "speak" in, I wonder how they've managed to print their own bloody name with the crayons they've been provided.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 7, 2014)

I won't let your socialist facts get in the way of my freedom ya damn commie!


----------



## pushpull7 (Nov 7, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Try not to be so optimistic .



Yeah, it's pretty dreary, but after seeing it over and over again it's a bit taxing.

I used to be really involved in politics, now I'm just barely casually involved. It gets tiresome arguing about it all. 

Some good points in this thread.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 7, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> As a Pakistani, my main concern is, does this mean more wars?



Unfortunately, I assume so. I detest Republicans and Tea party members because that's their solution to everything and they are the reason why everyone laughs at America.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Nov 7, 2014)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> Unfortunately, I assume so. I detest Republicans and Tea party members because that's their solution to everything and they are the reason why everyone laughs at America.



Honestly, there are absolutely no members of either party who would, at this point, vote for a serious foreign intervention in any country unless it was in response to another 9/11 type event. Public opinion is dramatically, hugely against anything remotely like that. That's why Obama didn't do anything after his congressional resolution on Syria failed last summer- he could have if he had wanted to, but it would have been him against 90% of the American public. I'm not a fan of the Tea Party, but the committed ones - not just the far-right conservatives, but the people who actually want to reduce the size and role of government, like Rand Paul and Justin Amash - are as anti-war as the far-left dems.

As for Pakistan, it's got widespread blackouts, the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, and Imran Khan trying to overthrow the Sharif government. The US basically stopped all drone strikes in Pakistan a while ago. We're the least of Pakistan's problems these days, especially since Obama's policy there seems to be to relax U.S. activity for a while to give Sharif breathing room for peace talks with the TTP.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 12, 2014)

Mprinsje said:


> Another socialist failure like? Germany? Norway? Sweden? UK? even my own country the Netherlands? these countries are all doing pretty well if i remember correctly, sure they're not flawless but i'd gladly pay some more taxes for decent healthcare.



How socialism has worked in those countries, compared to how the same economic/social model might work in the US, is comparing apples to oranges. Actually more like fruits to vegetables. I'm not downing any of those nations. I sometimes wished I lived in Europe.

And just a personal observation. The DAY after Obama was re-elected, we had a meeting at work, as did quite a few people I know, about how our healthcare insurance rates were going up. But were told, it had nothing to do with politics. lol Really?


----------



## asher (Nov 12, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> The DAY after Obama was re-elected, we had a meeting at work, as did quite a few people I know, about how our healthcare insurance rates were going up. But were told, it had nothing to do with politics. lol Really?



But the *free market*! Because _reasons._


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 17, 2014)

Free market? Free for who, the 1 percenters?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 18, 2014)

Relevant I think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/paul-krugman-when-government-succeeds.html?_r=0


----------



## asher (Nov 18, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Relevant I think.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/paul-krugman-when-government-succeeds.html?_r=0



Krugman is pretty much always someone to listen to.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 18, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Free market? Free for who, the 1 percenters?



Basically.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 18, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> ... Republicans are the party of the middle class and anyone in the lower class who wants an improved life ...



                       

Please explain how the following items help the Middle & Lower Classes:
Denying Citizens the Right to Marry based on biggotted, mythilogical views
Exempting megacorps from federal law so the owners can force their mythology on their employees
Bailing out megacorps that took advantage of Republican loopholes and forcing the smaller businesses to suffer on their own
Cutting large corporation taxes/fees while increaseing small business taxes/fess
Blocking minimum wage laws that have been shown over and over to actually increase commerce and the standard of living where enacted
Wasting money defending 1st Amendment Violations that are an assured loss
Forcing creation mythology and revisionist history into public schools
Forcing the military to prohibit secular Chaplains and stacking the deck so that all non-evangelical-christian faiths are phenomenally underserved
Passing laws that are flagrant violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th & 14th Amendments
Placing unnecessary restrictions on medical care that forces providers to go out of business because you have mythological problems with one of the dozens of services they provide
Preventing education and services that are proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies that would allow young potential to actually mature, get an education and become productive members of society
Cutting the funds to support social services that would enable young parents to actually mature, get an education and become productive members of society
Increase prison populations by criminalizing trivial crimes disproportionately convict only the lower income citizens

This is from somebody who is not by any means pro-Democrat, just a lot more anti-Republican than I've ever been in the 30 years I've been able to vote.

And before the "Democrats do some of these things too!" solipsistic whines start piping-up:
It doesn't change the fact that Republicans are currently the worst in these areas (there was a period where Republicans were the defenders of the 4th & 5th Amendment )
If it's wrong, it's wrong whether it's Blue-flavored or Red-flavored Republicrats violating The Constitution, cutting favors for their cronies, holding other people back, etc.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 18, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> How socialism has worked in those countries, compared to how the same economic/social model might work in the US, is comparing apples to oranges. Actually more like fruits to vegetables. I'm not downing any of those nations. I sometimes wished I lived in Europe.



Socialism can't work because you say so, and evidence that socialism can work can be dismissed because you say so?

Really?


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 18, 2014)

^apparently so, because socialism.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 19, 2014)

America has had right wing presidents for the last 50 years. Both of your dominant parties are right wing.


----------



## asher (Nov 19, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> America has had right wing presidents for the last 50 years. Both of your dominant parties are right wing.



Relative to the rest of the world, kinda. The Dems span a bigger range and have some elements that would still be on the left, but a lot of Dem *politicians* are around the middle, really.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm just going to leave this here.   


House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research - Salon.com


Okay at this point how can ANYONE with an ounce of common sense say that the Republican party is going to help this country in the long run?


----------



## vilk (Nov 20, 2014)

^That's the thing--I think many people's idea of "helping the country in the long run" has more to do with putting down minorities and christianifying the government moreso than, say, saving the earth or creating equal opportunity.


----------



## ferret (Nov 21, 2014)

Blog analyst of the 2014 elections and what it means for 2016, by a Republican: The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 25, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I dont understand this. American economy has been stagnant for past 6 years, Obama has tripled the deficit, and the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly during his presidency. All this plus health care industry is going down the toilet.
> 
> For those of you who are getting govt subsidies for your health care and never had good employee sponsored coverage, all the Obamacare plans are ***t with limited access to physicians and incredibly high deductibles. If you have to pay 5-10K out of pocket for deductibles, that is just as good as NO insurance. If you have looked at the coverage plans, you will find that many specialists are not covered in-network because they are "too expensive" so if you get anything more complicated than a broken arm you will be using out of network physicians and facilities. Obamacare only covers a small percentage (0-50% depending on what plan you have) so your next hospital stay will end up costing 25-100K.
> 
> ...




Exactly right!!!
Nice to see another person on this thread that really gets it .


----------



## spectrrrrrre (Nov 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly right!!!
> Nice to see another person on this thread that really gets it .



Also misinformed. See Page 3: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/4205792-post70.html


----------



## will_shred (Nov 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly right!!!
> Nice to see another person on this thread that really gets it .



I'm not trying to be a dick, but how can you honestly believe that when pretty much all of that is objectively incorrect? I mean, politics isn't just a war of opinions. There are actual facts about policies that work and don't work.

I mean, it seems like every time we have this back and fourth with conservatives they always bring their hard line opinions, and they are usually shown to not be based in empirical evidence. I just don't understand how you can honestly adopt modern conservatism when the ideas presented have been shown time, and time again to crash and burn when implemented. 

I mean, let's take the states for example. Red states have across the board higher rates of poverty, lower rates of literacy, less access to healthcare, higher teen pregnancy, higher crime, more people on food stamps and social security, higher drug abuse rates, worse schools. I mean literally by all objective measures states that implement republican policies end up worse off. The only people who have ever benefited from republican policies are the ultra-rich who are made ultra-richer. 



> According to The Department of Agriculture&#8217;s measure of poverty, every red state from Arizona to South Carolina has the highest poverty rates in America; between 17.9% and 22.8%. The so-called bible belt is America&#8217;s poverty belt including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. According to the Children&#8217;s Defense Fund, nearly one in four children trapped in Southern red states live in dire poverty and parents of those children elect Republicans.





You have never once been able to defend your positions with actual facts showing how conservative economics does the most good for the most people. The day you do that, is the day I renounce my liberal philosophy. However I don't think that will be happening any time soon.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 26, 2014)

Epic post  except for this part:



PlumbTheDerps said:


> Also:


That data only covers 2008-2009, so it says nothing about Obamacare. And to be fair, he was talking about the time you need to wait for an appointment, not how long you have to wait in the office. This is the data you want:

http://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkings/Surveys/mha2014waitsurvPDF.pdf

Mostly unchanged or lower since the ACA. (Though correlation =/= causality.)


----------



## will_shred (Nov 27, 2014)

The party of "fiscal responsibility" is at it again. Showing just how fiscally responsible they are, by demanding another 400 billion in tax cuts. Almost all of which will benefit large corporations (Shocker). Oh, and they're bidding to slash the earned income tax credit, and child tax credit. 

But they're the party of the working class right guys?

GOP demands a pound of flesh in tax deal | MSNBC


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 28, 2014)

Conservative parties always claim to be fiscally responsible but, in North America at least, they always leave the country in worse debt than the other parties have. 

Why do we still let them make this, objectively, proven false claim?


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

A) People are stupid
A1) Our education system sucks
B) Tribal affiliations
C) The MSM is mostly in their pockets


----------



## asher (Dec 2, 2014)

Party of the lower middle class, huh?

Jobs Bills That Don't Create Jobs: What Republican Control Could Mean


----------



## Necris (Dec 2, 2014)

Unrelated, but every time I see "MSM" mainstream media isn't the first term that comes to mind.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 2, 2014)

Necris said:


> Unrelated, but every time I see "MSM" mainstream media isn't the first term that comes to mind.



I'm pretty sure there are a few closeted republicans that thought it meant the same thing as you. 

Also, here's what I envisioned when I heard that the Republicans were taking over Congress...


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Just another 2 years of not a lot getting done. The republican way, maintain the status quo.
> 
> I'm more saddened by the low voter turnout. Not particularly surprised, but it disappoints me every election.



Minorities not showing up to vote democrat is their way of voting Republican. They know in their hearts that the current administration screwed them.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

will_shred said:


> The party of "fiscal responsibility" is at it again. Showing just how fiscally responsible they are, by demanding another 400 billion in tax cuts. Almost all of which will benefit large corporations (Shocker). Oh, and they're bidding to slash the earned income tax credit, and child tax credit.
> 
> But they're the party of the working class right guys?
> 
> GOP demands a pound of flesh in tax deal | MSNBC



I am a working class professional and the 400 billion in tax cuts translates to jobs, R&D, and growth for the kind of companies I work for, it puts food on my table. And then I hire a landscaper, and go to Home Depot and buy new appliances, (which are further taxed) because I see prospects for career growth, and the manager at Home Depot has a good year and can send his kid to piano lessons.. And his piano teacher can afford a new car, the car salesman can buy his GF and engagement ring, and then they get married and the rest of the money goes to caterers and wedding planners. Its the driver of growth.

People dont understand trickle down economics.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> People dont understand trickle down economics.



What you described is not trickle down economics, it is the multiplier effect wherein a dollar inserted into the economy is spent (and taxed) multiple times.

Trickle down economics implies that the government can provide tax breaks to large companies and those companies will in turn spend that money on investments that will create jobs and, in turn, salaries, that lead to high multiplier factors (e.g., that dollar is spent quite a few times as it changes hands). Unfortunately, that doesn't usually pan out because the companies that receive the tax breaks will tend to invest in areas like dividends to shareholders, bonuses to executives, stock market investments to hedge against upcoming downturns in their industry, etc. These monies then tend to be re-invested in the stock market, or a vacation house in the Hamptons for the executive, or similar areas that don't create more jobs, and ultimately lead to low multiplier factors.

If you compare that to tax breaks for the poor and middle class people, these monies saved on taxes by the poor and middle class tend to be spent on paying for food, clothing, shelter, electricity, a car repair to get to work, etc. and lead to higher multiplier factors via "trickle up" economics. This benefits the local economy, the economies of the producers and manufacturers of the products and services purchased and the governments. And when you have more demand, the suppliers have to increase supply in order to meet it, so that leads to new jobs creation, etc.

TL;DR: Trickle down economics might look good on paper, but trickle up economics works better for just about everyone (except the 1 percenters) in real world practice.


----------



## vilk (Dec 5, 2014)

Wait wait wait wait wait

I was pretty sure that trickle down economics was proven to be unequivocally FALSE like 20 years ago? Like, I was under the impression that it's no longer even a debate. Are present-day GOPers making claims that trickle down works? It seems like suicide because I'm fairly certain that everyone conservative and liberal alike knows that it scientifically/sociologically/historically/economically/mathematically does not work...


----------



## flint757 (Dec 5, 2014)

It's been the GOP mantra since Reagan. They never stopped.


----------



## Jzbass25 (Dec 5, 2014)

vilk said:


> Wait wait wait wait wait
> 
> I was pretty sure that trickle down economics was proven to be unequivocally FALSE like 20 years ago? Like, I was under the impression that it's no longer even a debate. Are present-day GOPers making claims that trickle down works? It seems like suicide because I'm fairly certain that everyone conservative and liberal alike knows scientifically/sociologically/historically/economically/mathematically does not work...



You would be surprised how many people blindly follow their party (or group) and throw away facts that contradict their beliefs, logic goes out the window for many sadly. Also one of my degrees was in economics and I don't think anyone in the program truly believed in trickle down. Sure loads of things sound great on paper but sometimes things are too optimistic, misguided or just sensationalized to get followers. 

Sadly the voters have been made to fight each other while also getting ....ed over and many times blatantly lied to, we really don't need more tax cuts and budget cuts and the whole "balancing the budget" mantra. We do need changes to tax code though and we need to reform and fund many programs. We can't just say oh the budget isn't balanced so now we can't fix the roads, give books to schools, provide services, etc. That's just stupid and our culture has become so self centered that we're actually going in that direction because "I have nice roads so I don't wanna pay for those people over there to have nice roads!" (While their roads were paid for partly by the people they don't want to help)


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> What you described is not trickle down economics, it is the multiplier effect wherein a dollar inserted into the economy is spent (and taxed) multiple times.
> 
> Trickle down economics implies that the government can provide tax breaks to large companies and those companies will in turn spend that money on investments that will create jobs and, in turn, salaries, that lead to high multiplier factors (e.g., that dollar is spent quite a few times as it changes hands). Unfortunately, that doesn't usually pan out because the companies that receive the tax breaks will tend to invest in areas like dividends to shareholders, bonuses to executives, stock market investments to hedge against upcoming downturns in their industry, etc. These monies then tend to be re-invested in the stock market, or a vacation house in the Hamptons for the executive, or similar areas that don't create more jobs, and ultimately lead to low multiplier factors.
> 
> ...


Youre trying to appear intelligent by composing a more in depth response but you just repeated what I said.

Also, Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax in history. So I don't know where that leaves you. Middle class is the one paying the lions share of taxes, not the poor.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 5, 2014)

How is Obamacare a tax on the middle class? A lot of people in the middle class already have insurance, like myself, which means I don't get penalized and I'm not utilizing or spending money through 'Obamacare' either (so any fees associated with that are also nonexistent). While it may not be overtly beneficial to those who needed healthcare reform badly (uninsured lower class) those individuals are also not the middle class overall. What it did do for the middle class at least is guarantee that someone with cancer, or someone like myself with a preexisting health condition, can't get shafted by the insurance company when the only way to even get somewhat manageable medical bills is in fact only possible with insurance. I got a bone density scan last year and a DEXA scan. Bone scan without insurance cost $2400 and DEXA scan was $800. MRI, CAT scans, hospital beds, pain medication, anesthesia, etc. etc. is all way too expensive BECAUSE insurance exists IMO. That bell can't be unrung though and it is the system we live in. 

Now, if you mean to say that other taxes will increase BECAUSE of Obamacare then I could see that point having merit. That being said, that'd be a tax on literally everyone, not just the middle class, and even that isn't entirely true. The only people facing direct tax increases due to Obamacare is the upper class.

Will The Middle Class Really Pay One Trillion In New Obamacare Taxes And, If True, What Would It Buy Them? - Forbes


----------



## tedtan (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Youre trying to appear intelligent by composing a more in depth response but you just repeated what I said.



You must have misread our prior statements. I said trickle down economics can work on paper in a ideal world (e.g., its a nice theory). You claimed it actually works in the real world when history proves otherwise. Big difference there.




GoldDragon said:


> Also, Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax in history. So I don't know where that leaves you. Middle class is the one paying the lions share of taxes, not the poor.



I'm not sure how this relates to trickle down economics, but I have noticed a trend to insult Obama at every opportunity. So is this a straw man or just a personal rant?


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Dec 5, 2014)

Breaking: Michigan House Passes Religious 'License To Discriminate' Bill - The New Civil Rights Movement
Just incase you all missed this one. Our shit "Supreme court" is to blame for this slipperly slope to Hell, after that Hobby Lobby case.


----------



## asher (Dec 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I'm not sure how this relates to trickle down economics, but I have noticed a trend to insult Obama at every opportunity. So is this a straw man or just a personal rant?



Yes.

Also, if we're saying anything against Republican party lines, we *obviously* blindly love anything Obama touches.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> You must have misread our prior statements. I said trickle down economics can work on paper in a ideal world (e.g., its a nice theory). You claimed it actually works in the real world when history proves otherwise. Big difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You referenced middle class tax breaks as a way to stimulate the economy, yet Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax in history. I was showing the inconsistency in your philosophy.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Youre trying to appear intelligent by composing a more in depth response but you just repeated what I said.



Actually, no. Your description of the stimulative effect of consumer spending is correct, but the experience of the last several decades shows that a trickle-down approach to achieving that spending - which is what you were describing, insofar as you assume that corporations that hire you (as a consultant or contractor, I assume) will be more likely to do so following this tax break - doesn't work because corporations tend to use their savings to shore up their own financial stability rather than invest in growth. If you want to stimulate the economy through consumer spending, putting the money *directly* into the hands of consumers - ideally through government employment, but through direct tax rebates to households if necessary - is a much more efficient approach.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> You referenced middle class tax breaks as a way to stimulate the economy, yet Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax in history. I was showing the inconsistency in your philosophy.



But he didn't bring up Obamacare, _you_ did. Even if Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax in history, that would have no bearing at all on whether or not middle class tax breaks stimulate the economy. If someone said that rainfall helps plants grow, could you show they're being inconsistent by pointing out that there's an ongoing drought?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Dec 6, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> I'm pretty sure there are a few closeted republicans that thought it meant the same thing as you.
> 
> Also, here's what I envisioned when I heard that the Republicans were taking over Congress...



 the Republicans, you're giving them too much credit. The Galactic Empire would do a much better job. At least Palpatine wouldn't lie about his agenda once in power. And do you really think the dems being in control is that much better?  It's one group of assholes and their corporations vs the other assholes and their corporations. We lose either way.

The sooner the majority of people in this country realize this and quit towing the party line, the sooner we can have real change. Too bad I don't see it happening any time soon.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 6, 2014)

I don't know, republicans are planning another government shut down and Ted Cruz is looking to be the chair of the Science and Space Subcommittee which decides how projects are funded (he's a legit moron). People definitely need to stop towing the party line, but it seems as of late the Republicans have been on a path of destruction to get their way. I mean people are still going on about Obama being un-American by using executive orders even though that is within his legal right and job description to do AND every president has made executive orders throughout their term(s). To ask for an impeachment of the President is to admit to a lack of knowledge on how our government operates as well as our legal system. If they know it isn't illegal then it is a blatant admission of a willingness to boldly lie to their constituent to trump up votes/donations/campaign slogans. They have a tendency of making themselves sound stupid to the more informed citizens far more regularly.

So no I wouldn't say they are exactly the same. They are different in a wide variety of ways. That being said, I agree that only meaningful change will occur when both of the major parties have far less influence on politics. We need more third party representation. The good news out of recent events in the past 8 or so years is that the Tea Party is starting to fade out of relevance and at the moment they have divided Republicans all over the country. It's this kind of divide that could very well lead to at least one of the major parties dissolving or absorbing new ideas from other third parties.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Dec 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I don't know, republicans are planning another government shut down and Ted Cruz is looking to be the chair of the Science and Space Subcommittee which decides how projects are funded (he's a legit moron). People definitely need to stop towing the party line, but it seems as of late the Republicans have been on a path of destruction to get their way. I mean people are still going on about Obama being un-American by using executive orders even though that is within his legal right and job description to do AND every president has made executive orders throughout their term(s). To ask for an impeachment of the President is to admit to a lack of knowledge on how our government operates as well as our legal system. If they know it isn't illegal then it is a blatant admission of a willingness to boldly lie to their constituent to trump up votes/donations/campaign slogans. They have a tendency of making themselves sound stupid to the more informed citizens far more regularly.
> 
> So no I wouldn't say they are exactly the same. They are different in a wide variety of ways. That being said, I agree that only meaningful change will occur when both of the major parties have far less influence on politics. We need more third party representation. The good news out of recent events in the past 8 or so years is that the Tea Party is starting to fade out of relevance and at the moment they have divided Republicans all over the country. It's this kind of divide that could very well lead to at least one of the major parties dissolving or absorbing new ideas from other third parties.


I call them Republicant's for a reason. They can't do anything without installing fear into people. Right after elections the "Ebola scare" vanished. Hmmmmm I wonder why.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 6, 2014)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> Right after elections the "Ebola scare" vanished. Hmmmmm I wonder why.



It mysteriously disappeared off my Facebook feed as well. All those people getting scared and saying what was wrong with the system, etc. Then what happened? Nothing because it wasn't as big of a deal as everyone was making it and the system WORKED.

I've been trying to find a way for like a week now to tell some of my family how dumb their reaction was, considering how little they care now, without sounding like a dick. I don't think it is possible.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 7, 2014)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> I call them Republicant's for a reason.



Yeah, because you don't know how to use apostrophes and/or form plurals properly 


Sorry. English teacher. Couldn't help myself.

Carry on!


----------



## will_shred (Dec 8, 2014)

vilk said:


> Wait wait wait wait wait
> 
> I was pretty sure that trickle down economics was proven to be unequivocally FALSE like 20 years ago? Like, I was under the impression that it's no longer even a debate. Are present-day GOPers making claims that trickle down works? It seems like suicide because I'm fairly certain that everyone conservative and liberal alike knows that it scientifically/sociologically/historically/economically/mathematically does not work...



For academics the debate has been closed for a long time. Though conservative Americans are still diluted because they keep drinking the kool-aid of the right wing echo chamber. I'm not going to comment anymore on that because every point this guy has tried to make has already been debunked earlier in this thread.


----------



## will_shred (Dec 8, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I am a working class professional and the 400 billion in tax cuts translates to jobs, R&D, and growth for the kind of companies I work for, it puts food on my table. And then I hire a landscaper, and go to Home Depot and buy new appliances, (which are further taxed) because I see prospects for career growth, and the manager at Home Depot has a good year and can send his kid to piano lessons.. And his piano teacher can afford a new car, the car salesman can buy his GF and engagement ring, and then they get married and the rest of the money goes to caterers and wedding planners. Its the driver of growth.
> 
> People dont understand trickle down economics.



No, that's actually not true at all. Those tax breaks are almost entirely only accessible to people (or businesses) who are already extremely wealthy They're actually bidding to increase taxes on working class families by killing earned income tax credits and child tax credits. I'm just going to point this out on the topic of voting. Barack Obama in 2008 ran on a hugely progressive platform and won by a pretty large margin as a result. Democrats who ran on progressive platforms won across the boards in the midterm elections, the problem is that Democratic strategists have this delusion that most independent voters lean right, so they try to get their candidates to lean right. The result? Low democratic voter turn out because none of the candidates actually appeal to democrats.

ONE MORE THING. I'm going to leave this here, because a select few people here need to understand how government debt works. 



A huge thing is that every time the republicans scream DEBT CRISIS, it makes international investors nervous about the stability of the dollar and the stability of the federal government itself. It's akin to screaming fire in a crowded room, or maybe more appropriate for 2014 screaming bomb in an airport. There's not actually a threat, but the panic caused is dangerous in and of itself.


----------



## asher (Dec 8, 2014)

Except the panic only extends to those people who want to scream about debt. Or inflation. Or whatever is the flavor of the month.

Funny how their solution is *always* cutting the social safety net and hard money solutions that kick people whole they're down.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 8, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> the Republicans, you're giving them too much credit. The Galactic Empire would do a much better job. At least Palpatine wouldn't lie about his agenda once in power. And do you really think the dems being in control is that much better?  It's one group of assholes and their corporations vs the other assholes and their corporations. We lose either way.
> 
> The sooner the majority of people in this country realize this and quit towing the party line, the sooner we can have real change. Too bad I don't see it happening any time soon.



Yeah that emoticon is probably well deserved. I thought I was giving them too much credit by associating them with with well loved villains. Dems have their weaknesses too and I'd be a fool not to recognize them. But I've yet to see the Democratic party wanton stop on and trample the rights of women, LGBTs, black/asian/non-whites, and the lower and middle classes the way the GOP has. As sad as it is to say, the whole party system here has kinda been the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. With Citizens United in place, that more or less firmly cemented the two party system into place, because now no other political party can compete. Personally, I'd do goddamn backflips of joy if we could get Bernie Sanders (who's an independent) in the White House, but we all know that's unlikely because the closest an independent party candidate has ever come to being elected president was Ross Perot. Again, with Citizen's United given precedent by the SCOTUS, I doubt any other party will ever get that close again. They just won't be able to raise the donation funds that dems and repubs earn through multi-billion dollar corporations now. And that's something that pisses me off.


----------

