Mid Term U.S. Election

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Two things:

As I recall, you also think FDR was a lousy president. History disagrees, and so do I.

Actually no, it doesn't. History and present show us that you can't spend your way out of a recession (using FED money printers no less).

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This result doesn't really have anything to do with Obama. The same anti-incumbency sentiment that swept Obama into power is now sweeping his democratic colleagues out. That happens--and something like it (though not quite as drastic) almost always happens in a president's first mid-term. It has less to do with the President than people realize.

Serious? Are you saying this was about some faceless insignificant local politicians rather than about the biggest poster boy of the liberal left the world has ever seen? Good to see that people realize that no one can deliver what Obama can read from a teleprompter.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Slava

This in particular is not totally accurate. Was there pork barrel politics involved in TARP? Absolutely. Obama had nothing to do with it though. TARP was passed before the election even took place, although the republicans consistently play revisionist historian and skip that point.

Furthermore, the entire economic system was crumbling. Something had to happen, and frankly there were very few entities who were in any position to do anything about it! The government absolutely had no choice but to act, and to act very fast. In that circumstance (which I can only assume is incredibly stressful and full of untold pressures) there could be mistakes made, but the mistake of doing nothing would've catastrophic.

Lastly, these so called fiscal conservatives are going to be in for a rude awakening. QE2 was unveiled today by the Fed, and if anything doesn't go far enough. The people in the US who feel that no bailout was needed, and that no debt relief or anything should take place now are about to learn a hard lesson in economics. Paul Krugman has been arguing for increased debt relief because without it those in debt will only pay down debt and not spend; those without debt feel that the recovery is tenuous and won't borrow/spend and of course business is not going to spend despite being flush with cash for the same reasons. All of that points to the need for increased debt relief and spending by the government. Failing that, it just prolongs the economic doldrum and means that this tea party way of thinking will be the root cause of that prolonged state.

Why stop there? Obama should be handing out Monopoly money, consumer spending would skyrocket!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This is why the internet is great.

I do have a Ph.D., but it's certainly not in economics or an even remotely related discipline. I'm very competent at math and can check the equations, but the principles upon which they're based are beyond me. My leisure-time reading of economics is cursory and historical rather than theoretical (think Niall Ferguson and Talib rather than Krugman's or Friedman's textbooks).

So I couldn't tell you who is handing who what *ss in that Krugman versus Sean from Florida debate. To do that, I would need to have in-depth knowledge of the principles behind the economics that they're discussing. Now I know you think Sean is dominating because that is what fits with your ideology. However, I'm quite confident that you did not sit down and start drawing graphs and solving equations to assess both positions before coming down on the side of Sean.

If you sit down and start drawing graphs and solving equations, that shows right there you know nothing about economics.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

For those who think this result is a "repudiation" of Obama, you may find this an illuminating read (though if you've already made up your mind and don't wish to be confused with facts, probably not...):
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-swing-states/

Here's what it says, in a nutshell:

1. There's no evidence that voters who voted for Obama in large numbers now chose Republican candidates for Congress.
2. Rather, there's substantial evidence that voters who voted for Obama stayed home, while Republicans turned out.
3. This kind of "enthusiasm gap" at midterm elections is quite typical. The larger the coattails effect, the larger the enthusiasm gap at midterms.

Let's not forget the other Presidents who've suffered similar-sized losses at their first midterm: FDR, Reagan and Clinton are just three examples.

I'm now bullish about Obama in 2012 for precisely this reason. He now has another party to share in holding the bag. He will likely be able to take credit (as absurd as that always is) for the improving economy over the next two years) and the GOP will now be easy to paint as having obstructed his agenda.

Sometimes you lose by winning. A lot can change in 4 years, but for the GOP this might be one of those times. Think Newt Gingrich in the early 90s: a big midterm win, followed by a massive overreach=4 more years of Clinton, who by the midterms hadn't really achieved much of anything.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If you sit down and start drawing graphs and solving equations, that shows right there you know nothing about economics.

Which is what he said in the very beginning. Try to keep up.

(Sorry, we PhDs have to stick together.)

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which is what he said in the very beginning. Try to keep up.

(Sorry, we PhDs have to stick together.)

I always thought PhDs only read abstracts

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

If Golf is a good indicator of who is out of touch...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_550635.html

DId you want to compare time off too?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sometimes you lose by winning. A lot can change in 4 years, but for the GOP this might be one of those times. Think Newt Gingrich in the early 90s: a big midterm win, followed by a massive overreach=4 more years of Clinton, who by the midterms hadn't really achieved much of anything.

Big difference is that Clinton knew how to compromise. I really don't get the same feeling from Obama but it will be interesting to watch.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Why stop there? Obama should be handing out Monopoly money, consumer spending would skyrocket!

The reality is that a government can help spend out of a recession though. The evidence is there in a lot of the economic indicators over the past 1 1/2 years. Just you saying it can't be done and some anonymous bloggers agreeing with you doesn't make it true!

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoft....cost2.mov.cnn

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Big difference is that Clinton knew how to compromise. I really don't get the same feeling from Obama but it will be interesting to watch.

"President Barack Obama on Friday hailed new "encouraging" job numbers and said it is imperative that Democrats and Republicans work together to improve the economy."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...iref=allsearch

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

"President Barack Obama on Friday hailed new "encouraging" job numbers and said it is imperative that Democrats and Republicans work together to improve the economy."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...iref=allsearch

Nice to hear.

But Obama ain't no Clinton. Not even close.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote this great article on the mid-term elections, referring to them as "impotent".

It's a good take on what is happening....simliar to what red slinger was talking about in post #206.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=21760

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reality is that a government can help spend out of a recession though. The evidence is there in a lot of the economic indicators over the past 1 1/2 years. Just you saying it can't be done and some anonymous bloggers agreeing with you doesn't make it true!

If debt isn't a bad thing, then why even have taxes? Seriously.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Big difference is that Clinton knew how to compromise. I really don't get the same feeling from Obama but it will be interesting to watch.

You don't think Obama knows how to compromise? That's all he's been doing. Reaching across the aisle over and over again to try and build consensus and the Republicans returned the favor by never voting for one of his initiatives. Laws he watered down begging them to vote with him.

After the election two sentiments stand out:

Obama: Let's reach across the aisle and get things done.

Jay Boehner: There will be NO COMPROMISE.

Boehner's not bluffing either. There's no compromise left in the Republican Party.

I see a lot of you guys still believe there to be a left, middle, and right in Washington, with people fighting for what's right on all sides. It's not true at all. What you have is not corrupt (Kucinich, Paul(s), Feingold (RIP), Franken), the mildly corrupt (Reid, Obama, McCain) and the corrupt (Emaneul, Dodd, Bayh, "moderate democrats", GOP).

Those who aren't corrupt have vast ideological differences, but each isn't beholden to special interests. These are people who actually have ideas and bring them forward. The almost never have a position of power in their party because they don't play ball. They have little power overall.

The mildly corrupt are trying to work within the system to get things done. Making deals with lobbyists in order to get some sort of bill passed, but they aren't about to make all their dealings public (see: Obama's backroom deals with the drug companies). They are also much less for the people than they claim to be, hoping to never step on special interests toes when getting stuff done.

The corrupt have one goal in mind, to help the lobbyists they get all their money from. The GOP blocked all reform and refused to even begin to take part in a sensible discussion about financial reform and healthcare for this reason. The Democrats of the group helped the Republicans by proposing amendments last minute in order to weaken these major pieces of legislation. Especially Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd, who were leaving their seats, and will now find themselves with well-paying jobs as "lobbyists."

[CaptainCrunch]

You missed out on Nancy Pelosi on corrupt.

That woman is just a nest of poisonous vipers.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You missed out on Nancy Pelosi on corrupt.

That woman is just a nest of poisonous vipers.

I had her in the mildly corrupt category but then I realized I haven't heard anything substantial to make me think Pelosi is corrupt. She seems to be interested in actual reform, but don't have a good knowledge of how she operates so I just left her off entirely.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You missed out on Nancy Pelosi on corrupt.

That woman is just a nest of poisonous vipers.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoft....cost2.mov.cnn

Since moving to Iceland I got satellite and most of my news has been sky news, BBC news and Al Jazeera english.

US news media is such a complete disaster, its so sad.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Since moving to Iceland I got satellite and most of my news has been sky news, BBC news and Al Jazeera english.

US news media is such a complete disaster, its so sad.

I was in Iceland for a 14 hour layover after some dude had a heart attack on the plane. It's an amazing place!