Those Jobs Numbers...

[houstonderek]

Fredrik wrote:

Right, because a bottom-up approach of floating all boats, while actually caring about competence, is identical to a top-down approach of using crony capitalism to enrich corporate welfare queens while not giving a damn. Also, having one-and-a-half branches of the Federal government against you and still improving the economy is obviously the same as having all branches in your favor, and still putting the entire world at risk of a narrowly-averted Great Depression II. I see now that it's all the same. How could I have been so blind!

Clinton did it with the entire congress opposed to him. And a non-favorable Supreme Court.

Of course, Obama isn't qualified to sniff Bill's jock, but, you know.

[TriOmegaZero]

Of course, gripe all you want about how the Republicans want to give all the money to the rich, it's hardly much worse than the Democrats wanting to use taxes to keep everyone at the tax bracket they are at indefinitely. So clearly an extreme end of the spectrum is not the way to go.

[Helaman]

Its 30 years of poor policies, foriegn wars and regulation.

During the Clinton years there was a banking crisis where people where borrowing huge sums and then letting the bank have the land leveraged against it... the S&L crisis

Government bail out to cover the banks crappy policies.

Flash forward through a number of similar events since then, including a number of subprime bubbles... add to that the Dot Com crash, ever reducing corporate taxes and increasing corporate credits, without regulation or obligation in how that money is invested (ie it could have been tied to reduction or elimination in payroll taxes for domestic workers for instance) and a number of foriegn wars?

Thats a recipe for disaster... doesn't matter which party is driving from the White House, particulary these days when politics is increasingly corporatised.

I'm Aussie so I don't get a vote in US elections, but I tend to lean Democrat if I am looking at US domestic policy... that said? Ron Paul was a breath of fresh air. Racist? I'll leave that one alone. But his policies on an end to foriegn involvement and focus on domestic economy and policy and a 'screw you' to subsidies and special interests groups, etc was just something I haven't seen before in US politics.

I'm hoping he does well in Nabraska so that the RNC have to put him on the Ballot and give him a slot at the convention... not because he is right on everything, but because he is needed to shake things up.

[meatrace]

Helaman wrote:

I'm hoping he does well in Nabraska so that the RNC have to put him on the Ballot and give him a slot at the convention... not because he is right on everything, but because he is needed to shake things up.

They won't. The RNC has been continually and flagrantly breaking and circumventing their OWN RULES to keep RP's fingerprints off the party.

On one hand, you'd think it was bizarre, since he has an enormous popular base and is popular to the Tea Party crowd who have given the Republicans about 95% of their forward momentum in the past 3 years.

But that's if you have any illusions of the Republicans being a small government, fiscally conservative, party of the people.

[doctor_wu]

houstonderek wrote:

thejeff wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer."

Ah yes, Mr. Bush. That should one have been obvious.

As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-)

Why not? Since offshoring is usually a subset of outsourcing and Romney's companies helped with both.

The sad reality is the person actually responsible for that, Romney's successor, is a huge bundler for Obama. But, you know, just listen to whatever Maddow tells you, don't actually bother with facts or anything.

And, no, I am no more enamored with Romney than I am Obama. I just prefer fact in my snark.

Like Obama didn't screw up the stimulus and make it too small in the first place and not last long enough. And then does stuff that cuts spending. The states need aid so cuts are not to state colleges and things which also if they become unaffordable screw up long term growth maybe more than the interest on the national debt.

[A Man In Black]

houstonderek wrote:

There is no "clear evidence". Only spin. Obama is just as big a joke as his predescessor, and, honestly, in my opinion, the only reason anyone doesn't see it is pure partisan blindness.

So all of the paperwork from November 1999 to 2001 with Romney's signature on it, that's, what, imaginary? The Staples meetings he went to, those didn't happen?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about, but I certainly didn't need Obama's spin doctors or the liberal media to tell me to hate Romney. Just living in Massachusetts from 2003-2007 was enough.

[thejeff]

Helaman wrote:

During the Clinton years there was a banking crisis where people where borrowing huge sums and then letting the bank have the land leveraged against it... the S&L crisis

Government bail out to cover the banks crappy policies.

Just for the record:

The S&L crisis was a Reagan/Bush thing. It may have spilled over into the start of the Clinton years, but it was mostly clean up by then.

[BigNorseWolf]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course, gripe all you want about how the Republicans want to give all the money to the rich, it's hardly much worse than the Democrats wanting to use taxes to keep everyone at the tax bracket they are at indefinitely. So clearly an extreme end of the spectrum is not the way to go.

As opposed to the republicans, who object to public schooling and want to do away with it so people go DOWN a few tax brackets unless they can afford to send their kids to private school.

I'll take progress if i can get it, the status quo if i have to.

[thejeff]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course, gripe all you want about how the Republicans want to give all the money to the rich, it's hardly much worse than the Democrats wanting to use taxes to keep everyone at the tax bracket they are at indefinitely. So clearly an extreme end of the spectrum is not the way to go.

I don't even know what that means. Currently the only plans I know of to increase taxes, which is what I assume you're talking about, are to repeal the Bush cuts to income above $250K. That's so far above the top tax bracket that talking about it keeping people from rising into a higher bracket is nonsense.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about,

Oh, now I know.

It is difficult to accept lectures on outsourcing from the party that introduced the North American Free Trade Agreement – an outsourcers' charter liberalising trade between the US, Mexico and Canada. The party that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, loosening regulations that would have mitigated the worst effects of the most recent crisis, has no credibility to preach about business ethics.

Yeah, f*~~ Obama.

[Irontruth]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yeah, f$%! Obama.

While I don't disagree with that person's facts, their analysis is flawed. If Romney wins, they aren't going to suddenly find the White House more open to working towards their ideals.

Third parties keep focusing on the presidency, the problem is that it isn't possible for a third party candidate to win at this point. On the federal level, they'd be better off trying to get a sizable minority in the house of representatives, just enough to stop either other party from maintaining a true majority. Parlaying a leading minority into national spotlight would make them contenders for senate seats and governorships.

The last president to not be elected to a major office prior to being president was Eisenhower. Only two men have been elected without previously being elected, Taft and Hoover, but both served in the Cabinet.

They're just ostracizing themselves from the people most likely to be their allies.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Irontruth wrote:

While I don't disagree with that person's facts, their analysis is flawed. If Romney wins, they aren't going to suddenly find the White House more open to working towards their ideals.

While I don't disagree about Romney, at this point it seems pretty clear that the Obama White House is equally hostile.

[Irontruth]

In some areas. If the left had been more unified and cooperative, we might have had a single payer health care law instead of the abomination we got. I mostly blame Max Baucus, but I'm not sure I'd really consider him on the left for some of the things he's done.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Irontruth wrote:

I mostly blame Max Baucus, but I'm not sure I'd really consider him on the left for some of the things he's done.

I'm not sure I'd really consider the Democrats on the left for some of the things they've done.

[thejeff]

Irontruth wrote:

In some areas. If the left had been more unified and cooperative, we might have had a single payer health care law instead of the abomination we got. I mostly blame Max Baucus, but I'm not sure I'd really consider him on the left for some of the things he's done.

Well, that's the issue. A good chunk of elected Democrats aren't on the left by any standard except comparison with today's Republicans (and some not even by that). On economic issues, particularly, in much of the developed world, or even the US a few decades ago, today's Democratic party would be considered center-right.

Given the Congress we had, single payer wasn't a realistic option. Still, proposing and arguing for single payer would have changed the debate. The benefits would have come out, especially if a proposal had got far enough to get CBO analysis. It would have been harder to paint the final outcome as socialist extremism.