U.S. Politics

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
redtreviso said:
""According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/voters-blame-bush-more-obama-economy-143014602.html

Bush... That guy you voted for..TWICE
Yes, but Obama's a failure because he isn't cleaning up their mess fast enough.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
VeloCity said:
From the Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read:

In other words, most of that cash is being given to the DNC, not to the Obama campaign. Which you would've picked up on if you'd bothered to look at the breakdown chart:

Contributions from the financial sector:

Romney: $7.5 million
Obama: $3.9 million

You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".

Then there's this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-16/goldman-favors-romney-over-obama-in-race-for-wall-street-funds.html

Never mind Goldman Sachs, that bit about the lobbyists is interesting.

And boy, I hope this comes up again at some point:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,0,3457481.story
btw I'm totally confused - is Obama a Marxist or is he in bed with Wall Street? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".
Uh, I highlighted that part in bold.

Typically that will mean the poster actually read the passage.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Yes, but Obama's a failure because he isn't cleaning up their mess fast enough.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
Yes, but Obama's a failure.
Stop there.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
Try not to get too worked up about it. Obama is a complex guy.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.
Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans. According to this USA Today poll:

"Only one in five see it as a step forward in addressing the federal debt."

And

"Though Tea Party conservatives succeeded in setting the parameters of the deal, supporters of the Tea Party are among those most unhappy with the outcome: 22% of Tea Party supporters approve of the agreement, compared with 26% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats."

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans. According to this USA Today poll:

"Only one in five see it as a step forward in addressing the federal debt."

And

"Though Tea Party conservatives succeeded in setting the parameters of the deal, supporters of the Tea Party are among those most unhappy with the outcome: 22% of Tea Party supporters approve of the agreement, compared with 26% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats."

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest.
Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?
You could ask the same question of Reagan. Clinton to a lesser degree as well.

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans.
I don't think most that vote for republicans are in love with them.

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?
The central theme is more than $4T more debt under this prez and an economy that is (still) on life support.

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest
Obama will have to re-write history to get re-elected. He'll have to out do FDR and he's not as good as Jimmy Carter. I'm very optimistic he'll be a one-termer.

But we will see.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Uh, I highlighted that part in bold.
And then you said that it shows that Obama has more support from Bain than does Romney. Still not sure how 18 Bain employees donating to Romney and 3 Bain employees donating to Obama constitutes "more support".
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Stop there.
You've got to love Republicans. Their solution to the mess is to put back into power people who share the same philosophy and policies as the people who created the mess while blaming the people who are trying to clean up the mess for creating the mess in the first place.

What was that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

Try not to get too worked up about it. Obama is a complex guy.
Just asking, is he a socialist or is he in bed with Wall St? I'm just curious to see how far you guys are able to twist these pretzels that you make.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep (December 17, 2007).

I think (December 17, 2007) Romney's got real (December 17, 2007) problems with this recent development.
Yes, which is why I said I hoped it "comes up again". You might have missed that part in among the other 8 words in that message.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
And then you said that it shows that Obama has more support from Bain than does Romney. Still not sure how 18 Bain employees donating to Romney and 3 Bain employees donating to Obama constitutes "more support".
I dunno... maybe he raised more money?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Yes, which is why I said I hoped it "comes up again". You might have missed that part in among the other 8 words in that message.
You are going to have to do better than this. I'm sorry.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""Still in disbelief after the panel reenacted the Texas governor’s interview with Parade magazine, Mika Brzezinski was forthright in her assessment of the GOP field.

“I’m disturbed,” she told co-host Joe Scarborough. “You have a disturbing set of candidates in your party, I’m sorry. It’s disturbing. Either they are walking around with slogans or they’re crazy.”


Scarborough said he had “no defense” for those seeking the White House in his party.

“This is lunacy,” he said. “People will look back these candidates and just said, ‘What idiots. What total, absolute idiots.’ I’ll suspect we’ll do what Republicans do. All the idiots will be thrown overboard""
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You are going to have to do better than this. I'm sorry.
It came up once before. I hope it comes up again. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I dunno... maybe he raised more money?
So if 1000 employees donated $5000 to Romney and 1 employee donated $5001 to Obama, Obama has more support from that company? Ok then.
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,176
0
0
I really wish Hillary would run. I was an avid Obama supporter last time around (even though I could not vote at the time), but I have been disappointed with Obama's presidency. I understand that he did get alot done, but I wish he would have tried more. His Congress has been awful however. It seems to me that the system needs an overhaul. But I digress. I think that people would gladly support Hillary. Her husband was after all one of the best presidents in terms of financial policy. I think she would get even more support than in 2008. That being said, I really hope Perry does not win. Romney is at least somewhat moderate, but Perry is on the verge of being crazy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
So if 1000 employees donated $5000 to Romney and 1 employee donated $5001 to Obama, Obama has more support from that company? Ok then.
You are in the science world, right? Is the above what happened at Bain or are you exaggerating a little?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
It came up once before. I hope it comes up again. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
Oh, I get the concept. But if that's what you're going to hang your hat on then I'm guessing there will be some disappointment in your future.
 
Of course Hillary won't run. Not against Obama. Still a good shot she'll run in 2016 though.

VeloCity said:
You've got to love Republicans. Their solution to the mess is to put back into power people who share the same philosophy and policies as the people who created the mess while blaming the people who are trying to clean up the mess for creating the mess in the first place.
It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.

Bavarianrider said:
don't see how you could not be in favor of Ron Paul
Let's see, he's in favor of eliminating all social programs, and if you're poor or in need of assistance the local church or neighbors will take care of you. Yeah, that will work really well.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You are in the science world, right? Is the above what happened at Bain or are you exaggerating a little?
You're the one who set the criteria that "more money = more support" and "more employees donating = less support". I just took it to it's logical conclusion.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I get the concept. But if that's what you're going to hang your hat on then I'm guessing there will be some disappointment in your future.
Never said I was hanging my hat on anything. All I said was that I hope it comes up again.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.
"Economic policies" is a pretty broad brush. The only thing Obama has in common with Bush is in having failed to restructure the banking system - which is quite a chore - and failing to enact longer-term restructuring and regulations in the greater financial sector (ie reversing primarily-Republican introduced deregulation) which is understandable given the intense pressure to focusing on improving things in the short term first. But that's about where the similarities end.

But collusion with the super wealthy? Buffett, maybe. Doubt many others, since Obama's certainly not working in their interest by pushing for increasing regulations on the financial sector, increasing taxes on the wealthy, closing corporate tax loopholes, etc (pretty much the exact opposite of Bush's and pretty much the exact opposite of the current crop of Republican's approach). You'd think that Obama would be rewarded handsomely by Wall St and the big banks and the super wealthy if he were just continuing on with the Bush policies. But quite the opposite - they've cut their campaign contributions to Obama significantly and shifted them to the Republican candidates (compared to the distribution of the '08 campaign - check out the Goldman Sachs numbers, for eg, for Obama '08 vs Obama '12 and Romney '12) because they know full well that it's the Republican's who are working in their - Wall St's - best interest and that it's Obama who wants to put on the brakes.

And that's not to mention that even if Obama came up with THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING, congressional Republican's would just say "no" anyway. Kind of hard to get anything done when one party just wants to sit on their collective hands and do nothing. (And another big reason our system is broken beyond repair - what do you suppose the Dems are going to do in return, if say Romney became president? I can't see any incentive they'd have now to work with a Republican president.)

Also, see the GAO report released today about what would happen to GDP if the PPACA were to be repealed - another thing Republicans want to do.

btw, according to Suskind (so take it with a grain of salt, but still an interesting read), it was Obama who wanted to go very, very big on insolvent bank restructuring - Romer (? I think it was) called it Obama's Rooseveltian moment - and it was Obama who wanted to "change the course of the Wall Street ship" etc. But he was talked out of it by Emmanuel, Geithner, and Summers.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Michelle Bachman's entire staff in New Hampshire resigned today. She was already a long passed flavor of the month, but this is a pretty strong nail in her presidential coffin if you ask me.

As I noted in the other thread, it's Romney's nomination to win or lose. He seems to be the only one who understands this is a marathon, not a sprint. Only Perry can upend him as I see it, and that is if Perry can sweep South Carolina and Florida, then several states on Super Tuesday and get momentum from that.
Apparently, the NH staff was asked to go 'off payroll' in mid September. Likely Bachman simply doesn't have the money, and the little she has, she's focusing on Iowa.

In similar news, I believe Huntsman, Gingrich & Santorum are in the red without ever passing a few % on any poll. So they're toast (ok, so that wasn't news after all). All in all, the largest red numbers are written by Gingrich ($1m), followed by Bachman ($1/2m), with a very distant 3rd and 4th by Hunstman & Santorum.

Paul & Cain are doing reasonably well for 2nd tier candidates with their fundraising ($1-2m). Obviously Perry and Romney with around $15m each are taking the cake. Interestingly, the Perry campaign has maxed out 70% of their donors, while the Romney campaign has more small donors than Perry has (fewer % maxed out). Also, Perry raises mostly in Texas & California. Romney's campaign fundraising is more diversified. Yes, that was a surprise for me, too.
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,176
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Of course Hillary won't run. Not against Obama. Still a good shot she'll run in 2016 though.


It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.


Let's see, he's in favor of eliminating all social programs, and if you're poor or in need of assistance the local church or neighbors will take care of you. Yeah, that will work really well.
I agree completely. However, I feel like that it is impossible to be a high end politician without the "support" of huge corporations. It is quite impossible to even run for president these days without $$$$ backing you up. Since the only way you can get this $$$$ is to do what the corporations tell you, you run out of options. Because of this, any candiate that we may elect, will end up being similar to Bush. Obama, Romney, or Perry; all will be influenced by the giant multinationals. I wish there were someone else to vote for, but sadly it seems we are stuck.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY