Politics & Current Events
justAphase
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
I have a question.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to Republicans that Romney's plan would take 8-10 years, yet Obama is blasted for not having the economy in tip top shape by the end of his 4th year? Just curious.
Maya Avery 3/2011
Re: I have a question.
Warning: long answer. Hope you read!
I don't think anyone would expect any candidate to turn the U.S. economy around in four years (at least I hope), because there are too many intricate parts to do it in just four years and it would probably be impossible in such a short time. I sure haven't expected that of Obama.
Personally, if Romney wins, I am not convinced our economy can be turned around in 8-10 years either. I think he could make a sizeable dent in turning it around, though.
Obama made the statements that he would cut spending and that he would not grow our national debt. In less than four years, he has added in $5T. Now, Obama and his administration are not to blame for all of this. He was handed a steaming pile of mung to begin with. But, most presidents are always handed some mung in one way or another when they enter office. He did have a tough assignment.
However, in my mind, he has not really done anything to stop the bleed in four years. Maybe he couldn't fix it, but he basically hasn't even made an attempt.
If you pop over to the MM board, you can read from time to time ladies posting questions about budgets and how to save money or how to get out of debt.
MMer's, myself included, point them to budgeting tools and help them identify ways to cut the "fat" out of their spending. One lady over there is questioning whether or not to make the tough decision to sell the stone from her diamond engagement ring. This demonstrates that all options are on the table. I tell this MM anecdote because as a government, a nation, and a president we have to cut the fat...sell the diamond stone from the beloved ring.
I love Big Bird - he was a childhood buddy of mine. But if cutting federal funding for the "extras" or the luxuries that we Americans have right now, means preserving our nation for the long-term so it's here for my kids and it means allowing my special ops soldier cousin to have the gear he needs so he can protect little kids in the Middle East, then I am okay with telling Big Bird bye-bye and so one and so forth with other things on down the line. I want us to be able to keep the proverbial heat and lights on here at home in the U.S.
As a nation, this is the kitchen table. The tough discussions are being had now. That poor woman is deciding whether or not a diamond stone is worth a car payment or a house payment or putting food on the table. Girl! I love diamonds, but I want to know my country is safe and that our economy can sustain itself.
As a caveat, I recently learned more about our fractional reserve lending system, which is/was created by the Federal Reserve that was established decades ago. If you care to take the time to learn more about it you will also learn, like I did, why Obama isn't fully to blame for this mess we're in...but he isn't innocent either...he is certainly a contributor...
See my post about the YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj2s6vzErqY
Bad idea.
It would be picked up by a commercial network, therefore shucking stupid toys to my kid in between Super Grover and Elmo's World. Also, Sesame Workshop is a non-profit. They have their financial info on their website. http://www.sesameworkshop.org/about-us/financials.html
This website breaks down how much Sesame Street itself receives from PBS (about 1.5 million after all is said and done). Also, the campaigns should take a lesson from Sesame Street on how to break their information down into simple terms that anyone could understand:
http://www.sesameworkshop.org/our-blog/2012/10/16/sesame-streets-1-2-3s-and-9-9-0s/
At the end of the day, yes, I suppose PBS is an extra but it's such a little amount in the grand scheme and there's so much more overspending that should be trimmed first. When you're doing your home budget, you could say that Internet access is a luxury, but I'm assuming most of us make allowances for it by trimming our grocery or clothing budget because it's hugely beneficial to have in this day and age. I kind of think of PBS the same way. Yeah, it's not a necessity, but we can make it work by fixing some other areas where we spent too much.
I just don't have the stamina to respond In depth this morning, but I want to point out something Mommyliberty said.
She said that Obama did inherit this mess but that MOST presidents inherit some mess, so Obama is still responsible for a lot of our economic issues. I'm paraphrasing.
Has any president in the history of our country been handed the mess Obama was? The answer to that would be No. It was SO BAD. That's why I can't understand why you would vote Republican only 4 years after we got Bush out of office.
Bush started office with a budget surplus. A SURPLUS! And ended his presidency with the biggest deficit in the history America. That is not the mess that most presidents are handed. That is an extreme situation.
I live in metro Detroit. We were hit so hard BEFORE Obama took office. So many people around here have not forgotten that this is not Obama's fault. And since things have actually been getting much, much better around here, I can't even imagine why we would be expected to vote a Republican back in.
It's all well and good to say Romney is not Bush, but he has in fact turned himself into a rank and file Republican and alligned himself with the very people that helped put us in this mess.
Trust Romney? Not in a million years.
Oh, and tl;dr. I know!
I'll agree with the others.
Had we made a dent in the economic issues facing us, I'd be going into this election with a much more open mind. But, this administration has taken a poor economy and made it much worse. We've added trillions. We've thrown money at failed "shovel ready" jobs, roads and bridges that didn't need repair in the first place, big business who took our money and ran with it, still went bankrupt and laughed all the way to the bank, handed out assistance and extended assistance as if it's going out of style...gone are the days of Americans who pride themselves on doing for themselves. Let's throw in a health care plan which, long into the next few years, is going to cost us more and more. And, hurt small businesses, nfp groups and the like. The requirements, the restrictions. It's going to hit them where it hurts and cost more. And, to see the pattern...this is only a few examples of (for the most part) failure. And, this is where I'm coming from...I have seen no progress in four years. Instead, I've watched my government spend, spend, spend and put us in worse economic shape - to the point that some say we'll never be free from such a sad economic state. And, the thought that our debt is increasing at what...3.9 billion a day...I'm starting to believe it myself. Considering these things...to me, this is a huge failure. Why would anyone want to continue down such a path is beyond me.
The POTUS himself, what...a year ago..said that the debt is real problem but a "manageable" problem. So, where's the effort to repair this? We're still spending more. Thinking of things like PBS...sure, it's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. But, these are things that add up. Sure, make the comparison to your own budget. And, tell me, if you have THAT much in debt...you're not going to cut everything you can (even the little extras) in order for your family to survive? For my family, I know I would. That is really how serious this has become. Again, just where I'm coming from and with this...it's become a very easy decision for me. Am I a Romney fan? No. But, I realize these problems are the biggest we, as a nation, are currently facing. And, I can't sit back and watch us dig the hole deeper and deeper with no plan to get us out.
To be fair, Ronald Reagan inherited a similar economy and had things turned around in the right direction within 3 years.
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/economic-policy.aspx
By every measure, Obama inherited the worst recession since the 1930's. Even conservative economists admit this - it is a fact. Not an opinion.
And, to be fair, the Republican Party has changed a lot since Reagan was around. Just in case you are trying to imply that a Republican preaident can do well because you think Reagan did.
Perhaps in Reagan's day the rank and file Republicans weren't as inept as they clearly are today. It's a different world, with different issues. 8 years of failed Republican leadership, and an abrupt right turn on social issues since then have not helped them any in my eyes.
In the last 20 years we have not seen much good come from the Republican party. I am so confused as to why people think that will change.
I respectfully disagree.
When President Reagan swore into office in January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5% and the labor force as a percentage of population was 63.5% (which up until now, was the all time low in civil participation in the workforce). At the end of his first term, in January of 1985, the unemployment rate had gone down to 7.3% after having peaked at nearly 11% in 1982. You might be thinking that a .2 point drop overall from 7.5% to 7.3% isn?t really that impressive, but when you see that he lowered the unemployment rate and increased the labor force to 64.5% in the same time frame it becomes much more impressive?and by the end of his second term, in January of 1989, the unemployment rate was 5.4% with a workforce participation rate of 66.3% only about 1 point off from the all time high in workforce participation rate since the statistic began being calculated. Now, lets compare Obama?s record.
When President Obama swore into office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8% (only slightly higher than the number Reagan inherited) and the workforce participation rate was 65.7%. In the closing month?s of President Obama?s first term, unemployment stands at 8.1% after having peaked at just over 10% (nearly a full point lower than the trajectory of the recession in the 80s which topped out at 11%) with a workforce participation rate of 63.5% (returning to the all time low at the beginning of the Reagan administration). It needs to be said that if the workforce were as large as it was when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 11% right now.
Furthermore, when Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone (sounds a lot like what Mr. Clinton said), at least it couldn?t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan?s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama?s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama?s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.
http://woolfreeeyes.blogspot.com/2012/09/reagan-vs-obama-who-inherited-worse.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Ronald-Reagan-Obama-economy/2012/07/31/id/447164
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-economic-situation-much-better-opinion.html
Even though those are some extremely partisan links (Peter Morici claims responsibilty for the Big Three's troubles rested squarely on the shoulders of the UAW, so please don't claim he is not partisan) Cincy, I will just accept your offer to respectfully disagree. I have no interest in debating Reagan. That would take a while.
What say you about the second half of my post? With very little evidence of good Republican leadership on a national level in the last 20 years (and considering the last Republican president is thought by many to be the worst president EVER), why do you think Romney would be any different?
He has ditched all his moderate views and fallen in lock step with failed Republican policies. Why do you think he is a white knight?
Well I don't believe you can lump Romney in the same category as Bush and I do not claim to be a fan of Bush.
Merely from an economic standpoint, I believe in supply side economics and Romney's plan incorporates those principles. I do not believe Obama's Keynesian economic principles will get us to where we need to be.
Whether you agree with me or not, this is the way I feel based upon my education, life experiences and belief system.
I simply feel Romney is better qualified for the job.
So, you are simply stepping out on faith. There is no evidence Romney's plan will work, but you believe in it and are hopeful. Even though you, "believe" in it, Supply Side economics benefits very few and has not proven effective.
I am glad to finally get to the gist of our political disagreement. There is no point in arguing facts and figures when you have basic ideological differences. I actually believe supply side economics is an immoral way to govern. Thus, we will never have common ground.
ETA: since he was just in the news this morning, I will also point out that your decision to believe Romney is not like Bush is kinda willfully ignorant considering Bush's chief of staff is a top Romney aide. And so on and so forth.
Yep, we will never agree as it seems we have fundamentally different views.
Totally. With business profits at an all time high for many companies, one of us still thinks the middle class and poor should pay a higher precentage of taxes while the rich and businesses pay less. Hey, it will one day trickle back down, right?
I do apologize for the snark, I honestly can't help it. It's such a moral issues for me and I can't see how anyone can stand on the other side of it. Ah well.
Trickle Down Economics is not synonymous with Supply Side Economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.
It is not all about lowering tax rates for just "rich" people, Romney states he wants to lower tax rates for all people.
How would that be trickle down? If I have more money in my pocket, I have more spending power (as does everyone) and I buy more widgets then the widget manufacturer can produce more widgets...would it be trickle up?
Thomas Sowell wrote a very informative article on Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. I high recommend giving a look.
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
Doesn't it puzzle you that people find this difficult to comprehend?
Cincychick, good point. I liked Marco Rubio's take on it---we don't need more taxes, but more taxpayers.
Also, Cincy, did you see the article that said that the Ohio election could come down to two counties, Hamilton and Cuyahoga? The difference between Obama and McCain was around 29k votes last time. Romney could turn it around. He's having huge rallies around here today and tomorrow.
I adore Senator Rubio! Mark my words....he will be President one day!
Yes, I saw that in the Cincinnati Enquirer and RCP. I am in Clermont County (which I think will go to Romney just in my experience volunteering for Romney)
Are you in the SW Ohio area?
OMG, I wanna pull my hair out sometimes! And for someone to believe this is immoral? How is more people working immoral?
No, I'm NE Ohio, Stark county---which went for Obama 96,990 to 86,473 last time but may be closer or flip this time. Romney and Ryan have a big rally in North Canton tonight, and Ryan has rallies in New Philadelphia and Zanesville tomorrow.
I don't have Clermont on my list of counties Obama carried, so yeah, if McCain carried it, Romney will for sure.
Yes, we are a bunch of gun toting, bible carrying rednecks here in Clermont County - mostly Republican. (I say that soooo tongue in cheek).
Romney was here in Cincinnati yesterday...pretty big crowd from what I understand.
Here are two interesting sites to track the early voting.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AvEOdIaw0fPNdHVOZnFENDdDYVFTRi1UMlgxQ0F4OVE&rm=full#gid=0
This one's interesting because Democratic requests are down from 2008, while Republican requests are up. The margin is 6 instead of around 14%.
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html