• 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.

Why would anyone want the economy to continue as it has under Obama?

frogloe said:
Romney has been successful at fiscal turnarounds everywhere? I didn't know that.

And economic novice is hardly the term for Obama. If the economy is growing, even if slowly, he's got to have some idea of what he's doing.
Click to expand...

"We got another who has been successful at fiscal turnarounds everywhere he has been the executive of... "

Yes... he has...

and no... Obama is an economic novice... look up the definition of the word... or better still I will for you...

nov·ice/ˈnävəs/
Noun:
1.A person new to or inexperienced in a field or situation

So... unless you can show me some prior economic experience for Obama... this is his first go around... and it's been a mixed bag at best...

an economy growing slower than the rate of inflation is not a success to write home about...
 
tererun said:
Not Romney, the creation of the bubble through the means that they used to do it. Not everything is Romney's fault.[/QUOTE

I still have to ask: Who is they and what crime did they commit?
Click to expand...
 
JEthrid said:
Wasn't Romney against the auto bailout that saved thousands of jobs and produced record profits the year after? I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who would've let the three major US auto manufacturers go under. Not to mention, he thinks you should be able to roll the windows down in an airplane.
Click to expand...

No... that's what liberal pundits want you to believe...

What Romney said IN OCTOBER OF 2008... is that rather than giving the Auto companies bailouts... have them go through the bankruptcy process... and if they go to bankruptcy, they'll have to restructure themselves in order to emerge from structured bankruptcy stronger than before...

So in Oct of 2008, that's what Romney advocated...

Instead, Bush gave them several billion dollars in bailout money... which they used to pad their own severance... and ended up right back in the same financial trouble in may of 2009...

So what Obama did was to give additional loans to the Auto companies... then bought them out... increasing the government's investment to $95B on the auto companies... and put them in a structured bankruptcy procedure...

There, once in structured bankruptcy, the auto companies took steps to fix some of their internal problems, and emerged from bankruptcy better than before... (only with GM still having $35B worth of government investment in stock purchased)...

So, if Romney had his way... the bankruptcy proceding would've happened right away... without $90B worth of government money being spent... and we still might have had Saturns, Oldsmobiles, Plymouths, Pontiacs, and BF Goodwrench...

Instead, doing it the Bush/Obama way... GM still has $35B worth of government investment propping it up...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
"We got another who has been successful at fiscal turnarounds everywhere he has been the executive of... "

Yes... he has...

and no... Obama is an economic novice... look up the definition of the word... or better still I will for you...

nov·ice/ˈnävəs/
Noun:
1.A person new to or inexperienced in a field or situation

So... unless you can show me some prior economic experience for Obama... this is his first go around... and it's been a mixed bag at best...

an economy growing slower than the rate of inflation is not a success to write home about...
Click to expand...

Yeah, Romney was a master of the turnaround in MA, where over his four years the state was 47th in job creation, trailed the national average in unemployment, and also lost workforce participants relative to the rest of the country. Waht a smashing success. Perhaps that's why he left with a 40% approval rating and perhaps that's why he's trailing Obama by 20 points IN HIS OWN STATE!! :lamo
 
IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO.... right... you do realize the bubble burst in 2008... the recession ended officially in Q2 of 2009... this is over 3 years since then... It's time you wake up to that... This isn't because of the bubble bursting... this is the Obama economy...

Also, I love how you fools continually try to blame Bush's policies for causing the bubble to burst... How exactly did Bush cause a housing bubble in Ireland? How did Bush cause a housing bubble to burst in Iceland? How exactly did Bush cause a bubble to burst in the UK? How did Bush cause a bubble to burst in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, etc.?

How exactly did the bubble bursting cause companies to pick up and move to China, in a process that preceded the housing bubble itself even? How exactly did the bubble bursting cause companies to lay people off right now?

Excuses are all you have...

The truth is Obama's restrictions, high tax rates or tax increase proposals, the high fuel prices, the high cost of labor, etc. are what's causing the uncertainty in the marketplace that holds back hiring and investment, and causes companies to pick up and take their business in other countries with move favorable conditions...

This is called globalization... you can wake up to it and compete in it the best way you can in order to survive... or you can try to fight it, become isolationist... and end up like N Korea, Cuba, and the old China economy...

High taxation, government sponsored industry, and equal pay for labor collectives has been tried in several places in the modern era... and it has always lead to stagnation... That's why Eastern Europe freed itself from Soviet Socialism... It's why China opened its economy...

This has nothing to do with Bush, Republicans, or American politics... it's the reality of the global marketplace, the digitalization of society, etc.

Business cycles haven't been invented in the US recently either... it's not unheard of to have a business cycle expansion and contraction... It's just when you do certain things, it makes a recovery from that contraction slower, and increases the likelihood of another contraction...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the recover from the recession does not happen overnight. It is not like the recession is over and all of a sudden everyone is ok and good again. It takes time to recover and rebuild, and that is what you are not getting. We are rebuilding, and you could argue we could be doing better, but Obama has helped us get onto a positive path. It just doesn't make any sense to declare the recession over and say everyone should be OK now. That is just crazy talk. Yeah there is going to be some hard times, and anyone who tells you there should not be is lying to you.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, Romney was a master of the turnaround in MA, where over his four years the state was 47th in job creation, trailed the national average in unemployment, and also lost workforce participants relative to the rest of the country. Waht a smashing success. Perhaps that's why he left with a 40% approval rating and perhaps that's why he's trailing Obama by 20 points IN HIS OWN STATE!! :lamo
Click to expand...

LMFAO @ you trying to celebrate a Democrat only leading MA by 20 pts in a presidential election...

First off... Romney was successful as governor of MA... and it's not the only place he's been successful at fiscal turnarounds... he's got 30 years experience doing so for large organizations in business, non governmental organizations, and government...

Romney took MA from 50th in job growth to 26th in job growth... Romney took MA from 5.6% unemployment to 4.7% unemployment... Romney took a $3B deficit and closed it, then created a $2B rainy day fund by the end of his 2nd year... Romney increased the size of the MA workforce... Romney increased median incomes...
Romney slowed the growth of the long-term capital debt the state has...

let's compare that to Obama... who took the US from having 7.8% unemployment, to having 7.8% unemployment... who increased the deficit from $400B to $1.2T... who presided over a massive unprecidented 2% drop in the workforce participation rate... where median incomes have declines... and drove the debt up to $16T... all to create an economy which is growing at a slower rate than inflation, even with inflation as low at it is...

Clearly Romney's record in MA is far superior to Obama's record as president... which is why Obama has been running from speaking about his or Mitt's record... and kept him trying to distract the election with as many side issues as he could try to, most recently focusing on Big Bird (who even told him to step off I'm not an Obama supporter)...
 
The auto companies still went through managed bankruptcy, and probably wouldn't have made it without help from the government. Even GM CEO David Akers said they probably wouldn't have made it without the bailout. Here's a quote from Romney on the issue, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed." I find it ironic that he took this stand, even though his father was CEO of AMC.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO @ you trying to celebrate a Democrat only leading MA by 20 pts in a presidential election...

First off... Romney was successful as governor of MA... and it's not the only place he's been successful at fiscal turnarounds... he's got 30 years experience doing so for large organizations in business, non governmental organizations, and government...

Romney took MA from 50th in job growth to 26th in job growth... Romney took MA from 5.6% unemployment to 4.7% unemployment... Romney took a $3B deficit and closed it, then created a $2B rainy day fund by the end of his 2nd year... Romney increased the size of the MA workforce... Romney increased median incomes...
Romney slowed the growth of the long-term capital debt the state has...

let's compare that to Obama... who took the US from having 7.8% unemployment, to having 7.8% unemployment... who increased the deficit from $400B to $1.2T... who presided over a massive unprecidented 2% drop in the workforce participation rate... where median incomes have declines... and drove the debt up to $16T... all to create an economy which is growing at a slower rate than inflation, even with inflation as low at it is...

Clearly Romney's record in MA is far superior to Obama's record as president... which is why Obama has been running from speaking about his or Mitt's record... and kept him trying to distract the election with as many side issues as he could try to, most recently focusing on Big Bird (who even told him to step off I'm not an Obama supporter)...
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO at you trying to blow off Romney losing BY TWENTY POINTS IN HIS OWN STATE!!

No need to go over the numbers again (or your bogus spin of them). Romney was a piss-poor governor and he would be a piss-poor president.
 
tererun said:
Yeah, the recover from the recession does not happen overnight. It is not like the recession is over and all of a sudden everyone is ok and good again. It takes time to recover and rebuild, and that is what you are not getting. We are rebuilding, and you could argue we could be doing better, but Obama has helped us get onto a positive path. It just doesn't make any sense to declare the recession over and say everyone should be OK now. That is just crazy talk. Yeah there is going to be some hard times, and anyone who tells you there should not be is lying to you.
Click to expand...

Over night? LMFAO IT'S BEEN OVER THREE (3) YEARS!!! That's 36 months... 1095 nights...

Reagan recovered from a steep recession in 79-80 and 81-82 in just 1 year's time...

Clinton recovered from the 90-92 recession in about 2 years time...

Obama has had his entire presidency... and more money than has ever been spent on fixing the economy than has ever been spent before (including the Great Depression)... and yet, this has been the slowest recovery than there has been in any recession since WWII...

PercentJobLossesJan2012.jpg


bpayrollemploymentdeclinechart1.ashx


Economic recovery is weakest since WWII | | The Bulletin
bilde
 
Eighty Deuce said:
OK. I believe you. You did not know. So what ?

Get educated.
Click to expand...

I'll bolden all of my text that's sarcasm next time, just for you.

IndepCentristMA said:
"We got another who has been successful at fiscal turnarounds everywhere he has been the executive of... "

Yes... he has...

and no... Obama is an economic novice... look up the definition of the word... or better still I will for you...

nov·ice/ˈnävəs/
Noun:
1.A person new to or inexperienced in a field or situation

So... unless you can show me some prior economic experience for Obama... this is his first go around... and it's been a mixed bag at best...

an economy growing slower than the rate of inflation is not a success to write home about...
Click to expand...

I recall there being quite a bit of controversy surrounding Romney's time at Bain... especially during the Republican primary. As I recall, he had more than his fair share of companies he left to rot. Not that I don't think Romney doesn't have experience in the field, but you may be glorifying him a tad bit.

As for Obama, I concede he's new to the sport. But you're doing a mighty good job of portraying him as being much worse at it than he really is.
 
The Great Recession was not the Reagan recession (the first one) or the Bush I recession. It was structurally different and global, making it harder to fix. What would Mittens have done differently, other than allow GM and Chrysler to fail, thus costing the economy an additional million or so jobs and sending a massive shockwave through the financial markets?

A: nothing good.
 
This is one reason why. This crisis was global, some very large nations are not fairng as well as we are . Romneys policies resemble those that nations in recession tried and the U.S. is the fastest growing nation in the free world. The choice is clear. Why would we switch horses and risk ending up in a recession again like most of Europe?

0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
ROFLMFAO at you trying to blow off Romney losing BY TWENTY POINTS IN HIS OWN STATE!!

No need to go over the numbers again (or your bogus spin of them). Romney was a piss-poor governor and he would be a piss-poor president.
Click to expand...

LMFAO @ trying to tell me how good my assessment of my own governors are....

Romney was the best governor we've had, at least since Weld, if not longer...

Also... Dems usually win MA by more than 20 points...

2008: D61-R35 +26D
2004: D62-R36 +26D
2000: D60-R32 +28D
1996: D61-R28 +33D
1992: D47-R29-I22 +18D

So the last time MA went to the Dems by less than 20pts was when Ross Perot split the vote...


The truth is Obama has been a piss poor president... and Romney would have to come in and fix another fiscal nightmare, as he's always done...
 
frogloe said:
I recall there being quite a bit of controversy surrounding Romney's time at Bain... especially during the Republican primary. As I recall, he had more than his fair share of companies he left to rot. Not that I don't think Romney doesn't have experience in the field, but you may be glorifying him a tad bit.

As for Obama, I concede he's new to the sport. But you're doing a mighty good job of portraying him as being much worse at it than he really is.
Click to expand...

You weren't paying much attention back then, I take it...

there's absolutely NO controversy about Romney's performance at Bain... It was stellar... and Bain was a huge success of a company...

The controversy during the Republican primary was about a factory closed in SC... that his oponents tried to blame on Romney... eventhough it was closed by Bain 3 years after Romney left... and that it was a company moved to SC from KC to keep it open... where it would have been closed 7 years prior to that... but Romney's actions helped saved the company...

See, your oponents can raise and make a stink about anything they want, but the truth is a whole other thing...

the truth is Romney was largely successful as an executive at Boston Consulting, Bain & Co, Bain Capital, Bain & Co (again), the Salt Lake City Olympics, and MA... for over 30 years...

I'm painting the economy for what it is... not what the liberal media want it to be during the election year...

slight improvements after 3 years is not what people would've expected out of a $5.4T increase to the debt...
 
To answer the OP, because we need Obama's strong leadership to get the rich to pay their fair share, to create more union and government jobs...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO @ trying to tell me how good my assessment of my own governors are....

Romney was the best governor we've had, at least since Weld, if not longer...

Also... Dems usually win MA by more than 20 points...

2008: D61-R35 +26D
2004: D62-R36 +26D
2000: D60-R32 +28D
1996: D61-R28 +33D
1992: D47-R29-I22 +18D

So the last time MA went to the Dems by less than 20pts was when Ross Perot split the vote...


The truth is Obama has been a piss poor president... and Romney would have to come in and fix another fiscal nightmare, as he's always done...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we all know you're very objective about Romney.

And you kinda missed the point that this isn't just another election. It's an election where one of the candidates is a recent former governor of MA, and that former governor is getting spanked by 20 points in his own state. Oh yeah, and he's also losing in his actual home state of Michigan. Those who know him best like him least.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
You weren't paying much attention back then, I take it...

there's absolutely NO controversy about Romney's performance at Bain... It was stellar... and Bain was a huge success of a company...

The controversy during the Republican primary was about a factory closed in SC... that his oponents tried to blame on Romney... eventhough it was closed by Bain 3 years after Romney left... and that it was a company moved to SC from KC to keep it open... where it would have been closed 7 years prior to that... but Romney's actions helped saved the company...

See, your oponents can raise and make a stink about anything they want, but the truth is a whole other thing...

the truth is Romney was largely successful as an executive at Boston Consulting, Bain & Co, Bain Capital, Bain & Co (again), the Salt Lake City Olympics, and MA... for over 30 years...

I'm painting the economy for what it is... not what the liberal media want it to be during the election year...

slight improvements after 3 years is not what people would've expected out of a $5.4T increase to the debt...
Click to expand...

Fact checking Democratic convention claims about Romney’s Bain - The Washington Post

Bain was about a C student when it came to success. 78% of its companies didn't go bankrupt. As it turns out, I was paying attention back then, and I haven't gone into a state of denial where I've convinced myself Romney is a fantastic option for America because there isn't another choice that's not Obama. Romney certainly has his kinks too, and we've also got to remember that running the government is NOT just like running a company. They are different things. And I'll have to say, if we're going by Romney's record as a businessman, he hasn't been doing a very good job of selling himself to me, and maybe that says something. If he is so "stellar", then why am I still undecided as to who to choose between him and what many conservatives consider the worst president in the history of our nation?

Also, I find your views of Obama's attempt to control the economy to be extremely superficial. You refuse to look beyond any statistics that would have likely accompanied McCain if he were in office too. Our economy was going down the toilet when Obama came in, of course things didn't fix themselves immediately. You really believe that Romney will do a much better job? How naive. At this point I've realized that my choice boils down to fairly insignificant differences in policy that, overall, will not greatly affect the growth of our nation but rather make small differences. Romney and Obama will probably have similar outcomes at the end of the term and if one were to do better, he would only do better by a small amount. Because what people like you don't ever seem to realize is that replacing one man is not going to fix the problem. The constitution was set up so that no man is capable of screwing something up that bad alone. We've got a government full of people who are slowing our recovery.

Forgive me if this twelve o clock rant seems a little incoherent. I think most of what I said makes sense.
 
Voltaire X said:
I certainly don't want the Obama economy to continue. That's why I'm not voting for either major party candidate.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

hey dude, you make me laugh to hard I spew my monitor with coffee

next time please use a LOL disclaimer, thank you..
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, I think we all know you're very objective about Romney.

And you kinda missed the point that this isn't just another election. It's an election where one of the candidates is a recent former governor of MA, and that former governor is getting spanked by 20 points in his own state. Oh yeah, and he's also losing in his actual home state of Michigan. Those who know him best like him least.
Click to expand...

LMFAO... and you're objective about anything?

You missed the point... one of those results (2004) included a MA resident as well... and it didn't change the numbers 1 bit... it was still about the exact same as 2000 and 2008.... That's just the voting demographic of this state... it's got very little to do with the candidates...

But I think it's cute that you're trying to distract from the discussion about Obama's bad handling of the economy by blue state polls that favor a Democrat.... :lamo
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Why would anyone want the economy to continue as it has under Obama?
Click to expand...
The economy seems to be doing fairly well compared to countries that have enacted reforms similar to those proposed by Republicans.

The choice is not between Obama and recovery. It is essentially between Obama and austerity, and Obama and the previous decade. With these comparisons in mind, the alternative is even less attractive than the status quo.
 
frogloe said:
Fact checking Democratic convention claims about Romney’s Bain - The Washington Post

Bain was about a C student when it came to success. 78% of its companies didn't go bankrupt. As it turns out, I was paying attention back then, and I haven't gone into a state of denial where I've convinced myself Romney is a fantastic option for America because there isn't another choice that's not Obama. Romney certainly has his kinks too, and we've also got to remember that running the government is NOT just like running a company. They are different things. And I'll have to say, if we're going by Romney's record as a businessman, he hasn't been doing a very good job of selling himself to me, and maybe that says something. If he is so "stellar", then why am I still undecided as to who to choose between him and what many conservatives consider the worst president in the history of our nation?

Also, I find your views of Obama's attempt to control the economy to be extremely superficial. You refuse to look beyond any statistics that would have likely accompanied McCain if he were in office too. Our economy was going down the toilet when Obama came in, of course things didn't fix themselves immediately. You really believe that Romney will do a much better job? How naive. At this point I've realized that my choice boils down to fairly insignificant differences in policy that, overall, will not greatly affect the growth of our nation but rather make small differences. Romney and Obama will probably have similar outcomes at the end of the term and if one were to do better, he would only do better by a small amount. Because what people like you don't ever seem to realize is that replacing one man is not going to fix the problem. The constitution was set up so that no man is capable of screwing something up that bad alone. We've got a government full of people who are slowing our recovery.

Forgive me if this twelve o clock rant seems a little incoherent. I think most of what I said makes sense.
Click to expand...

LMFAO 78% isn't a C student... When you have a 80% to 20% success rate at turning around failing companies that's out of worldly... I think you need to go do some research on what the standard success rate for companies faling and failing companies is...

He is so stellar... you're undecided because you're falling for the liberal MSM attempts to misclassify the record...

Actually... my statistics aren't tied to what occured in 2009... my examples tie what's occured from 2009 to 2012... that 3.5yrs since Obama's policies have been in place... I'm not faulting Obama for the rise in unemployment in 2009... I'm faulting Obama for the steadily HIGH rates of unemployment without recovery... I'm not faulting Obama for the price of gasoline being high in 2009, it wasn't... I'm fauling Obama for the steady rise in fuel prices over the course of his administration... I'm not faulting Obama for a 2009 increase in the budget... I'm faulting Obama for budgets for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 that were even higher than that, despite the fact that the recession was announced as over and the knowledge that revenue had fallen...

See, that's one of the biggest mistakes... making this election about 2009... it's not... it's about 2009-2012, and the current situation we're faced with...

Obama already spent trillions attempting to jumpstart the economy... it didn't work... Those aren't Bush's failed policies... it's his failed policies...

Time for a new course...
 
Krhazy said:
The economy seems to be doing fairly well compared to countries that have enacted reforms similar to those proposed by Republicans.

The choice is not between Obama and recovery. It is essentially between Obama and austerity, and Obama and the previous decade. With these comparisons in mind, the alternative is even less attractive than the status quo.
Click to expand...

Show me 1 country which has inacted similar policies with the Republicans...

That is... keeping tax rates low... while cutting spending... and dropping corporate tax rates, dropping capital gains taxes, eliminating the repatriation tax... and increasing military spending?

Please... do show me a country that has done that...

Ones like Canada cut their corporate tax rates, and recovered quite well...

Other ones have kept their individual tax rates low, and still continue to grow at rates of 4% or higher...

I know you probably mistakenly tried to compare the US to Europe... but Europeans increased tax rates or cut them but still kept them at rates of like 40% for personal income, and kept corporate tax rates high, and increased the vat... That's not what the US does at all...
 
Awesome! said:
To answer the OP, because we need Obama's strong leadership to get the rich to pay their fair share, to create more union and government jobs...
Click to expand...

Wrong on two accords...

1) Obama hasn't been a strong leader on anything...

and

2) The rich already pay more than their fair share of the taxes in this country... with the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes, and the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes in this country...

Obama is trying to fool people like you into thinking you can just tax the rich away and it will get us out of this mess... It doesnt... Even if you removed ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts (not just on the rich) it only adds an additional $300-$350B (if everyone pays in full, which Obama has shown, the rich don't necessarily do that)... That $300B-$350B in revenue doesn't even close 1/4th of the $1.2T deficit AND he will end up having to spend it to cover for the increased spending he wants to to do fail at jumpstarting the economy again, hiring the army of new teachers, shovel ready construction projects, new and expanded entitlement programs, etc. So that's not a solution...
 
Having a President and a Congress that could work together on at least some things might not be a bad first start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom