2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Roy, when George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, there was an additional factor: Bill Clinton. He was charismatic, and people actually liked him.

In many ways, Clinton stood for the common man, while Bush represented greed in all its forms.

Romney is no Bill Clinton.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, when George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, there was an additional factor: Bill Clinton. He was charismatic, and people actually liked him.

In many ways, Clinton stood for the common man, while Bush represented greed in all its forms.

Romney is no Bill Clinton.

No doubt but Bill Clinton's "Its the Economy Stupid" hammered home the problems we were having and made the election a referendum on Bush's economic policies, and not on the Gulf War. In many ways this election mirrors that one, a poor economy with a President running on a popular foreign policy in the hopes that people will ignore the economy.

[Plantae]

Before we get to our ruling, it's worth noting that actions taken by both Presidents Bush and Obama have contributed to the debt increases over the last decade. Those factors include tax cuts enacted under Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were started by the Bush administration, as well as the stimulus bill and another tax cut deal approved by Obama.

Experts also have pointed to the weak economy as a contributing factor to the higher debt, given the reduction in federal revenues and greater spending on items like unemployment benefits.

The article you cite in your attempt to blame solely Obama for the debt is extremely clear that there are many other factors at play, some of which may be out of the administration's control. It's true that reducing spending to social programs may have helped reduce the deficit. But in the current political environment, I think it's clear that Obama had little chance to discuss these kind of reforms with any hope of actual success.

Also, notice how clear Politifact is in pointing out how much tax cuts increase the federal deficit. If Obama made a mistake in this regard, it was in conceding to a deal that would extend Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy.

Looks like Walker will keep the Governorship at this point.

As a Wisconsin resident who has daily experience with this situation, I can tell you that it is not so cut and dry. There's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the recall. A lot may change before June 5.

The attempt to try and get something done, ended when Obama walked out. After the point he swung his support to the Gang of Six deal, there was no way of going back. This is not about if you respect him or not, this is about political reality.

No, it's about a difference of opinion.

Just scanning through this article I see no mention that Romney's plan wouldn't stimulate the economy, and that is surprising seeing how it is written by a person connected with the leftist Urban Institute.

And do you imagine that increasing the tax burden on the poor would stimulate the economy? If so, you're contradicting your own position. The analysis clearly demonstrates that Romney's tax policies would would charge parents earning minimum wage about $1,000 more per year, while reducing the taxes on the rich by $300 billion. Any tax increase on the poor or the middle class will have a much greater effect on the economy than the same proportional increase on the wealthy. This, again, is a mathematical certainty, and as it turns, a political one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...axes-while-ra/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...an-gives-mill/

It isn't just people fleeing, it also kills investment, killing investment in turn kills jobs, killing jobs in turn kills profits, and after that there is less money coming in to be taxed. Not to mention usually with Democrats increasing taxes is followed by increasing spending. Having less tax revenue coming in with already increased spending puts us in a even worse off position.

No doubt but Bill Clinton's "Its the Economy Stupid" hammered home the problems we were having and made the election a referendum on Bush's economic policies, and not on the Gulf War. In many ways this election mirrors that one, a poor economy with a President running on a popular foreign policy in the hopes that people will ignore the economy.

I'm afraid that all this posturing just isn't borne out by history.
Reagan increased taxes during a recession in September 1982.
George H.W. Bush increased taxes during a recession in November 1990.
He only lost because he promised to do exactly the opposite. But the only reason the economy floundered as much as it did was because he didn't increase taxes sooner.
Bill Clinton increased taxes during a recession in 1993.
All of these included a shift in the balance of tax revenues towards the highest income earners, and all of them resulted in more jobs and increased economic growth.
Notably, Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Romney does not. I think it's clear which is sounder economic policy.

Such as Obamacare or the Stimulus?

Yes, both bills were highly partisan. Whether or not they were effective is an entirely different question.

So.. you can't argue the point so you want me to stop?

Argument requires reason. Since your position on Global Warming is based entirely on irrational supposition and theories about massive, worldwide conspiracies, it's hard to "argue" with it. But no, I'm not conceding the point. I'm simply recognizing that you've shown a clear inability to comprehend basic mathematics and science. Next thing you'll be telling me that thermometers are also just another part of the leftist agenda. As it is, Global Warming exists, and since reality has already borne this out, I don't need to defend my position any further. I'm quite content to allow you to realize the magnitude of your mistake at some future date, and I pity those who may be harmed by your ignorance and negligence.

I'm also going to bow out of this discussion. I got involved in this debate because I was bored, but now I think it's starting to distract me from doing more important things... like studying for the huge final I have coming up. So good luck to all, adios.

[Roy Karrde]

The article you cite in your attempt to blame solely Obama for the debt is extremely clear that there are many other factors at play, some of which may be out of the administration's control. It's true that reducing spending to social programs may have helped reduce the deficit. But in the current political environment, I think it's clear that Obama had little chance to discuss these kind of reforms with any hope of actual success.

Also, notice how clear Politifact is in pointing out how much tax cuts increase the federal deficit. If Obama made a mistake in this regard, it was in conceding to a deal that would extend Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy.

I have no doubt there are contributing factors, but as I have said before politicians are looking for the 10 second sound bite, not a sit down and explanation as to why things are such a way. That is why some one as smart as Paul Ryan would have trouble getting elected on a national level. As his plans do not lend themselves to the ease of such a quick sound bite.

As a Wisconsin resident who has daily experience with this situation, I can tell you that it is not so cut and dry. There's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the recall. A lot may change before June 5.

Alot may, but at this moment Walker is leading.

No, it's about a difference of opinion.

Yet my opinion seems to be backed up by facts and political reality.

And do you imagine that increasing the tax burden on the poor would stimulate the economy? If so, you're contradicting your own position. The analysis clearly demonstrates that Romney's tax policies would would charge parents earning minimum wage about $1,000 more per year, while reducing the taxes on the rich by $300 billion. Any tax increase on the poor or the middle class will have a much greater effect on the economy than the same proportional increase on the wealthy. This, again, is a mathematical certainty, and as it turns, a political one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...axes-while-ra/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...an-gives-mill/

The only way I can see if that works out is, if the tax loss for the wealthy results in a stimulated economy and stimulated jobs, in which case it would boost the wealth of all of them. Bringing us back to a sorta mid 90s economy. However again I do not see anything that says it won't stimulate the economy again. This is the last time I will ask, as you have dodged it several times.

I'm afraid that all this posturing just isn't borne out by history.
Reagan increased taxes during a recession in September 1982.
George H.W. Bush increased taxes during a recession in November 1990.
He only lost because he promised to do exactly the opposite. But the only reason the economy floundered as much as it did was because he didn't increase taxes sooner.
Bill Clinton increased taxes during a recession in 1993.
All of these included a shift in the balance of tax revenues towards the highest income earners, and all of them resulted in more jobs and increased economic growth.
Notably, Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Romney does not. I think it's clear which is sounder economic policy.

Yeah seeing how Obama's economic policies have not moved us toward any sort of prosperity and have landed us in a malaze of a economy, I think we can say it is not Obama's.

Yes, both bills were highly partisan. Whether or not they were effective is an entirely different question.

Well the Stimulus did not keep us under 8% unemployment and did not immediately rebound the economy, and Obamacare has a large chance of being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Argument requires reason. Since your position on Global Warming is based entirely on irrational supposition and theories about massive, worldwide conspiracies, it's hard to "argue" with it. But no, I'm not conceding the point. I'm simply recognizing that you've shown a clear inability to comprehend basic mathematics and science. Next thing you'll be telling me that thermometers are also just another part of the leftist agenda. As it is, Global Warming exists, and since reality has already borne this out, I don't need to defend my position any further. I'm quite content to allow you to realize the magnitude of your mistake at some future date, and I pity those who may be harmed by your ignorance and negligence.

If we are to suggest that arguments require reason and intelligence, then I guess we can discount most if not all of your political arguments in this thread. As they have largely been backed up by little evidence, and a lack of intelligence as to the political situation born out of the "Grand Bargain" deal.

Furthermore, seeing how you refuse to even argue it, nor respond to my points on it properly, it suggest that you lack the intelligence to argue it, and that this is more a passion position for you, and you fear losing such a argument. Much as you have lost the political argument in this thread.

I'm also going to bow out of this discussion. I got involved in this debate because I was bored, but now I think it's starting to distract me from doing more important things... like studying for the huge final I have coming up. So good luck to all, adios.

Good luck, its been fun.