2012: Obama Wins. Now what?

[rightwinger]

The GOP is not scared of anything. Certainly not a president with plunging approval ratings, 9%+ unemployment for his entire term, credit downgrades, and a failed Afghan war.

Romney
Gingrich
Cain
Paul
Bachmann
Santorum

And are you ready for this? Perry

 

[candycorn]

The GOP is not scared of anything. Certainly not a president with plunging approval ratings, 9%+ unemployment for his entire term, credit downgrades, and a failed Afghan war.

I didn't say them.

I said YOU are scared. Too scared to risk your sig line and running like the little ***** that you are from the challenge. Boo ******* hoo shirley.

 

[MarcATL]

There isn't a Republican running at the moment that wouldn't handle the economy far better than Barack Obama has, Marc.

The overiding difference between ALL the Republican candidates and Obama is that the Republicans are all in favor of spending cuts to shrink the deficit while Obama and the Democrats want to attack the deficit by raising taxes.

The American people understand that we can't keep on with these trillion dollar budget deficits, Marc. THEY are the ones that are calling for cuts. It's time for Washington to listen.

How long will it take for what? To erase our deficit? A long, long time. What we need to do is stop the nonsense. We're three years into the Obama Administration and they haven't made significant cuts to government AT ALL. NONE. He talks about it a lot...but never does anything about it. We need someone who DOES something.

My friend, I gather that you're sincere. Your response, although honest and from the heart, was bereft of substance. As in...what will they cut? I hear a lot of folks talking about "cut, cut, cut, cut cut" however, not much on exactly what they are willing and ready TO cut.

Furthermore, the Tea Party folk have been in Congress for almost 2 years. What have they contributed to the cuts that they ran on? Based on their prospective campains, we should have had a heckuvalotta cuts by now.

No? What happened with that?

Oh, they need to have MORE of those TPers in Congress to actually get stuff done? Hmmm....so what will they cut exactly? And how?

These are the basic specifics I'm trying to get at. The Dems aren't for spending, not in the way you put it. They are just not out for leaving people in the lurch. Everyone agrees that there needs to be serious cuts made. However, the specifics of WHAT needs to be cut and how much is where the problems come in.

I wish the RWers would stop saying Dems like the spend. It's disingenuous....and not to mention hypocritical.

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP is not scared of anything. Certainly not a president with plunging approval ratings, 9%+ unemployment for his entire term, credit downgrades, and a failed Afghan war.

I didn't say them.

I said YOU are scared. Too scared to risk your sig line and running like the little ***** that you are from the challenge. Boo ******* hoo shirley.

Your fantasies of making me your ***** are disturbing.
Your challenges are laughable and juvenile.
And you lied in your post. What's new?

 

[candycorn]

The GOP is not scared of anything. Certainly not a president with plunging approval ratings, 9%+ unemployment for his entire term, credit downgrades, and a failed Afghan war.

I didn't say them.

I said YOU are scared. Too scared to risk your sig line and running like the little ***** that you are from the challenge. Boo ******* hoo shirley.

Your fantasies of making me your ***** are disturbing.
Your challenges are laughable and juvenile.
And you lied in your post. What's new?

Seriously, if Obama is such a bad president, what legitimate reason do you have for not wanting to risk your sig line? What is it that you're afraid of bitchy?

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't say them.

I said YOU are scared. Too scared to risk your sig line and running like the little ***** that you are from the challenge. Boo ******* hoo shirley.

Your fantasies of making me your ***** are disturbing.
Your challenges are laughable and juvenile.
And you lied in your post. What's new?

Seriously, if Obama is such a bad president, what legitimate reason do you have for not wanting to risk your sig line? What is it that you're afraid of bitchy?

It's juvenile.
Obama is a bad president. Rick Santorum could wipe the floor with him.

 

[Oldstyle]

There isn't a Republican running at the moment that wouldn't handle the economy far better than Barack Obama has, Marc.

The overiding difference between ALL the Republican candidates and Obama is that the Republicans are all in favor of spending cuts to shrink the deficit while Obama and the Democrats want to attack the deficit by raising taxes.

The American people understand that we can't keep on with these trillion dollar budget deficits, Marc. THEY are the ones that are calling for cuts. It's time for Washington to listen.

How long will it take for what? To erase our deficit? A long, long time. What we need to do is stop the nonsense. We're three years into the Obama Administration and they haven't made significant cuts to government AT ALL. NONE. He talks about it a lot...but never does anything about it. We need someone who DOES something.

My friend, I gather that you're sincere. Your response, although honest and from the heart, was bereft of substance. As in...what will they cut? I hear a lot of folks talking about "cut, cut, cut, cut cut" however, not much on exactly what they are willing and ready TO cut.

Furthermore, the Tea Party folk have been in Congress for almost 2 years. What have they contributed to the cuts that they ran on? Based on their prospective campains, we should have had a heckuvalotta cuts by now.

No? What happened with that?

Oh, they need to have MORE of those TPers in Congress to actually get stuff done? Hmmm....so what will they cut exactly? And how?

These are the basic specifics I'm trying to get at. The Dems aren't for spending, not in the way you put it. They are just not out for leaving people in the lurch. Everyone agrees that there needs to be serious cuts made. However, the specifics of WHAT needs to be cut and how much is where the problems come in.

I wish the RWers would stop saying Dems like the spend. It's disingenuous....and not to mention hypocritical.

Bereft of substance? Unlike so many here, Marc...I'm willing to be as specific and substansive as you'd like. You want to know "what" I would cut? It's quite simple actually...I'd do across the board cuts to start with. Waste in government is so rampant it's not like cutting should be hard. If I were elected President tomorrow I'd call all my government "minions" into the Oval Office and inform them that their department budgets were being cut by 10%. That's the Department of Defense...that's the Department of the Interior...that's EVERYBODY. I'd also tell them that we would be cutting an additional 5% the year after that and another 5% the year after that. Then I'd tell the Secretary's of Commerce and Education to stay after the meeting...at which time I'd tell them that they had three months to justify the existence of their Departments to me and if they couldn't do so then they would be as "extinct" as the Dodo bird. There would be no "sacred cows"...there would be no "untouchables".

As for the TP people in Congress not getting cuts? Since the Democrats control the Senate and Barack Obama waits with his veto pen...does that surprise you? If the Republicans take control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate and don't make cuts? Then you can ROAST the TP people. Until then it's a rather naive commentary.

And I'm sorry, Marc but Democrats "do" like to spend. They believe in big government doing big things. Unfortunately that comes at a cost...big spending. To say that Democrats don't like to spend is like saying Lindsay Lohan doesn't like to party. Our problem during the Bush years was that there were too many Republicans that liked to spend just as much as their Democratic counterparts...all of which brought us the Tea Party.

 

[candycorn]

Your fantasies of making me your ***** are disturbing.
Your challenges are laughable and juvenile.
And you lied in your post. What's new?

Seriously, if Obama is such a bad president, what legitimate reason do you have for not wanting to risk your sig line? What is it that you're afraid of bitchy?

It's juvenile.
Obama is a bad president. Rick Santorum could wipe the floor with him.

If it is "juvenile", then it should be right up your alley with your repeated "**** you's" and "**** off" statements. You're the epitome of juvenile behavior.

Face it Shirley; you're a scared little ***** who can't back up her positions....even when the stakes are practically non-existent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seriously, if Obama is such a bad president, what legitimate reason do you have for not wanting to risk your sig line? What is it that you're afraid of bitchy?

It's juvenile.
Obama is a bad president. Rick Santorum could wipe the floor with him.

If it is "juvenile", then it should be right up your alley with your repeated "**** you's" and "**** off" statements. You're the epitome of juvenile behavior.

Face it Shirley; you're a scared little ***** who can't back up her positions....even when the stakes are practically non-existent.

SOunding a little desperate there, Tinkerbell. Just like your boy in office. 9% unemployment and a double dip recession is hell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There isn't a Republican running at the moment that wouldn't handle the economy far better than Barack Obama has, Marc.

The overiding difference between ALL the Republican candidates and Obama is that the Republicans are all in favor of spending cuts to shrink the deficit while Obama and the Democrats want to attack the deficit by raising taxes.

The American people understand that we can't keep on with these trillion dollar budget deficits, Marc. THEY are the ones that are calling for cuts. It's time for Washington to listen.

How long will it take for what? To erase our deficit? A long, long time. What we need to do is stop the nonsense. We're three years into the Obama Administration and they haven't made significant cuts to government AT ALL. NONE. He talks about it a lot...but never does anything about it. We need someone who DOES something.

My friend, I gather that you're sincere. Your response, although honest and from the heart, was bereft of substance. As in...what will they cut? I hear a lot of folks talking about "cut, cut, cut, cut cut" however, not much on exactly what they are willing and ready TO cut.

Furthermore, the Tea Party folk have been in Congress for almost 2 years. What have they contributed to the cuts that they ran on? Based on their prospective campains, we should have had a heckuvalotta cuts by now.

No? What happened with that?

Oh, they need to have MORE of those TPers in Congress to actually get stuff done? Hmmm....so what will they cut exactly? And how?

These are the basic specifics I'm trying to get at. The Dems aren't for spending, not in the way you put it. They are just not out for leaving people in the lurch. Everyone agrees that there needs to be serious cuts made. However, the specifics of WHAT needs to be cut and how much is where the problems come in.

I wish the RWers would stop saying Dems like the spend. It's disingenuous....and not to mention hypocritical.

Bereft of substance? Unlike so many here, Marc...I'm willing to be as specific and substansive as you'd like. You want to know "what" I would cut? It's quite simple actually...I'd do across the board cuts to start with. Waste in government is so rampant it's not like cutting should be hard. If I were elected President tomorrow I'd call all my government "minions" into the Oval Office and inform them that their department budgets were being cut by 10%. That's the Department of Defense...that's the Department of the Interior...that's EVERYBODY. I'd also tell them that we would be cutting an additional 5% the year after that and another 5% the year after that. Then I'd tell the Secretary's of Commerce and Education to stay after the meeting...at which time I'd tell them that they had three months to justify the existence of their Departments to me and if they couldn't do so then they would be as "extinct" as the Dodo bird. There would be no "sacred cows"...there would be no "untouchables".

As for the TP people in Congress not getting cuts? Since the Democrats control the Senate and Barack Obama waits with his veto pen...does that surprise you? If the Republicans take control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate and don't make cuts? Then you can ROAST the TP people. Until then it's a rather naive commentary.

And I'm sorry, Marc but Democrats "do" like to spend. They believe in big government doing big things. Unfortunately that comes at a cost...big spending. To say that Democrats don't like to spend is like saying Lindsay Lohan doesn't like to party. Our problem during the Bush years was that there were too many Republicans that liked to spend just as much as their Democratic counterparts...all of which brought us the Tea Party.

That's a start, and if you were willing to match that with allowing the Bush tax cuts to end in 2013 only for the wealthy, I think you could negotiate that.

 

[Oldstyle]

My friend, I gather that you're sincere. Your response, although honest and from the heart, was bereft of substance. As in...what will they cut? I hear a lot of folks talking about "cut, cut, cut, cut cut" however, not much on exactly what they are willing and ready TO cut.

Furthermore, the Tea Party folk have been in Congress for almost 2 years. What have they contributed to the cuts that they ran on? Based on their prospective campains, we should have had a heckuvalotta cuts by now.

No? What happened with that?

Oh, they need to have MORE of those TPers in Congress to actually get stuff done? Hmmm....so what will they cut exactly? And how?

These are the basic specifics I'm trying to get at. The Dems aren't for spending, not in the way you put it. They are just not out for leaving people in the lurch. Everyone agrees that there needs to be serious cuts made. However, the specifics of WHAT needs to be cut and how much is where the problems come in.

I wish the RWers would stop saying Dems like the spend. It's disingenuous....and not to mention hypocritical.

Bereft of substance? Unlike so many here, Marc...I'm willing to be as specific and substansive as you'd like. You want to know "what" I would cut? It's quite simple actually...I'd do across the board cuts to start with. Waste in government is so rampant it's not like cutting should be hard. If I were elected President tomorrow I'd call all my government "minions" into the Oval Office and inform them that their department budgets were being cut by 10%. That's the Department of Defense...that's the Department of the Interior...that's EVERYBODY. I'd also tell them that we would be cutting an additional 5% the year after that and another 5% the year after that. Then I'd tell the Secretary's of Commerce and Education to stay after the meeting...at which time I'd tell them that they had three months to justify the existence of their Departments to me and if they couldn't do so then they would be as "extinct" as the Dodo bird. There would be no "sacred cows"...there would be no "untouchables".

As for the TP people in Congress not getting cuts? Since the Democrats control the Senate and Barack Obama waits with his veto pen...does that surprise you? If the Republicans take control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate and don't make cuts? Then you can ROAST the TP people. Until then it's a rather naive commentary.

And I'm sorry, Marc but Democrats "do" like to spend. They believe in big government doing big things. Unfortunately that comes at a cost...big spending. To say that Democrats don't like to spend is like saying Lindsay Lohan doesn't like to party. Our problem during the Bush years was that there were too many Republicans that liked to spend just as much as their Democratic counterparts...all of which brought us the Tea Party.

That's a start, and if you were willing to match that with allowing the Bush tax cuts to end in 2013 only for the wealthy, I think you could negotiate that.

Here's my problem with that, Jake...even liberal economists like Christina Romer have come out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE in a fragile economy like we have isn't good fiscal policy. So with that being said...why would we want to impose a HUGE tax increase when our economy is barely growing? You raise taxes when you have an economy that is booming. When that's happening and you want to cut into the deficit with tax increases as well as spending cuts? At that point I've got zero problems with a tax increase. Doing so now would be ignoring basic economic principles because of your political viewpoint.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bereft of substance? Unlike so many here, Marc...I'm willing to be as specific and substansive as you'd like. You want to know "what" I would cut? It's quite simple actually...I'd do across the board cuts to start with. Waste in government is so rampant it's not like cutting should be hard. If I were elected President tomorrow I'd call all my government "minions" into the Oval Office and inform them that their department budgets were being cut by 10%. That's the Department of Defense...that's the Department of the Interior...that's EVERYBODY. I'd also tell them that we would be cutting an additional 5% the year after that and another 5% the year after that. Then I'd tell the Secretary's of Commerce and Education to stay after the meeting...at which time I'd tell them that they had three months to justify the existence of their Departments to me and if they couldn't do so then they would be as "extinct" as the Dodo bird. There would be no "sacred cows"...there would be no "untouchables".

As for the TP people in Congress not getting cuts? Since the Democrats control the Senate and Barack Obama waits with his veto pen...does that surprise you? If the Republicans take control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate and don't make cuts? Then you can ROAST the TP people. Until then it's a rather naive commentary.

And I'm sorry, Marc but Democrats "do" like to spend. They believe in big government doing big things. Unfortunately that comes at a cost...big spending. To say that Democrats don't like to spend is like saying Lindsay Lohan doesn't like to party. Our problem during the Bush years was that there were too many Republicans that liked to spend just as much as their Democratic counterparts...all of which brought us the Tea Party.

That's a start, and if you were willing to match that with allowing the Bush tax cuts to end in 2013 only for the wealthy, I think you could negotiate that.

Here's my problem with that, Jake...even liberal economists like Christina Romer have come out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE in a fragile economy like we have isn't good fiscal policy. So with that being said...why would we want to impose a HUGE tax increase when our economy is barely growing? You raise taxes when you have an economy that is booming. When that's happening and you want to cut into the deficit with tax increases as well as spending cuts? At that point I've got zero problems with a tax increase. Doing so now would be ignoring basic economic principles because of your political viewpoint.

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

 

[NoNukes]

That's a start, and if you were willing to match that with allowing the Bush tax cuts to end in 2013 only for the wealthy, I think you could negotiate that.

Here's my problem with that, Jake...even liberal economists like Christina Romer have come out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE in a fragile economy like we have isn't good fiscal policy. So with that being said...why would we want to impose a HUGE tax increase when our economy is barely growing? You raise taxes when you have an economy that is booming. When that's happening and you want to cut into the deficit with tax increases as well as spending cuts? At that point I've got zero problems with a tax increase. Doing so now would be ignoring basic economic principles because of your political viewpoint.

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

And it also describes the rightist/conservative attitude, so what is your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's my problem with that, Jake...even liberal economists like Christina Romer have come out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE in a fragile economy like we have isn't good fiscal policy. So with that being said...why would we want to impose a HUGE tax increase when our economy is barely growing? You raise taxes when you have an economy that is booming. When that's happening and you want to cut into the deficit with tax increases as well as spending cuts? At that point I've got zero problems with a tax increase. Doing so now would be ignoring basic economic principles because of your political viewpoint.

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

And it also describes the rightist/conservative attitude, so what is your point?

No, actually it doesn't, barf-breath. The conservative attitude is that the free market distributes goods and services more efficiently than government does. Shockingly economists agree with this. The arguments against that are strictly political and emotional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bereft of substance? Unlike so many here, Marc...I'm willing to be as specific and substansive as you'd like. You want to know "what" I would cut? It's quite simple actually...I'd do across the board cuts to start with. Waste in government is so rampant it's not like cutting should be hard. If I were elected President tomorrow I'd call all my government "minions" into the Oval Office and inform them that their department budgets were being cut by 10%. That's the Department of Defense...that's the Department of the Interior...that's EVERYBODY. I'd also tell them that we would be cutting an additional 5% the year after that and another 5% the year after that. Then I'd tell the Secretary's of Commerce and Education to stay after the meeting...at which time I'd tell them that they had three months to justify the existence of their Departments to me and if they couldn't do so then they would be as "extinct" as the Dodo bird. There would be no "sacred cows"...there would be no "untouchables".

As for the TP people in Congress not getting cuts? Since the Democrats control the Senate and Barack Obama waits with his veto pen...does that surprise you? If the Republicans take control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate and don't make cuts? Then you can ROAST the TP people. Until then it's a rather naive commentary.

And I'm sorry, Marc but Democrats "do" like to spend. They believe in big government doing big things. Unfortunately that comes at a cost...big spending. To say that Democrats don't like to spend is like saying Lindsay Lohan doesn't like to party. Our problem during the Bush years was that there were too many Republicans that liked to spend just as much as their Democratic counterparts...all of which brought us the Tea Party.

That's a start, and if you were willing to match that with allowing the Bush tax cuts to end in 2013 only for the wealthy, I think you could negotiate that.

Here's my problem with that, Jake...even liberal economists like Christina Romer have come out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE in a fragile economy like we have isn't good fiscal policy. So with that being said...why would we want to impose a HUGE tax increase when our economy is barely growing? You raise taxes when you have an economy that is booming. When that's happening and you want to cut into the deficit with tax increases as well as spending cuts? At that point I've got zero problems with a tax increase. Doing so now would be ignoring basic economic principles because of your political viewpoint.

Romer is in the minority. We have been through this before. The economists say the appropriate cut to revenue balance should be 8 to 1. When you agree with reality, we can talk further. Your radical far right activist extreme agenda is going no where.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

And it also describes the rightist/conservative attitude, so what is your point?

No, actually it doesn't, barf-breath. The conservative attitude is that the free market distributes goods and services more efficiently than government does. Shockingly economists agree with this. The arguments against that are strictly political and emotional.

20th century demonstrates (and particualrly the 1st decade of the 21st) that a capitalistic regulated systme is necessary for development of a robust, balanced economy, and a wealthy middle class.

That is the part that Rabbi leaves out.

 

[Contumacious]

So let's say the unthinkable happens and Obama wins re-election (G-d forbid). b.

Hate to burst your bubble but Obama is a welfare/warfare party candidate just as are Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich Rick Perry and Mitt Romney . Regardless of which individual wins the election, the Demopublican party wins - you lose.

.

 

[candycorn]

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

And it also describes the rightist/conservative attitude, so what is your point?

No, actually it doesn't, barf-breath. The conservative attitude is that the free market distributes goods and services more efficiently than government does. Shockingly economists agree with this. The arguments against that are strictly political and emotional.

This is why your "juvenile" dodge doesn't hold water beeotch.

 

[NoNukes]

And that summarizes the liberal/leftist philosophy in a nutshell.

And it also describes the rightist/conservative attitude, so what is your point?

No, actually it doesn't, barf-breath. The conservative attitude is that the free market distributes goods and services more efficiently than government does. Shockingly economists agree with this. The arguments against that are strictly political and emotional.

Your relying on insults shows that I am right.

 

[Douger]

So let's say the unthinkable happens and Obama wins re-election (G-d forbid). He is sworn in in January 2013 (Heaven forbid) and serves another 4 years (L-rd save us). Now what?
The Congress will go over to the GOP, having the lowest ratings in years. What will Obama do for 4 years? He is the most compromised president in history. He doesn't have a shred of credibility with the GOP, having demonized them for over 4 years. He has proven he cannot work with them. He has proven he ignores all advice contrary to his own ideas (see, Simpson-Bowles). He is unable to get a single piece of legislation through Congress. And his regulatory moves are blocked by Congressional action.
Is that really the formula for success? Gridlock?
No, Obama is unable to govern. The Dems need to choose someone else as a sacrificial lamb.

Hope M-itt wins since H-e said h-e'd run off first thing and kiss IsNtReal-s ass.