"As the dust settles" What should Obama do first? [Vote!]

How do you feel about the next four years?

Optimistic	55.6%	[ 79 ]
Pessimistic	12.0%	[ 17 ]
Nuetral	15.5%	[ 22 ]
Wish independents had more sway	9.2%	[ 13 ]
He's black isn't he?	1.4%	[ 2 ]
Huh? ... Wut?	6.3%	[ 9 ]
Total Votes:			[ 142 ]

[Divine_Malevolence]

iRawrRawr

Again, I never said what Republican Presidents and their parties were doing was financially responsible. Stop putting words in my mouth. You argue like a child. I'm simply stating that under the Cinton's administration, the majority of his economic advisory board had conservative views, i.e. Joseph Stiglitz. Also, Austan Goolsbee, along with others, whose recommendations (which mimic Clinton's administration) are deinied by the Presidential platform from the Democratic party. He himself even said the current plan supported by the Democratic Party will not be affective.

No, you were just saying that something besides it was responsible.
So we're agreed on the fact that they have, throughout the years, been financially irresponsible?

And that would be convincing.... If it wasn't being effective. If the deficit wasn't going down. If the unemployment rate wasn't going down.
If, you know, Clinton hadn't come out with a great speech detailing the math revolving around it.


Could things be better?
Yes. There's pretty much always room for improvement, as perfection is more or less beyond us.
What are the odds for it getting better under Romney?
Looking at the past and what you can tell of his plan, extremely low.

[iRawrRawr]

S.Lyger

True true, before he'd been sworn in the house majority leader said their main goal was to make Obama a one term president by any means. lol 200 something filibusters later they swear its all his policies that just aren't working. But I hear that generally a particular instance doesn't always reflect the full on policy of the party. On the other hand economically that has been the trend republicans followed with some differences. In reality though this is not conservative other than that it cuts spending to many gov programs, like social security, medicare, and some social welfare programs. Rarely cuts from subsidies, or anything involving big business though, which is why I think that stigma has followed them around, at least with people willing to admit it.

True. I honestly don't feel that either party has an entirely good fix for the economy as it stands, but just in my opinion I feel that Romney has a better plan in regards. But again, if Obama wins then I'm not gonna go cry and shoot myself. For all I know, maybe it will work out. That's just how it is. How far on the spectrum will the president shift after being elected. It always happens. It even happened with Obama after his first time. There was a drastic shift. The whole politics issue in general is pathetic. It's too much of a battle to win votes that they can't even portray their own personal values as president.

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

Divine_Malevolence

iRawrRawr

Divine_Malevolence

Which is backed by the fact that social welfare programs have coincided with nothing but the debt going up.
Oh, wait, no. It's been around since the twenties, was not among the major causes of the depression, and has kept its place in our society through good times and bad since then.


Now, lets look at something that does correlate.
Ronald Reagan first introduced the theory of trickle down. During his administration, not only did the deficit begin to shoot up, but it did so more drastically than at any point in the future. On top of this, job creation per year was actually lower than Carter, the president who had four years before him who nobody liked.
Continue through George H W Bush who wasn't remarkable, had a near insignificant job growth, and still managed to raise the debt.
Then Clinton. Where job growth exploded and the trend of the past twelve years of rising debts was temporarily reversed. Welfare was as present then as it is now.
Then, after Clinton, we elected George W Bush. Who, using his recent predecessor's plans, managed to instantly turn Clinton's successes around. Four years later he was reelected despite the fact that he had already proven himself to be a negative influence, and this paid off three years later when the stock market crashed and caused the recession that we're still fighting today.


What was there throughout both the good and bad of these times? Welfare.
What was only there during the bad? Republican policies.

Your argument is entirely irrelevant.
1. I was not saying that social welfare programs should be abolished. AT ALL. Clearly if you actually read the conversation maybe you could've figured that out.
2. During Clinton's presidency his economic policy modeled Republican economic policy (in the fact that it was very conservative) Now, obviously you can't simply call one economic policy republican or democrat because it's switched around so much. Again, looking at conservative and liberal is where it actually counts. Like I said prior, I am independant, so I have no bias in favor either way.
3. George Bush did not IMMEDIATELY turn Clinton's success around. After he was put into office, things only slightly decreased. Again, along with any other presidential transition in history. It wasn't really until the terrorist attacks that things started going bad. (I am also not saying George. W. Bush was a good president. I personally think he was a complete a** and got us into the war in Iraq for his own personal gain in regards to oil, but that's another story).

Again, it's entirely ignorant to say Republican policies were the cause of bad situations. What the hell is your definition of Republican policy? Becuase it changes with every preisdent.

1) You said it was the cause. My point was that it... You know... Wasn't.
2) Clinton raised taxes and cut military spending. Kind of the opposite of what else was going around.
3) It was gone halfway through his first term. Pretty damn immediate.

And, no, not really. Because historically, they have managed to time and time again raise the debt. They started the rising debts, they continued the rising debts, someone with opposing views managed to begin to lower them, and then they brought up and caused the debt to explode.
It's pretty damn clear that whatever the ******** they're doing isn't financially responsible.

Again, I never said what Republican Presidents and their parties were doing was financially responsible. Stop putting words in my mouth. You argue like a child. I'm simply stating that under the Cinton's administration, the majority of his economic advisory board had conservative views, i.e. Joseph Stiglitz. Also, Austan Goolsbee, along with others, whose recommendations (which mimic Clinton's administration) are deinied by the Presidential platform from the Democratic party. He himself even said the current plan supported by the Democratic Party will not be affective.

He himself being Clinton? said that?

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

True true, before he'd been sworn in the house majority leader said their main goal was to make Obama a one term president by any means. lol 200 something filibusters later they swear its all his policies that just aren't working. But I hear that generally a particular instance doesn't always reflect the full on policy of the party. On the other hand economically that has been the trend republicans followed with some differences. In reality though this is not conservative other than that it cuts spending to many gov programs, like social security, medicare, and some social welfare programs. Rarely cuts from subsidies, or anything involving big business though, which is why I think that stigma has followed them around, at least with people willing to admit it.

True. I honestly don't feel that either party has an entirely good fix for the economy as it stands, but just in my opinion I feel that Romney has a better plan in regards. But again, if Obama wins then I'm not gonna go cry and shoot myself. For all I know, maybe it will work out. That's just how it is. How far on the spectrum will the president shift after being elected. It always happens. It even happened with Obama after his first time. There was a drastic shift. The whole politics issue in general is pathetic. It's too much of a battle to win votes that they can't even portray their own personal values as president.

But Obama does portray his views, he's always been about the middle class and the 90 something % thats not rich , along with equal rights and equal opportunity stuff like lily led better, and even potentially the dream act, minimum wage, student grant programs stuff like that. Romney is the one who we don't really know what he stands for because it always changes, and people say he's serious about his faith, but he's never said anything about it.

[iRawrRawr]

Divine_Malevolence

iRawrRawr

Again, I never said what Republican Presidents and their parties were doing was financially responsible. Stop putting words in my mouth. You argue like a child. I'm simply stating that under the Cinton's administration, the majority of his economic advisory board had conservative views, i.e. Joseph Stiglitz. Also, Austan Goolsbee, along with others, whose recommendations (which mimic Clinton's administration) are deinied by the Presidential platform from the Democratic party. He himself even said the current plan supported by the Democratic Party will not be affective.

No, you were just saying that something besides it was responsible.
So we're agreed on the fact that they have, throughout the years, been financially irresponsible?

And that would be convincing.... If it wasn't being effective. If the deficit wasn't going down. If the unemployment rate wasn't going down.
If, you know, Clinton hadn't come out with a great speech detailing the math revolving around it.


Could things be better?
Yes. There's pretty much always room for improvement, as perfection is more or less beyond us.
What are the odds for it getting better under Romney?
Looking at the past and what you can tell of his plan, extremely low.

I would agree that the past few Republican presidents have been financially irresponsible. But it's ignorant to say that only Republicans raised the debt.

Here's a graph depicting the debts by president:

http://speakingofdemocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

It was steadily decreasing until Reagan. So, looking on the past few years it's really increased. True, in Clinton's terms it's been the first real time we've seen decline. So honestly, what we need is an economic plan that will follow Clinton's. I just can't vote for a president whose own economic advisors don't agree with the plan that's being put through.

In regards to all other comments: read previous posts.

[iRawrRawr]

S.Lyger

He himself being Clinton? said that?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion. Both Stiglitz and Goolsbee. Stiglitz came out to the press and answered so during an interview.

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

He himself being Clinton? said that?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion. Both Stiglitz and Goolsbee. Stiglitz came out to the press and answered so during an interview.

Oh ok gotcha, cool cool

[iRawrRawr]

S.Lyger

But Obama does portray his views, he's always been about the middle class and the 90 something % thats not rich , along with equal rights and equal opportunity stuff like lily led better, and even potentially the dream act, minimum wage, student grant programs stuff like that. Romney is the one who we don't really know what he stands for because it always changes, and people say he's serious about his faith, but he's never said anything about it.

I can't argue in his favor in that regards. There could be a number of reasons behind his ambiguity. It could be his own personal deceptiveness or party platform influence in cause of winning or losing votes. I, for one, don't agree with an equal economy. As I said before, I entirely follow the platform of a free-market, capitalist economy. I just don't feel taxes are the way to get there. That's just my opinion. Also, raising minimum wage has often proven to have inverse effects on the economy as a whole over time.

[Divine_Malevolence]

iRawrRawr

I would agree that the past few Republican presidents have been financially irresponsible. But it's ignorant to say that only Republicans raised the debt.

Here's a graph depicting the debts by president:

http://speakingofdemocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

It was steadily decreasing until Reagan. So, looking on the past few years it's really increased. True, in Clinton's terms it's been the first real time we've seen decline. So honestly, what we need is an economic plan that will follow Clinton's. I just can't vote for a president whose own economic advisors don't agree with the plan that's being put through.

In regards to all other comments: read previous posts.

Yes.
Lets look at that graph, shall we?

The graph goes downwards to an all time low with Carter. As soon as Reagan steps into office, it skyrockets. Bush senior? It continues to go up.
Clinton, the opposing party? It goes down.
Bush? Back up again.
Exactly as I said.

When did the modern day republican ideal of trickle down come in?
Reagan.
When did the debt shoot up?
During republican presidencies after Reagan.
When did it start going down again?
Democratic presidencies after Reagan.

I mean, the graph speaks for itself. Whatever they've been doing? It has not been working.
You want to go with an economic plan that will follow Clinton's? Why not follow the one he's endorsing?

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

He himself being Clinton? said that?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion. Both Stiglitz and Goolsbee. Stiglitz came out to the press and answered so during an interview.

As for the allies thing I agree to, I feel like our involvement overseas should be lessened. I can't think of a good justification for stopping humanitarian aid but everything else could be reduced some. The problem is we've been doing it so long, that the presumption in some cases is that the world would fall apart if we didn't intervene all the time lol.

[iRawrRawr]

Divine_Malevolence

iRawrRawr

I would agree that the past few Republican presidents have been financially irresponsible. But it's ignorant to say that only Republicans raised the debt.

Here's a graph depicting the debts by president:

http://speakingofdemocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

It was steadily decreasing until Reagan. So, looking on the past few years it's really increased. True, in Clinton's terms it's been the first real time we've seen decline. So honestly, what we need is an economic plan that will follow Clinton's. I just can't vote for a president whose own economic advisors don't agree with the plan that's being put through.

In regards to all other comments: read previous posts.

Yes.
Lets look at that graph, shall we?

The graph goes downwards to an all time low with Carter. As soon as Reagan steps into office, it skyrockets. Bush senior? It continues to go up.
Clinton, the opposing party? It goes down.
Bush? Back up again.
Exactly as I said.

When did the modern day republican ideal of trickle down come in?
Reagan.
When did the debt shoot up?
During republican presidencies after Reagan.
When did it start going down again?
Democratic presidencies after Reagan.

I mean, the graph speaks for itself. Whatever they've been doing? It has not been working.
You want to go with an economic plan that will follow Clinton's? Why not follow the one he's endorsing?

Again, the words trickle down theory never came out of my mouth, nor the effectiveness of it.

I simply said, conservative economic policy tends to work better.

As I've previously said, I don't think that a tax increase is going to help the economy as it stands. AGAIN, that's my OPINION. Not fact. But you can't prove that raising taxes will benefit our economy either. Yes, it will lower the deficit, but what about SOL? (and no, not s**t Outta Luck)

And I don't honestly think Clinton is endorsing it because he agrees with it. Especially when his own economic advisors don't agree with it. I think the democratic party just got Clinton to endorse it to make people feel good about the plan. Sure, maybe it will work, but maybe it won't. We'll see.

Anyway, I have to go, I'm done discussing this anyay.

[iRawrRawr]

S.Lyger

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

He himself being Clinton? said that?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion. Both Stiglitz and Goolsbee. Stiglitz came out to the press and answered so during an interview.

As for the allies thing I agree to, I feel like our involvement overseas should be lessened. I can't think of a good justification for stopping humanitarian aid but everything else could be reduced some. The problem is we've been doing it so long, that the presumption in some cases is that the world would fall apart if we didn't intervene all the time lol.

Lol, it is. It's like the expectation of the world that we have to go in and control it. To be honest, we're not the police. It's the foreign involvement that keeps the tax money going to useless things that don't even benefit our country. I mean, I'm all for world peace and stuff, but every country doesn't want to follow the model of the USA. Anyway, as I said, I have to go. More talk later.

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

But Obama does portray his views, he's always been about the middle class and the 90 something % thats not rich , along with equal rights and equal opportunity stuff like lily led better, and even potentially the dream act, minimum wage, student grant programs stuff like that. Romney is the one who we don't really know what he stands for because it always changes, and people say he's serious about his faith, but he's never said anything about it.

I can't argue in his favor in that regards. There could be a number of reasons behind his ambiguity. It could be his own personal deceptiveness or party platform influence in cause of winning or losing votes. I, for one, don't agree with an equal economy. As I said before, I entirely follow the platform of a free-market, capitalist economy. I just don't feel taxes are the way to get there. That's just my opinion. Also, raising minimum wage has often proven to have inverse effects on the economy as a whole over time.

True on the minimum wage, but I mean we do kinda need it to follow some form of inflation in some correlation with a national average. As for the equal opportunity, the idea of capitalism in its purest form where everyone followed the rules and s**t like what happened with the banks and the hedge fund people doesn't ever happen. Banks don't need to be bailed out because of risks they took with peoples money, companies don't operate counting people as a viable way to cut costs. People don't brag about the greatness of our labor laws as a reflection of Americanism, only to ship jobs overseas to countries that pay half that and fire the American workers. I like capitalism too, its how the whole American Dream came into the picture, but that picture is distorted now, I don't think it can be fixed properly to be both suitable to modern economics AND still be as free as everyone wants.

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

iRawrRawr

S.Lyger

He himself being Clinton? said that?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion. Both Stiglitz and Goolsbee. Stiglitz came out to the press and answered so during an interview.

As for the allies thing I agree to, I feel like our involvement overseas should be lessened. I can't think of a good justification for stopping humanitarian aid but everything else could be reduced some. The problem is we've been doing it so long, that the presumption in some cases is that the world would fall apart if we didn't intervene all the time lol.

Lol, it is. It's like the expectation of the world that we have to go in and control it. To be honest, we're not the police. It's the foreign involvement that keeps the tax money going to useless things that don't even benefit our country. I mean, I'm all for world peace and stuff, but every country doesn't want to follow the model of the USA. Anyway, as I said, I have to go. More talk later.

Ok, have a good one.

[Solessia]

How about a little background on Romney's term as 70th Governor of Massachusetts.

When Romney was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. By comparison, Massachusetts ranked 37th in job growth under Swift, and it ranked 10th in Patrick’s first term.

By that measure, Romney had the worst record in a decade.

..and although he did not raise personal income taxes, he increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars.and by the time he was done the unemployment rate was roughly the same of the national rate, when it had been lower when he took office.


“Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Yes — Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor.

But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor.

In addition, Romney cut aid to local cities and counties. In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget.

Romney’s cut forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.

But he did have a pretty neat Health Care reform plan forming a little "universal health care" type thing which is nice.