Obama just lost the election tonight

[alaphiah]

Please note: I used to be a Republican, then converted to a Democrat in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have largely defended his actions...

But tonight?

His speech was terrible. He delivered it terribly.

S&P has said that if Boehner's plan is passed, the credit rating of the country will be downgraded. Obama is in a lose-lose situation here and it looks like the Republicans are the only ones who are going to win.

The only thing left for Obama to do right now is let the country go into default and not extend the cap until Republicans increase revenues. Obama MUST stand firm on this. No short term deal. Let the country go into default in order to win this battle.

Unfortunately, we as middle class Americans, are stuck in the middle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and we're both going to have to pay for it.

Thank God your not a Conservative with logic like that. Look since Barry Hussein Soetoro has been in office 2 1/2 years his government spending has quadrupled the debt. In fact had Barry kept his own campaign promises there would be no, I repeat, no debt crisis now.

It's time for all sensible people to admit that they made a mistake electing a ultra-Partisan Uber-Progressive ideologue who had no executive experience to the presidency.

Democrats have run this country into a ditch and they get partisans like yourself to play a game of us against them.

You need to get on the phone call the president and his Socialist allies in Congress that they have spent to much and they must compromise with Republicans and cut spending for the sake of the country. Why would anyone who cares for this country wish it to go in default rather than cut back the historic spending that Democrats have been engaged in?

It just doesn't make sense. When you get your head on straight you should really come back and vote Republican. That's the only way we're going to fix the Reid, Dodd, Frank Pelosi and Barry mess.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper, as a practical matter, you are probably right. I have been glued to the TV cable news all day following the congressional debt limit controversy and it is driving me crazy. Obama has agreed to take revenue increases off the table. He has let the cons control the issues on the debate and has essentially capitulated, as he always does. It's frightening and maddening. He has laid down once again. He doesn't know how to negotiate or fight. For God's sake, we have the presidency and the Senate and they only have the the house, and they are getting what they want and Obama is getting nothing. How can we do worse?

You know, one of the dumbest, ignorant, and least capable people and intellectually vacant person's was elected president (G. Bush), and he was elected twice! Their presidential front runners were/are people like Trump, Bachman, and Palin. I mean, how damaging could it be to drop Obama and get a prominent yet average liberal politician to run for pres in 2012? It's got to be better than that cowardly loser.

Obama is no worse than Boehner and Reid. They all three look idiots to me. Obama just wants to get this thing behind him so he can start campaigning and Republicans are intent on that not happening. Boehner has no control over the House. Reid is just playing games with the Senate Republicans. And the funny thing about all this is the only thing that is important is that the debt ceiling be raised. The spending cuts or tax provision will be changed by the next congress and next congress and in a few years nothing will remain. I'm afraid this will end up being much ado about nothing.

Gee, if we could only do something to the Constitution to tie the spending to a percentage of GDP, eradicate the oh-so-safe districts the two major parties have carved out for themselves, force the people running for President to debate domestic spending separately in a public debate where each lays out her or his priorities for social programs....you change the rules and the self-aggrandizing rulers are pretty powerless all of the sudden.

A balance budget amendment that allows for natural disasters, economic crisis, and military actions might solve the problem. Possibly, an amendment that would tie tax increases and decreases to spending. Increase spending a dollar, taxes go up a dollar automatically.

 

[St.Blues]

If we do crash who do you think will be hurt the most?
Working people?
Union workers?
Retired self reliant people?
Retired Gov pension people?
Welfare recipients?

 

[Chris]

How the hell is Obama gonna debate Romney or Perry in the Summer/Fall of 2012 without his Teleprompter? (well unless NBC provides all the answers for him on a teleprompter in front of his podium), And what happens if the Teleprompter fails and he gives an answer for a question that was asked of the GOP candidate? {Kinda like when Obama Thanked Himself on live TV?} Obama: and I would like to thank all of the Fallen Heroes who are in the audience tonight.

Obama is going to do fine.

He beat the two greatest evils in the world....Al Qaeda and the Republican Party.

Obama hasn't beat Al Qaeda. Why do you think the democrats lost the house during the mid terms?

Why don't you ask Osama Bin Ladin about that?

Oh.....wait.....you can't.....

He's at the bottom of the ocean!

 

[Chris]

Obama is no worse than Boehner and Reid. They all three look idiots to me. Obama just wants to get this thing behind him so he can start campaigning and Republicans are intent on that not happening. Boehner has no control over the House. Reid is just playing games with the Senate Republicans. And the funny thing about all this is the only thing that is important is that the debt ceiling be raised. The spending cuts or tax provision will be changed by the next congress and next congress and in a few years nothing will remain. I'm afraid this will end up being much ado about nothing.

Gee, if we could only do something to the Constitution to tie the spending to a percentage of GDP, eradicate the oh-so-safe districts the two major parties have carved out for themselves, force the people running for President to debate domestic spending separately in a public debate where each lays out her or his priorities for social programs....you change the rules and the self-aggrandizing rulers are pretty powerless all of the sudden.

A balance budget amendment that allows for natural disasters, economic crisis, and military actions might solve the problem. Possibly, an amendment that would tie tax increases and decreases to spending. Increase spending a dollar, taxes go up a dollar automatically.

All you need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

 

[MitchMan]

Big picture, people, you need to see the big picture. You are all mired inside and among the trees and you all do not understand that you are in a forest. You all need to step back, be and think scientifically and objectively and look at the forest as a whole.

Our society, any society and the individual members in it need the basic sustenance necessities to sustain life like food, shelter, clothing, utilities, transportation, retirement savings, healthcare, police protection, national defence, education and a government. Since our economy is and has been gravely biased in favor of over rewarding the wealthy few at the top with the wealth that hs been created by the bottom 95% of the society (you know, the working class) and accordingly, the working class 95% of us have been under rewarded and under compensated by diverting the wealth that we created to the top, we, the working class 95% of the population do not have enough wealth, money, nor income to afford the the basic necessessities of life mentioned herein above.

When that happens, the government takes on the role of providing safety nets to make up for the necessities of life that the working class cannot pay for. Look at the Big Picture people. In the current crisis, the USA caused a world wide and country wide financial crisis because of lack of regulation primarily of the financial sector. Our economy was prime for the bursting of the bubble in 2007/8 in large part because of the long time bias in favor of the wealthy to the detriment of the working class that created a wealth imbalance that we haven't seen since just before the depression of the 30's. The result was a tremendous loss of arlready diminished wealth owned by the working class to a ruinous low level after the bust.

NOW, we (domestically and in the world as well), the 95% of us that constitute the "market" in our market economy no longer have the funds/wealth/money/income to sustain the "market" and the demand required in our market that a healthy economy needs to survive and function. The problem is there isn't enough demand because the working class does'n have enough money to constitute sufficient and adequate economic demand. The money and wealth went to the top because of the biased economy and the rich have more wealth than they know what to do with. In a proper and balanced unbiased economy, much of that wealth would have/should have stayed in the hands of the 95% working class that in fact created that wealth with their hands and minds in the first place. Then the working class, the "market" itself would have the money/funds/wealth to pay for the goods and services they need and thereby constitute a market demand that self sustains the economy and thereby not require the government to pay so much for safety nets and entitlements.

Don't forget that the national debt has gotten to $14.5 trillion because of wars, lack of taxing the wealthy enough, having to bail out the economy that failed (caused by the economy's bias in favor of the wealthy and deregulation) and having to pay for entitlements (necessity for payment of entitlements because the rich got the wealth and income that should have have stayed in the hands of the working class [thereby impoverishing the middle class] over the last 30 years!).

Big picture, people.

What is required is for the bias in our economy to be fixed so that more and equitable wealth stays in the hands of the working class that does all the work that creates the wealth and not let the working class's wealth flow inequitably to the few wealthy at the top. When that is done, the working class (the market) will be adequately able to pay for what they need and won't need to rely on the government to pay for so much in entitlements.

In order to fix the economy and thereby the country, we must elect the right politicians and law makers to undo the economic bias.

You want to cure this crisis, increase the debt ceiling and do not tie it to any other spending cuts nor to revenue increases. Get the economy healthy by removing the bias in favor of the wealthy few, which will put more money in the hands of the majority of the market (in the hands of the working class that is 95% of our population) and thereby increase demand in our market. IN THE MEAN TIME (and only in the mean time), recapture some of that lopsided ill gotten wealth and income that was siphoned off from the working class and flowed to and is now in the hands of the wealthy by increasing taxes on those with taxable incomes in excess of $250,000 and impose a tax on the wealth of those who have more than $3 million in net worth. This will not kill jobs, but it will increase demand and that will create jobs.

Big picture.

 

[Chris]

The National Debt was created by Reagan and Bush lowering taxes for the rich, Bush putting two wars and a trillion dollar Medicare drug program on his Chinese credit card, and the collapse of the economy as a result of Wall Street's $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme.

 

[elvis]

The National Debt was created by Reagan and Bush lowering taxes for the rich, Bush putting two wars and a trillion dollar Medicare drug program on his Chinese credit card, and the collapse of the economy as a result of Wall Street's $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme.

it's being doubled by obama, Monica.

 

[MitchMan]

Chris, you hit it right on the head. When you analyze it, the vast majority of the national debt was directly caused by the right wing assisted/condoned by the complacency of some on the left.

When Reagan (the evil devil in my mind) tremendously cut income taxes on the rich, he increased the Social Security tax on all the working class and then BORROWED IT BACK FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND to pay for government costs that were not paid by shortfall in revenues CAUSED BY THE TAX BREAKS! That was patently dishonest and immoral and unfair and nobody holds that rat accountable!

The right wing talks about 'transfer of wealth', well, the preceding paragraph points to a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich. The right wing are too intellectually dishonest and immoral to acknowledge this truth.

 

[Flopper]

If we do crash who do you think will be hurt the most?
Working people?
Union workers?
Retired self reliant people?
Retired Gov pension people?
Welfare recipients?

All of the above

 

[ShackledNation]

You're right neither party is very good at controlling the deficit, but Democratic presidents have done a better job of balancing the budget. Keep in mind it is the president that is responsible for creating and submitting the budget. Congress's responsibility is to approve or disapprove. Of course Congress makes up their own budget based on the president budget and makes alterations, but basically it is the president's budget. My statement did not address the make up of congress, only the presidents since the President is responsible for creating the budget and seeing the government sticks to that budget.

Since the Great Depression, we had only one Republican president, Eisenhower who balanced the budget. We have had three Democratic presidents who balanced the budget, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton. During that period we have had 7 Republican and 7 Democratic presidents.

Why are you starting since the great depression and not the 1920s? If you started earlier, it would be 3 and 3. And you have to look at years, not presidencies. Calvin Coolidge had a balanced budget for 8 years. Some of those democratic presidents had only 1 or 2 years of balanced budgets.

And you are incorrect that the budget is basically the president's. Congress ultimately controls the power of the purse, and can completely alter the president's budget if it pleases, so long as they can override the veto or pressure the president into agreeing with the new budget. You cannot just look at presidents. Doing so will give you incredibly incomplete data. A budget with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President will not look the same as a budget with both a Democratic Congress and President, or both branches controlled by Republicans.

Even if you do assume the President has the most power, if you look at all the surpluses and deficits per year and the party of the president that year since 1920, Republicans ran surpluses 32% of the time, a pathetic showing, but democrats ran surpluses only 20% of the time, even less. Still, because of the power of Congress, I would not claim that Republicans are better at balancing budgets.

If you look at the Senate, there is an even greater distinction. 49% of the time, Senates under Republican control balanced the budget. When Democrats controlled the Senate, the budget was balanced only 11% of the time.

To remove the variable of division of power between parties, I looked at years in which the presidency and both houses of congress were controlled by the same party.
61% of the time, Republicans in charge of both branches balanced the budget. Only 6% of the time was the budget balanced when democrats were in full control.

Obviously, from this data it is impossible to conclude that Democrats are more likely to balance the budget than Republicans. I would not say Republicans are more likely to balance the budget either, based on the way the party has shifted away from its older principles.

Good Post.

If I remember correctly once the Congress approves the budget it is law. The president doesn't get a chance to veto.

Comparing budget deficits/surpluses before and after the Depression does not make much sense because of two things. Sometime in 1930's they changed an accounting practice from accrual to cash accounting. Also the size of government more than doubled. Before the depression, about the only reason you ran a deficit was due to war.

Thanks. I just always want to reinforce the idea that Congress is a major player in the budget, and the President cannot take all the blame or credit.

As for accrual to cash accounting, I don't think that affects the results, only the way they are found out. The surpluses prior to the change in method would still be surpluses under cash accounting. I am also not sure about the government switch to cash accounting. At least according to

this[/url] wiki, Congress switched to accrual accounting in 1916, prior to the 1920s.

A bigger government is no excuse for running deficits, nor does it discredit surpluses under smaller government. If a larger government causes more deficits, and this discussion is about what party caused more deficits, then whoever expanded government can be to blame. And both parties have done this throughout the 20th century, but FDR is notorious for greatly increasing government size and scope, in peacetime and in wartime.

You are correct that most deficits prior to the great depression occurred during wartime. But you could say the same for deficits today: we just have more wars. But that does not excuse the deficits, and make surpluses irrelevant data. It only fortifies the idea that the United States has made terrible decisions and adopted a much more debt based economy. Both parties have moved to bigger deficits. Also, after the Great Depression we fought many wars, and we have been fighting wars in the middle east for decades now. I can't even think of a decade post Great Depression in which the US was not involved in some sort of military conflict.
The History Guy:United States Military History

Maybe these deficits are a result of such an interventionist foreign policy, pursued by both parties, and welfare on top of it. Its the welfare warfare state of the 20th century. In the 19th century, there were 10 listed wars/conflicts (many of which were rebellions within the United States, nothing like the wars of today).

In the 20th century, there were 30--triple the amount. And many of these conflicts were drawn out wars, not simple conflicts like the Whiskey Rebellion. Bush ran on a non interventionist foreign policy, and obviously broke that promise. Obama did the same, and started more wars without Congressional consent. Neither party is seriously against the American empire.

 

[candycorn]

Obama is no worse than Boehner and Reid. They all three look idiots to me. Obama just wants to get this thing behind him so he can start campaigning and Republicans are intent on that not happening. Boehner has no control over the House. Reid is just playing games with the Senate Republicans. And the funny thing about all this is the only thing that is important is that the debt ceiling be raised. The spending cuts or tax provision will be changed by the next congress and next congress and in a few years nothing will remain. I'm afraid this will end up being much ado about nothing.

Gee, if we could only do something to the Constitution to tie the spending to a percentage of GDP, eradicate the oh-so-safe districts the two major parties have carved out for themselves, force the people running for President to debate domestic spending separately in a public debate where each lays out her or his priorities for social programs....you change the rules and the self-aggrandizing rulers are pretty powerless all of the sudden.

A balance budget amendment that allows for natural disasters, economic crisis, and military actions might solve the problem. Possibly, an amendment that would tie tax increases and decreases to spending. Increase spending a dollar, taxes go up a dollar automatically.

I am not in favor of the BBA for that very reason. If I understand the idea--no verbiage is available TTBOMK--you spend what you take in. What if we're taking in more than we need? Presto..instant urge to spend. What if we get someone who wants to invade Russia from their house? Massive tax increase.

The idea of the BBA is a good idea; I get it. I prefer an admendment (actually a re-write) where you spend a percentage of your tax revenues (I said GDP in the past) and whatever is left over is returned or put toward national priorities; but the budget is NEVER more than tax receipts by Constitutional law

 

[Flopper]

Gee, if we could only do something to the Constitution to tie the spending to a percentage of GDP, eradicate the oh-so-safe districts the two major parties have carved out for themselves, force the people running for President to debate domestic spending separately in a public debate where each lays out her or his priorities for social programs....you change the rules and the self-aggrandizing rulers are pretty powerless all of the sudden.

A balance budget amendment that allows for natural disasters, economic crisis, and military actions might solve the problem. Possibly, an amendment that would tie tax increases and decreases to spending. Increase spending a dollar, taxes go up a dollar automatically.

I am not in favor of the BBA for that very reason. If I understand the idea--no verbiage is available TTBOMK--you spend what you take in. What if we're taking in more than we need? Presto..instant urge to spend. What if we get someone who wants to invade Russia from their house? Massive tax increase.

The idea of the BBA is a good idea; I get it. I prefer an admendment (actually a re-write) where you spend a percentage of your tax revenues (I said GDP in the past) and whatever is left over is returned or put toward national priorities; but the budget is NEVER more than tax receipts by Constitutional law

I've heard it said that a major reason why all but one state have a balance budget requirement is because the federal government does not. In an emergency, the states can rely on the federal government. In the 2008 recession, hundreds of billions of federal dollars when to the states allowing them to maintain vital services.

 

[MitchMan]

Is whether you are for or against big or small government really the core economic issue? Is whether dems or pube presidents balanced the budgets more or less than the other really the core political and eocnomic issue?. And once that disctinction is settled, does that cure the current economic crisis and prevent future ones.

Or, is the real issue, the core issue that is, what is wrong with our current economic system and what factors both politically and legally need to be changed to cure the current crisis and prevent future crises? Just asking. You know, I sure wouldn't want to waste time spinning my wheels on discussing and deliberating on nonessential periferal factors and issues. Would you?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama just lost the election tonight

.....And, Bruce Bartlett just (indirectly) announced Obama's......

2012 LANDSLIDE-VICTORY!!!!!

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

This is the fault of ignorant fanatics of the Tea Party. people who believe in no compromise for any reason, and the Murdoch/Rush/Savage/Pub propaganda machine that produced them, and Reagan/Newt etc. who inspired them. The pubs have no detailed plan, they're FOS.

 

[MitchMan]

Right on, hellofromwarsaw!

 

[Salt Jones]

If medicare and social security are growing faster than the GDP what are we supposed to do?

If baby boomers are going to overwhelm medicare and ss what are we supposed to do?

Why not end all Bush tax cuts for everyone?

How about we not burden the people more and instead fix or eliminate the programs that are causing problems?

You act like the people are here to support those programs instead of vice versa.

If people don't support these programs how do these programs support people?

 

[WillowTree]

A balance budget amendment that allows for natural disasters, economic crisis, and military actions might solve the problem. Possibly, an amendment that would tie tax increases and decreases to spending. Increase spending a dollar, taxes go up a dollar automatically.

I am not in favor of the BBA for that very reason. If I understand the idea--no verbiage is available TTBOMK--you spend what you take in. What if we're taking in more than we need? Presto..instant urge to spend. What if we get someone who wants to invade Russia from their house? Massive tax increase.

The idea of the BBA is a good idea; I get it. I prefer an admendment (actually a re-write) where you spend a percentage of your tax revenues (I said GDP in the past) and whatever is left over is returned or put toward national priorities; but the budget is NEVER more than tax receipts by Constitutional law

I've heard it said that a major reason why all but one state have a balance budget requirement is because the federal government does not. In an emergency, the states can rely on the federal government. In the 2008 recession, hundreds of billions of federal dollars when to the states allowing them to maintain vital services.

I think you are wrong. The reason States have balanced budget amendments is to keep the government from forcing unfunded mandates upon the states.

 

[Flopper]

I am not in favor of the BBA for that very reason. If I understand the idea--no verbiage is available TTBOMK--you spend what you take in. What if we're taking in more than we need? Presto..instant urge to spend. What if we get someone who wants to invade Russia from their house? Massive tax increase.

The idea of the BBA is a good idea; I get it. I prefer an admendment (actually a re-write) where you spend a percentage of your tax revenues (I said GDP in the past) and whatever is left over is returned or put toward national priorities; but the budget is NEVER more than tax receipts by Constitutional law

I've heard it said that a major reason why all but one state have a balance budget requirement is because the federal government does not. In an emergency, the states can rely on the federal government. In the 2008 recession, hundreds of billions of federal dollars when to the states allowing them to maintain vital services.

I think you are wrong. The reason States have balanced budget amendments is to keep the government from forcing unfunded mandates upon the states.

Technically, the reason is to prevent states from running a deficit regardless of whether it's caused by overspending or undertaxation. However, I question whether states would have such a requirement if the federal government had one also. In emergencies the states can always go to the federal government for assistance.