Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

[jts1882]

I also happen to care about the environment. Drill, baby, drill is the mantra of the neocons, but I've already laid down my thoughts on why I think it's selfish of them to only think about the present, never mind all the environmental disasters caused by oil spills in the open waters.
When glaciers melt, it exposes more land that the oil companies can drill into. Don't you think that maybe they have a stake in this whole climate-change thing? And the assholes that run those companies don't care about what happens 100 years from now. They're only interested in making a dollar now. This is the mentality that is crippling our country: the failure to see our long-term course, mistaking the trees for the forest.

In a global economy, the more developed economies need to move towards higher technology industries, while low tech industries move to developing economies.

The need to develop green technologies was a golden opportunity. Even Romney recognised this as Governor of Massachusetts where he gave some state subsidies to a solar outfit (one that later went bankrupt, what irony). The Clinton and Bush administrations wasted this opportunity to take the lead, something the US has been so successful in computing and biotechnology. Bush was particularly bad with some destructive environmental policies, but Gore, someone who claimed to understand the need for environmental policies did nothing in his eight years in the White House when he had a pulpit.

 

[Richie]

Richie, let me ask you something: Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those that made over $250k. Would that extra revenue not reduce the deficit?
But even with a majority in the House, you still need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed. No comments on the filibustering and cloture in the Senate?

The deficit has been getting lower, although we are still paying for that stimulus bill every year until 2017.
Afghanistan is the bricktiest of situations. We really had no business being there in the first place because a full-scale invasion was not the solution necessary to root out Al Qaeda. Once we leave in 2014, that will obviously reduce our spending so I can see the deficit go to under 1 trillion.

And no mention of the recession of '08. Generally when there's a problem, you need to pay money to fix it. I've said this before, our spending is high, but it's not the most pressing short-term issue. Once we get our economy back on track, then we can truly and effectively start to lower our deficit since it's more a long-term problem than a short-term one, IMO. I just think that it's difficult to fix a deficit in a depressed economy. Instead, we need to invest in our economy, which the 2009 stimulus sort of did, but many economists argue that it wasn't large enough

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. Deficit isn't a long term problem, it's a now problem. The US is piling up debt at an alarming rate, and the interest on those payments is costing you a fortune. You are spending over $200bn/year on interest on your debt, which is more per annum than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost. And that is while you have record low interest rates, if your rates rise the interest payments alone could bankrupt you.

Re: the Senate I would agree with you for Obamas 2nd and 3rd years (if I'm reading your graph correctly), but in his first year the amount of fillibustering was lower than in many years during the Bush administration. Also, I would assume that the majority of this is specifically due to Obamacare, and had he focused on the economy rather than healthcare perhaps you wouldn't have seen such high levels.

As for the Bush tax cuts, I agree it would have helped. But the reality is that it would have been a drop in the ocean compared to what really needs to be done, and that's public spending cuts.

 

[papaspur]

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. Deficit isn't a long term problem, it's a now problem. The US is piling up debt at an alarming rate, and the interest on those payments is costing you a fortune. You are spending over $200bn/year on interest on your debt, which is more per annum than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost. And that is while you have record low interest rates, if your rates rise the interest payments alone could bankrupt you.

Re: the Senate I would agree with you for Obamas 2nd and 3rd years (if I'm reading your graph correctly), but in his first year the amount of fillibustering was lower than in many years during the Bush administration. Also, I would assume that the majority of this is specifically due to Obamacare, and had he focused on the economy rather than healthcare perhaps you wouldn't have seen such high levels.

As for the Bush tax cuts, I agree it would have helped. But the reality is that it would have been a drop in the ocean compared to what really needs to be done, and that's public spending cuts.

I'm not saying we shouldn't start cutting programs. We already have cut spending, but you're right, we should cut a little bit more. I'm just saying that the cuts need to be coupled with revenue increases because it's clear that the tax cuts of the previous administration a) didn't create jobs and b) dug us deeper financially.

Repealing Obamacare (around 33 times) and filibustering are not the same thing.
The bar graph is misleading in the sense that each bar isn't a year, but 2 years.

That 54 was in 2005-2006.

Actually, it's funny if you look at the history of cloture votes. They spiked up from single-digits to the 20s and 30s in 1971 when Nixon was elected. Then it became the norm. It spiked up to the 40s and 50s when Reagan took office.
Obama takes office and it doubles from the 50s to the 90s and 100s.

I know Obamacare is polarizing. However, I want a single-payer system like you guys and Canada have. Your costs are much lower than ours, so I'd prefer the middle-men out of the loop since our nation's health isn't something that should be done for-profit. The system is abused, especially with electronic records keeping which seems counter-intuitive, but it allows doctors to "check-in" more regularly and increase costs. But, our priority is to give people health care and to ensure pre-existing conditions are covered. I know some here are more Darwinian about it and that's fine, this is just my own personal opinion.

 

[Richie]

If that's the case papa, does the graph not show that Bush had to deal with more fillibustering in his final 2 years than Obama? Of which I have no doubt would have been almost entirely democrats?

 

[papaspur]

If that's the case papa, does the graph not show that Bush had to deal with more fillibustering in his final 2 years than Obama? Of which I have no doubt would have been almost entirely democrats?

Bush had a minority in the senate during his last years. Why do you have no doubt? Because it corroborates with your own views and opinions?

Notice that only one side is bring up facts and figures?

edit: I'm pretty sure I've posted this graphic before, but it's got a bit more information than the other one.

 

[Hootnow]

Obama held the house for 2 years and did nothing to tackle the deficit. That was half his term, and that is why I don't think he has any intention of really sorting it out. I believe the deficit will stay over $1tn over the next 4 years,sending the US further down a dark road.

I'm not sure I would say Obama held the house, the Democrats held the house for 2 years and Obama does not hold supreme power over those in the house, some Dems in that house are as fiscally conservative as most Republicans.

In those 2 years, Obama managed to pass the stimulus, rescued the auto industry, passed healthcare and helped to recapitalise the banks amongst other things. There has also been, despite what some right wingers will say, improvements in these final few months, in terms of job creation and unemployment.

The rest has been explained pretty well by papaspur I feel (and sorry papaspur, obviously meant 1.1tn! Would have been quite an achievement to get it to 1.1 bn. )

The last Republican government absolutely decimated that country's economy, with 2 ridiculous wars, stupid tax cuts and silly increases of the deficit. Then for half of his term, the incumbent finds these same macarons filibustering basically everything he puts forward, even ideas that they themselves held not that long ago. I have absolutely no trust in this party whatsoever to run the economy. I don't find it particularly coincidental that most of the most staunchly Republican states are the most backward in that country.

 

[jts1882]

I'm not sure I would say Obama held the house, the Democrats held the house for 2 years and Obama does not hold supreme power over those in the house, some Dems in that house are as fiscally conservative as most Republicans.

In those 2 years, Obama managed to pass the stimulus, rescued the auto industry, passed healthcare and helped to recapitalise the banks amongst other things. There has also been, despite what some right wingers will say, improvements in these final few months, in terms of job creation and unemployment.

Obama also annoyed the House Democrats by trying to be bipartisan. So he partially wasted the two years where his party controlled Congress. He would have got more through if he followed Gingrich's 100 day plan for the Contract with America.

 

[papaspur]

They wanted to make Obama a 1-term president. Mitch McConnell said as much.

They failed. Now is the time to start working together, especially since we'll have the impending fiscal cliff in January to deal with.
Really, I hope the Republicans find themselves humbled. They kept the house but they haven't actually offered anything to the people suffering from this brick economy. I hope they woke up this morning, looked in the mirror and for once thought about the people that they've let down over the past 4 years.

OK, congrats Obama, but it's time for him to get real on some issues as well. I forgot to mention gun control earlier. A federally mandated background check would be a good start, but limiting the sale on automatic weapons is key.

 

[NewYorkSpurs]

They wanted to make Obama a 1-term president. Mitch McConnell said as much.

They failed. Now is the time to start working together, especially since we'll have the impending fiscal cliff in January to deal with.
Really, I hope the Republicans find themselves humbled. They kept the house but they haven't actually offered anything to the people suffering from this brick economy. I hope they woke up this morning, looked in the mirror and for once thought about the people that they've let down over the past 4 years.

OK, congrats Obama, but it's time for him to get real on some issues as well. I forgot to mention gun control earlier. A federally mandated background check would be a good start, but limiting the sale on automatic weapons is key.

You're really all over the place man. Forget gun control or any other non-economic issue. Sure, gun control would be nice, but let's get the deficit down, a balanced budget, and decreased entitlement spending (for increased tax swap) before we go into anything else. A divided Congress can only do so much, and fixing the economic crisis should be the first, and only, order of business right now.

 

[Richie]

The last Republican government absolutely decimated that country's economy, with 2 ridiculous wars, stupid tax cuts and silly increases of the deficit. Then for half of his term, the incumbent finds these same macarons filibustering basically everything he puts forward, even ideas that they themselves held not that long ago. I have absolutely no trust in this party whatsoever to run the economy. I don't find it particularly coincidental that most of the most staunchly Republican states are the most backward in that country.

Everyone keeps blaming the wars for increasing the deficit, and they have a point. But lets be clear, the wars cost around $1.3tn and in that time the debt has increased by around $10tn. Also as I have pointed out, if you think the wars were a spending problem perhaps you should wake up to your interest problem, which is costing almost double the amount per annum that those wars did. Again, this is at record low interest rates, and if they rise then the payments rise even higher.

Here's an interesting video explaining it.
[video=youtube;ID4xay5RITY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4xay5RITY&feature=relmfu[/video]

 

[Hootnow]

You're really all over the place man. Forget gun control or any other non-economic issue. Sure, gun control would be nice, but let's get the deficit down, a balanced budget, and decreased entitlement spending (for increased tax swap) before we go into anything else. A divided Congress can only do so much, and fixing the economic crisis should be the first, and only, order of business right now.

Mate, the US isn't some banana republic, its the world's superpower with 300 million people. The government of the country can and should be focusing on more than one problem at a time.

 

[Hootnow]

Everyone keeps blaming the wars for increasing the deficit, and they have a point. But lets be clear, the wars cost around $1.3tn and in that time the debt has increased by around $10tn. Also as I have pointed out, if you think the wars were a spending problem perhaps you should wake up to your interest problem, which is costing almost double the amount per annum that those wars did. Again, this is at record low interest rates, and if they rise then the payments rise even higher.

Here's an interesting video explaining it.
[video=youtube;ID4xay5RITY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4xay5RITY&feature=relmfu[/video]

So almost 15% of the debt? Hardly a minimal amount is it?

No-one is saying that the US is in a great financial position at the moment. No-one is saying that Obama has done a perfect job with the economy. But to say that he isn't serious about reducing the deficit and debt is just plain wrong imo. He didn't have full control over the House even at the best of times and did a pretty good job imo considering the circumstances.

As for the Republicans. Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush increased it by 45%. And then Bush doubled it and turned a surplus into a defecit I believe. Why does anyone trust this lot with the economy?

 

[braineclipse]

Mate, the US isn't some banana republic, its the world's superpower with 300 million people. The government of the country can and should be focusing on more than one problem at a time.

Very good point.

Ignoring the economy while focusing on national security and other topics surely played a part in getting the US into this problem in the first place. Not the time to ignore all other issues and focus just on one issue again.

Fixing an economy isn't done overnight anyway, some real long term thinking needs to be done and some immediate cuts can be really detrimental long term.

---------------------

Although personally I think the first issue that needs sorting over there is the problem with legalized systematic corruption. Corruption really does poison everything else and very little good is likely to come out of a system so completely focused on the interests of the few wealthy and powerful while seeing the masses as something to feed ads, lies and propaganda to to get into power and otherwise little more than an inconvenience.

 

[thfcsteff]

You're really all over the place man. Forget gun control or any other non-economic issue. Sure, gun control would be nice, but let's get the deficit down, a balanced budget, and decreased entitlement spending (for increased tax swap) before we go into anything else. A divided Congress can only do so much, and fixing the economic crisis should be the first, and only, order of business right now.

Allow me to simplify how that can happen.

If corporate America cares about Americans, and American employment/productivity, it needs to stop wriggling away from fiscal responsibility and start investing in it's own country again. Stop looking for 5 times the profit margin, settle for 3 with the implicit knowledge that you are helping re-invigorate your own country. I know, a horrific thought eh? Just imagine if instead of sewing in Saipan it was Seattle, where there are real employment standards in place! Obviously that's a loose example, but let's go a step further and say that rather than farming out every single bit of industry to the third world in order to save some money, why not invest in your own workforce? Furthermore, people in society have to be prepared to support their own country and it's production. Take a moment in the market and buy LOCAL produce as opposed to a bunch of grapes flown 3-4000 miles! Everyone could do their bit, but the fact of the matter is that no-one REALLY wants to go to that level because, in the end, people serve themselves; it's why vast swathes of the US do not understand the long-term benefits of a health care and education system which has consistent federal funding. THEY see it as 'over-government' whereas in truth, it's making sure that the basic level of society is operating at a civilized level.

As for 'forgetting any other non-economic issue', please. Women's rights, gun control, health care, education, they ALL become a matter of economics at a certain point.

By the way, I fully recognize that most republicans do not give a fudge about the poor, mentally ill or minority 'dregs' and as such would be flabbergasted to see any of them support welfare, but to include social security under the 'entitlement spending cut' banner is thievery. Explain to me how someone who has worked all their life, and paid into a system, should then be denied their return at the appropriate time?

 

[Hootnow]

Very good point.

Ignoring the economy while focusing on national security and other topics surely played a part in getting the US into this problem in the first place. Not the time to ignore all other issues and focus just on one issue again.

Fixing an economy isn't done overnight anyway, some real long term thinking needs to be done and some immediate cuts can be really detrimental long term.

---------------------

Although personally I think the first issue that needs sorting over there is the problem with legalized systematic corruption. Corruption really does poison everything else and very little good is likely to come out of a system so completely focused on the interests of the few wealthy and powerful while seeing the masses as something to feed ads, lies and propaganda to to get into power and otherwise little more than an inconvenience.

I met a guy this summer from the US who has done a lot of work in political circles. He said that the flagrant corruption amongst American politicians is mind-boggling. He's been sat in rooms where businessmen have openly offered money to Senators etc to fight their corner politically. For a country like the US, apparently our leader in the 'free world' this is unbelievable.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/07/14994874-an-unsustainable-demographic-trend?lite

 

[Richie]

So almost 15% of the debt? Hardly a minimal amount is it?

No-one is saying that the US is in a great financial position at the moment. No-one is saying that Obama has done a perfect job with the economy. But to say that he isn't serious about reducing the deficit and debt is just plain wrong imo. He didn't have full control over the House even at the best of times and did a pretty good job imo considering the circumstances.

As for the Republicans. Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush increased it by 45%. And then Bush doubled it and turned a surplus into a defecit I believe. Why does anyone trust this lot with the economy?

The war is not an insignificant sum I grant you, but if it hadn't happened you'd be sitting at the $15tn debt rather than just over $16tn. The problems with US Federal Spending go much deeper than just the Bush tax cuts or Iraq and Afghanistan.

My point is that even if Obama had the power to do anything he wanted, I still don't think he would be brave enough to make the kind of cuts that are necessary, the kind that are being made by the Conservatives over here. Inevitably it would affect poor people and that would cripple the Democrats. I just don't see it happening. Do I trust the Republicans? Not really, I thought Romneys planned tax cuts were laughable in the current economic climate, but I think he would at least take steps towards a balanced budget that I don't think Obama will.

Again, I'm not a Republican. I hoped Ron Paul would win the nomination but unfortunately I really believe he is unelectable. Romneys position on the auto industry bail out cost him in key states like Ohio last night, so there's no way Ron Pauls position would have seen him do any better. If I were voting last night I'd probably have voted for Gary Johnson but there you have it.

 

[Richie]

By the way, I fully recognize that most republicans do not give a fudge about the poor, mentally ill or minority 'dregs' and as such would be flabbergasted to see any of them support welfare, but to include social security under the 'entitlement spending cut' banner is thievery. Explain to me how someone who has worked all their life, and paid into a system, should then be denied their return at the appropriate time?

Regarding this point, the pensions system in the UK will need a radical overhaul just as the US system does. Consecutive governments are promising future pensioners things that they simply cannot deliver and unfunded social security liabilities is the upcoming financial disaster for western governments.

 

[Rossi22]

 

[NewYorkSpurs]

Mate, the US isn't some banana republic, its the world's superpower with 300 million people. The government of the country can and should be focusing on more than one problem at a time.

Mate, don't know what rock you've been living under where you think the U.S. Government functions efficiently, but they haven't been able to even handle a single issue (the economy) at a time. Forgive me for being pessimistic (more like, realistic) about it.

 

[Hootnow]

The war is not an insignificant sum I grant you, but if it hadn't happened you'd be sitting at the $15tn debt rather than just over $16tn. The problems with US Federal Spending go much deeper than just the Bush tax cuts or Iraq and Afghanistan.

My point is that even if Obama had the power to do anything he wanted, I still don't think he would be brave enough to make the kind of cuts that are necessary, the kind that are being made by the Conservatives over here. Inevitably it would affect poor people and that would cripple the Democrats. I just don't see it happening. Do I trust the Republicans? Not really, I thought Romneys planned tax cuts were laughable in the current economic climate, but I think he would at least take steps towards a balanced budget that I don't think Obama will.

Again, I'm not a Republican. I hoped Ron Paul would win the nomination but unfortunately I really believe he is unelectable. Romneys position on the auto industry bail out cost him in key states like Ohio last night, so there's no way Ron Pauls position would have seen him do any better. If I were voting last night I'd probably have voted for Gary Johnson but there you have it.

Fair enough. I think harsh cuts in this kind of climate would probably have been counter-productive for the economy (though cuts are of course necessary and that's why I think labour's position is laughable despite not being a big fan of the Tories) but that is an ideological discussion to be had in another thread.

I find the Libertarians very interesting. Agree with their foreign policy on many issues and I tend to believe that at home, as long as what you're doing isn't harming someone else, you should be able to do pretty much whatever the hell you want. Their economic policy though...seems a little loony to me. I'm surprised that Paul didn't run as an independent though. I'm also pretty interested in what Rand Paul will end up doing in his career.

I think my preference would have depended on where I was. In a battleground state, Obama 100% to pre-empt Romney. Somewhere like California? I would have given someone like Jill Stein a serious look imo.