• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What a Difference Four Years Make!

And your thoughts on a solution to this "trend" would be?
 
I like the measurements, but I wish the article expanded them to the end of WWII. Also, adjust for inflation.
 
January 2008, Obama inherited an 8.1% unemployment rate, a major financial crisis, two wars and a $10.7 trillion national debt from the Bush administration.
 
Last edited:
In terms of worth from an actual informed political sense, the picture is somewhat worthless. It shows a snap shotted picture that gives a narrow point of view and little additional context or insight. Research into it shows various issues that would hurt the Republican purpose of the add.

In terms of its worth from a political science and campaigning sense, it's a well put together piece. "Are you better off than 4 years before" is a common refrain that the public is used to hearing and thinking during a Presidential campaign. The average voter doesn't significantly look into trends or a lot of additonal context and something like that...with black and white static numbers...is likely to resonate more. Its the type of well done political spin that was actually very common of the Obama administration leading up to 08 imho and the type of thing that is very effective in our digital, social media world where it can be passed around often.
 
Moot said:
January 2008, Obama inherited an 8.1% unemployment rate, a major financial crisis, two wars and a $10.7 trillion national debt from the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

No doubt, things were in crappy shape when Obama took over. The problem is that they're not any better now.
 
rocket88 said:
No doubt, things were in crappy shape when Obama took over. The problem is that they're not any better now.
Click to expand...

In addition to that, I haven't seen anything from Romney plan wise that would change any of it either. Romney spits out the right equivalent of "hope and change". Just more of the same.

No matter whether Obama is elected or Romney (which I don't believe will happen), America is screwed.
 
TheNextEra said:
In addition to that, I haven't seen anything from Romney plan wise that would change any of it either. Romney spits out the right equivalent of "hope and change". Just more of the same.

No matter whether Obama is elected or Romney (which I don't believe will happen), America is screwed.
Click to expand...
Ditching Obamacare and removing the threat of tax increases would, by themselves, stimulate the economy.
 
wbcoleman said:
Ditching Obamacare and removing the threat of tax increases would, by themselves, stimulate the economy.
Click to expand...

He isn't going to be able to just magically get rid of Obamacare, which isn't really Obamacare to begin with. As for threat of tax increase, there has to be a tax increase. The debt isn't going to magically go away.

Romney supporters have bought into this right version of "hope and change".
 
TheNextEra said:
He isn't going to be able to just magically get rid of Obamacare, which isn't really Obamacare to begin with. As for threat of tax increase, there has to be a tax increase. The debt isn't going to magically go away.

Romney supporters have bought into this right version of "hope and change".
Click to expand...
The Republicans do need to get control of the Senate. Of course, SCOTUS can take care of the problem in toto if they so choose.
 
TheNextEra said:
He isn't going to be able to just magically get rid of Obamacare, which isn't really Obamacare to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

He can screw with the funding and support for it from an executive level that can cause some issues. But more importantly it is likely based off the assumption that if the Republicans win the white house then they'll likely be at least set up nicely in, if not actually owning, both houses of congress and would have a President that wouldn't block an attempt to repeal it.
 
TheNextEra said:
In addition to that, I haven't seen anything from Romney plan wise that would change any of it either. Romney spits out the right equivalent of "hope and change". Just more of the same.

No matter whether Obama is elected or Romney (which I don't believe will happen), America is screwed.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

The "anybody but Obama" mantra does not rescue this country by any means.

Another corporate-machine republican is just redirecting the problems to another front.
Electing more of the same does not fix the problem.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, yes and no.

He can screw with the funding and support for it from an executive level that can cause some issues. But more importantly it is likely based off the assumption that if the Republicans win the white house then they'll likely be at least set up nicely in, if not actually owning, both houses of congress and would have a President that wouldn't block an attempt to repeal it.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no doubt that a Republican takeover of everything would be heaven to a Republican, which it would seen the OP is. Nothing but talking points yet.

The real question is, given what we got out of 2001-2006, do we want full GOP control again? I generally think it's bad to let one party have complete control without the other party to rein them in a bit.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Well, yes and no.

He can screw with the funding and support for it from an executive level that can cause some issues. But more importantly it is likely based off the assumption that if the Republicans win the white house then they'll likely be at least set up nicely in, if not actually owning, both houses of congress and would have a President that wouldn't block an attempt to repeal it.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans will do just like Obama did and cram a repeal in. This is what I was talking about how nothing will change. Republicans have stated that Obama didn't work with the other side, so the right is now hoping Romney will do the same. How would that be better? It doesn't cure the partisanship behavior, it doesn't help the economy because Romney STILL has to deal with the debt problem, unemployment problem, and healthcare problems this country face. By proving he is no different, he will create an atmosphere where cooperation is not only discouraged, it is non-existent.

More of the same with no change, yet the right beleives in their version of "hope and change".
 
wbcoleman said:
Ditching Obamacare and removing the threat of tax increases would, by themselves, stimulate the economy.
Click to expand...

Please do explain..... No one here has ever been able to explain how income tax cuts (or removal of a threat of increase) stimulates the economy. Feel free to step up to the podium and explain it to us.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
So the Republicans will do just like Obama did and cram a repeal in.
Click to expand...

Well one difference. They've not, at this point yet, ran a campaign where at least one theme was "Changing Politics as Usual" and moving into "Post Partisanship". They're pretty much flat out telling you "We want to be elected to get rid of the stuff he did". So while the ends may be in general the same, the means in how they're getting there is somewhat different.

This is what I was talking about how nothing will change. Republicans have stated that Obama didn't work with the other side, so the right is now hoping Romney will do the same.
Click to expand...

Well things will change, just more in terms of some legislation will change but not the style and mentality of Washington.

How would that be better?
Click to expand...

Depends how you view it. ****ty partisanship that's stuffing up anyone doing anything, but with the health care law repealed is better than ****ty partisanship that's stuff up anyone doing anything, but with the health care law hitting into full effect. That's kind of like saying I'd rather you piss on me than **** on me in terms of how "good" either option is...but depending on ones view it could still at least be "better".

It doesn't cure the partisanship behavior
Click to expand...

Again...Obama ran on doing that. The Republicans aren't. Hell, they're pretty much saying, as you've illustrated by talking about what they're campaigning on, we WILL be partisan.
 
upsideguy said:
Please do explain..... No one here has ever been able to explain how income tax cuts (or removal of a threat of increase) stimulates the economy. Feel free to step up to the podium and explain it to us.
Click to expand...
Certainly. In brief, demand functions slope down and supply functions slope upward. Comprende?
 
Moot said:
January 2008, Obama inherited an 8.1% unemployment rate, a major financial crisis, two wars and a $10.7 trillion national debt from the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

And that's all that Obama has to campaign on this year—blaming all of his failures on his predecessor.

Yes, he inherited a bad situation, but his policies only made it worse.

I wish I had more confidence in Romney; I hope that four years from now, he has something better to run on than blaming Obama for the state that the nation is in at that time. I wish I had a better reason to support him than the presumption that at least he can't be any worse than Obama has been.

LOG.v17-38.Bergner.Chart_.jpg

This was his signature issue. He was going to make sure we all had health care coverage. How's that working out? It also rather hits close to home for me. I really could use health care coverage, but I cannot afford it. Before his Obamacare scam ****ed up the industry, I was very, very close to being able to afford it. My wife and I were going to be able to afford it the following year. But thanks to Obama, it's been put farther out of our reach than it was before.
 
Last edited:
Our country is in the condition it's in NOT because of one guy. It's never been about one guy. It's about the whole system.

The system is broken.

Continuing to elect cookie-cutter corporate-machine politicians from either the Democratic or Republican party will do nothing towards fixing the problems we find ourselves in now.

The Reps AND the Dems are both equally responsible for where we are now. BOTH parties are at fault. Not one or the other. Not because of one guy or the other.

It takes a team to do this much damage and the team consists of the two major parties who have co-existed together like siamese twins.

Ejecting Obama for Romney will solve nothing. Just as Obama ultimately has changed little from Bush.

The American voters are still hoodwinked into thinking the solution is to simply empower the other side.

As long as the American voter thinks the only rational choice rests with a Rep or a Dem we are all phucked.
 
Dragonfly said:
And replace him with who?

Who do you honestly think will "fix" the things listed in the OP?
Click to expand...

You have two choices, vote for Obamafailure, or vote for this guy, this was sent to me so I don't know how accurate it is. If any of this is not true, please point it out. But at least Romney actually ran a business, was a Governor, and ran a successful Olympics.


After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, Romney passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.
• As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies.
That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people.
• Romney or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the "Bain Way") would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply,
and many others.
Got your calculators handy? Let's recap.
• Volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
• Unpaid intern in Governor's office 8 years.
• Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years.
• Unpaid bishop and state president for his church 10 years.
• Took no salary as president of the Salt Lake Olympics 3 years.
• No salary as MA governor 4 years.
• Gave his ENTIRE INHERITANCE to charity.
• That's a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community and his church. Why? Because that's the kind of man Mitt Romney is.
And He’ll show you his:
1) Un-doctored Birth Certificate!
2) College transcripts!
3) Law degree!
4) Un-doctored Draft notice!
5) & Un-doctored Social Security card, and what state it's registered in!
 
I wish we had better a better choice for this election but the way I see it, the president has already had his chance and many of us do not feel things are better.

Time to give someone else a chance.

What happened to "the buck stops here"?

Sure he inherited some bad situations but he ran on the platform of changing it, if it was so hard then maybe he wasn't the right man for the job, and I certainly see no reason to elect him again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom