Get over it Conservatives, Obama was "elected by a majority of the popular vote twice!"

Relax, CM.

For your information, I do not prattle sir, but sometimes I just rattle your little mouse cage.

As to what plan I'd like to see. It would be pretty much the opposite of what Bush did.

Here's an outline of my 8 point plan for the country:

1. Don't start unnecessary wars.

2. Don't give more tax cuts to the rich.

3. Invest in infrastructure.

4. Develop alternative energy sources.

5. Trim the bloated defense spending.

6. Invest in schools.

7. Calm the market.

8. Improve the economy.

. . . That's how you dig this country out of the economic hole Bush left us in.


Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Looks good on paper doesn't it.

Like I thought I had clearly stated, you said the President ignored the commission’s recommendations. That is not true. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Oh, really?

Then it would be interesting to see you try to explain what you think he did with them!

Back up and take a look at what I actually did say, and this time try to understand it:

I'll drink to that, but would note that I believe his luck will be a lot better if he moves toward the center like Bill Clinton did in 1995. That means that he needs to lead the nation in serious discussions (not just happy talk) of entitlement reform, tax reform, and something resembling Simpson-Bowles. (If he doesn't like Simpson-Bowles, it should at least be the starting point for a wide-ranging debate, or he should tell us what his plan is for placing us on a glideslope to fiscal sustainability.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It's really pretty simple. I merely said that if the president doesn't like some of the aspects of that plan, he ought to tell us what might be the elements of his plan for a return to fiscal sanity. Instead, after initially calling for the formation of the commission, he seems willing to maintain by omission that its work was for naught. But the key point is that he should lead on the issue. Geez, he's the President of the United States, not some congressional committee chairman!

And you might also note that the White House has yet to produce a budget that anyone takes seriously. It seems that the entirety of Obama's economic "plan" is to return tax rates on the top 2% to Clinton-era levels. That's not a plan; it's merely a platitude. It wouldn't even take care of a nickel's worth of every deficit dollar.

If President Obama has made any attempt to advance any meaningful set of entitlement reforms or deficit-reduction proposals, why don't you tell me what they are?

Otherwise you must concede that none of my previous statements were false.

You obviously were not around during the Vietnam War era! Originally Posted by bigtex

I agree, the Country was divided then just about as bad is it is now.

In truth, many of the divisions in the Country now do have their roots in that era, as we are now fully feeling the effects of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".

As to what plan I'd like to see. It would be pretty much the opposite of what Bush did.

Here's an outline of my 8 point plan for the country:

1. Don't start unnecessary wars.

2. Don't give more tax cuts to the rich.

3. Invest in infrastructure.

4. Develop alternative energy sources.

5. Trim the bloated defense spending.

6. Invest in schools.

7. Calm the market.

8. Improve the economy.

. . . That's how you dig this country out of the economic hole Bush left us in.


Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Looks like a nice little checklist of what are no doubt popular goals, but you might want to take a quick look at how things are working out.

Taking your listed items one by one:

I think we can all agree that we don't need to start any unnecessary wars.

You can be pretty sure that no one is going to give any further tax cuts to the rich. But are you aware that past tax cuts for the wealthy contributed to only a very small slice of our deficits? They pale in comparison to the tax cuts we've given the non-affluent over the last ten years, and to the amount of spending increases over the same period.

It would be nice if we actually had a plan to invest meaningfully in infrastructure development and maintenance, but we do not. Supporters of the $800 billion "stimulus package" claimed that we would, but of course political hacks in congress mostly just handed out the money to favored constituencies. So we got a lot of wasteful pork projects and the metaphorical equivalent of more "bridges to nowhere."

You may have noticed that the plan of "investing" in "clean energy" hasn't gone very well. Much of the money was funneled to politically well-connected companies. Crony capitalism at its best! And, of course, government doesn't always do very well when it tries to pick winners and losers. It sure picks a lot of losers.

It doesn't look like anyone is trying to do very much to trim defense spending. That was the case even in 2009-2010 when Democrats had large majorities in both the House and the Senate. Even Obama's Secretary of Defense, a long-time Democrat, pushed back hard at the specter of the imposition of cuts totalling a few percentage points of the defense budget.

Investing in schools should be the purview of states, local governments, and school districts, not the federal government.

"Calming the markets" should simply be taken to mean the avoidance of instability such as "fiscal cliff" standoffs, debt ceiling angst, etc. We'll see how that goes.

Regarding the goal of "improving the economy", you can see that that's not going very well. We're stuck in a slow growth rut, and will probably be in and out of recessions, sluggish growth periods, debt crises, etc. for many years to come. Those are the predictable consequences of rapid, massive, irresponsible increases in government spending. You'd better get used to them.

But notably omitted from your list is any mention of how you would like to see us achieve deficit reduction over the next few years. Do you think it's OK just to rely on massive borrowing and money-printing forever, and that proceeding without a plan is acceptable?

When you elect the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history back-to-back, that's what you get.

The recovery from balance sheet recessions arising from financial crises is, in any event, generally more difficult than that from normal "business cycle" recessions. But it certainly doesn't help matters to compound the problem by overloading the economy with anti-growth policies while it's trying to recover, and by completely failing to address the problems creating the crisis that precipitated the recession. (Dodd-Frank does more harm than good, and very little to lower the probablity of future financial crises.)

No one is even making a half-hearted attempt to fix the most serious economic concerns we face. The biggest surprise to me is that anyone is actually surprised by the poor performance of our economy

Well, do we all really agree on not starting unnecessary wars?

Bush sure as hell did not and he barreled into Iraq in spite of wise advise to the contrary from many quarters.

Senator Barack Obama was opposed to this war as I was and I'm proud of him for that.

If the Supreme Court had not given the election to Bush, you can be sure that John Kerry would have not dragged this country into that idiotic war. I am glad we're rid of Saddam, but look at all the blood and treasure this country paid for that removal.

The tax cuts for the rich cost this country more than it could afford, but the rich loved them of course.

The points I listed are all doable if we have wise leadership in the White House and at least some cooperation. We did not get anything remotely resembling that when Mitch McConnell stated their purpose was to make President Obama a one term president.

Calming the market will come about when business leaders see that we have cooperation in Washington and our leaders are working on the actual business of this country instead of endless fighting over who is in charge.

. . . I believe that was the point of this thread, but the message still has not sunk in for many people.

the south is going to rise again

the south is going to rise again Originally Posted by gary5912

From what will the South rise again, the Land of Oz?

From what will the South rise again, the Land of Oz? Originally Posted by bigtex

you don't get it do you think about all the states wanting seperate from the Union and the state you're in is leading the pack, my key board drama queen

The election was two weeks ago and all you can say is that Obama won??? Hasn't he done anything for you to brag about since then? Sounds like a pretty bad start so far.

Fastgoon, which election did the Supreme Court give to Bush over Kerry?

you don't get it do you think about all the states wanting seperate from the Union and the state you're in is leading the pack, my key board drama queen Originally Posted by gary5912

Toto,

I've got $5 Benji's that says no state will "seperate" from the United States of America during the next 4 years, including the state I'm in as well as The Land of Oz. Are you interested?

Signed,

The key board drama king

Hey Toto, how about a bone?

Fastgoon, which election did the Supreme Court give to Bush over Kerry? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How are the grand kids COG?

Toto,

I've got $5 Benji's that says no state will "seperate" from the United States of America during the next 4 years, including the state I'm in as well as The Land of Oz. Are you interested?

Signed,

The key board drama king

Hey Toto, how about a bone?

Originally Posted by bigtex

here is a bone for you, you have to be in the business to really appreciate it

Serious you republicans need to really re-group- accept defeat and learn to work with the POTUS. If you guys want to continue the hate mongering go right ahead look where it got you in 2008 and 2012.
What kills me is people like IB, IIFFORFRDB and most of all Whirlway- and I guess on a bigger stage Hannity and Rush seem to always "believe" they have all the answers to America's problems and everything Obama does is so wrong. Well here's what I say- I know people like IB, IIFFORFRDB, Whirlway would never run for POTUD, by heck if Hannity and Rush seem to have all the answers why don't they run- they surely have the money and name recognition- bottom line don't talk about it be about it. I can get on the internet and say the CEO of Company "X" is doing a horrible job and he should be removed, but at the end of the day it's easy for me to sit behind a computer and downgrade anyone- that's easy-but until I walk in a CEO's shoes I really don't know what the hell is going on.
Obama has perhaps one of the most stressful jobs in the world bar none- and if you guys think you could do a better job then quit your day job and run for some political office. What Obama walked into in 2008 I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy and I am sorry it takes more than 4 years to fix the fuck up Bush left- had Mccain won in 2008 things would not have been much different.
What you guys have to realize is not matter whose in office no one is gong to be in 100% agreement with any POTUS on every issue. Didn't Jesus have his critics??? If people disagreed with Jesus what makes you think a POTUS would be any different?
If you guys think that had Romney won by the end of 2016 we would have 3 % UE- world peace , the deficit payed off then you guys are fools- heck there may be somethings a Romney administration wold have handled better and some that they wouldn't- no POTUS is perfect. Wake up guys.

How are the grand kids COG? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

They are THE BEST!