The Democrats will win whoever they put up for POTUS

[cosmictraveler]

I say that because the Republicans don't have someone who would present a challenge to whoever the Democrats put up. As long as the Democrats keep furnishing money for liberal ideas like welfare and food stamps as just two of many examples then they will get most of the poor and what's left of the middle class, to vote for them. Sure the Republicans say that they have the ability to win the election but I can't see how at this time and nothing that is coming down the pike either.

So we will hear so much politispeak in the coming year that won't convince anyone to change their voting ways. I kind of feel a little sorrow for the Republicans but they seem to segregate people very easily from what they want to do and what the Democrats want. So just hold your hands over your ears and keep away from the TV because it is going to be buzzing with activity by both parties but won't change the outcome.

 

[joepistole]

I say that because the Republicans don't have someone who would present a challenge to whoever the Democrats put up. As long as the Democrats keep furnishing money for liberal ideas like welfare and food stamps as just two of many examples then they will get most of the poor and what's left of the middle class, to vote for them. Sure the Republicans say that they have the ability to win the election but I can't see how at this time and nothing that is coming down the pike either.
So we will hear so much politispeak in the coming year that won't convince anyone to change their voting ways. I kind of feel a little sorrow for the Republicans but they seem to segregate people very easily from what they want to do and what the Democrats want. So just hold your hands over your ears and keep away from the TV because it is going to be buzzing with activity by both parties but won't change the outcome.

Well, we know all the usual Republicans who will run for POTUS, but we don’t yet know all of the Republicans who will run. So while I hope you are correct, your prognostication is a little premature. I don’t yet see a potential Republican candidate who presents a significant threat to Hillary. But things can change. Hillary could screw it up, just as Obama did in the last POTUS election cycle. Nothing is a sure thing.

The problem Republicans face is not so much their candidates or Democrats but rather Republican ideology. It’s their ideology and their entertainment industry which attracts these wacko candidates and makes it possible for them to succeed in Republican Party politics. That’s the problem Republicans face. It’s the same problem they have faced for the last 10 years. Republicans think they can mask that problem by shortening the primaries and controlling the debates thus limiting public exposure – all cosmetics. The problems Republicans face lie in their ideology and entertainment industry. Eventually, people will realize they are being screwed, not everyone is a ditto-head, and not everyone can be placated and deluded by Republican entertainment and that is a problem for Republicans. The problem for Republicans is their ideology has become so extreme, it is unworkable and more than that, counterproductive. Responsible and reasoned Republicans have been drummed out of the party. That really is the problem Republicans face. But hey, they have a lot of special interest money funding them. The Koch brothers alone have committed at least 100 million dollars to the 2016 election cycle and spend many more millions each and every year on Republican causes.

 

[Light Travelling]

Which begs the question. Should political parties have policies; based on their ideologies or that will get them elected and are what they think the people want.?

 

[Syne]

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election . So unless you are betting on Obama dying in office, history has no precedent for your prognostication. On the other hand, the last time a Republican president followed another was after Reagan, and more of the Republican field is espousing unapologetic Reagan values than ever before.

Your argument seems to be that Democrats will succeed by buying votes, but that would have to be something new to risk upsetting well-established precedent. Although, it is new that into two terms of a Democrat we are looking at the slowest economic recovery in history. Maybe that was the goal to make all those entitlements all the more appealing.

The problem is that people will have the choice between government assistance or actual economic prosperity.

 

[joepistole]

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election . So unless you are betting on Obama dying in office, history has no precedent for your prognostication. On the other hand, the last time a Republican president followed another was after Reagan, and more of the Republican field is espousing unapologetic Reagan values than ever before.

Somehow, I just don't think American voters consider that when they cast their ballots. American voters normally vote their pocketbook.

Your argument seems to be that Democrats will succeed by buying votes, but that would have to be something new to risk upsetting well-established precedent. Although, it is new that into two terms of a Democrat we are looking at the slowest economic recovery in history. Maybe that was the goal to make all those entitlements all the more appealing.

Well, that is how Republicans rationalize their poor performance in national races - damn Democrats bought votes. But that doesn't mean it's real. Because it isn't. As for your argument about "slowest economic growth", well we haven't seen a recession of this magnitude since The Great Depression. And it took nearly a decade and a world war before the economy fully recovered. Your comment, really severely understates the enormity of the economic recession.

Two, it ignores the roll Republicans played in the slow recovery. Republicans did everything they could to obstruct Democratic attempts at fixing the economy. That has nothing to do with Democrats. When Democrats lost control of the House in 2010, any further economic fiscal stimulus was effectively ended because Republicans valued Democratic failure more than the health and wellbeing of the nation. If Republicans had adopted more fiscally responsible policies (e.g. no government shut downs or threats of debt defaults), the recovery could have been much stronger and much faster. When Democrats lost control of the House to Republicans it was like a two cylinder engine, one being monetary policy and the other being fiscal policy, operating only on one cylinder. The fiscal cylinder failed leaving only monetary policy, which required a great deal of innovation because we had never before been forced to use monetary policy alone to effect an economic recovery of this magnitude.

The problem is that people will have the choice between government assistance or actual economic prosperity.

You act as if both are mutually exclusive, where is your evidence for that claim? The world's most prosperous and wealthiest nations provide government assistance (e.g. Norway, EU, Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, etc.).

 

[Syne]

Somehow, I just don't think American voters consider that when they cast their ballots. American voters normally vote their pocketbook.

You have it back-ass-wards. The voters are not informed by history, the voters are the ones who established that history.

Well, that is how Republicans rationalize their poor performance in national races - damn Democrats bought votes. But that doesn't mean it's real. Because it isn't.

Well you can make unsupported proclamations all you like. I am sure it makes you feel very important or smart or something. Good job! If the OP's assertion that people will vote for entitlements is true then trading money for votes is real. Please feel free to refute the OP's assertion.

As for your argument about "slowest economic growth", well we haven't seen a recession of this magnitude since The Great Depression. And it took nearly a decade and a world war before the economy fully recovered. Your comment, really severely understates the enormity of the economic recession.

This being the slowest economic recovery in history is factual, and that you seem to think it is, what, somehow more enormous than the Great Depression does nothing to change that fact.

Two, it ignores the roll Republicans played in the slow recovery. Republicans did everything they could to obstruct Democratic attempts at fixing the economy. That has nothing to do with Democrats. When Democrats lost control of the House in 2010, any further economic fiscal stimulus was effectively ended because Republicans valued Democratic failure more than the health and wellbeing of the nation.

When Democrats lost the House the Senate ceased to function (like a petulant child throwing a tantrum), so there is no knowing if Republican policies would have helped or harmed the economy. But we do know the Democrats had two years of control of the entire government. Their priority was government assistance over general economic prosperity. The former, according to the OP, garnering them votes, and the latter producing more self-sufficient people with less of a need for a powerful centralized government.

You act as if both are mutually exclusive, where is your evidence for that claim? The world's most prosperous and wealthiest nations provide government assistance (e.g. Norway, EU, Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, etc.).

What claim? We are talking about the two-party system in the US, and how their policy priorities tend to be heavily polarized, not how these programs are mutually exclusive. You could very well do both, but government assistance does lessen the need for job creation and vice versa.

 

[joepistole]

You have it back-ass-wards. The voters are not informed by history, the voters are the ones who established that history.

Hmm…were you not the one making the claim that history portends the future with your claims that voters don’t elect Democrats to 3 terms as POTUS? Didn’t you write, “Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election” or do your words have alternate meanings known only to Republicans – a common occurrence with folks like you.

As I said before, I don’t think voters know that much less consider that when they go to the polls and cast their ballot. People tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style. Using your line of what passes for reasoning, we should all be running around naked. Just because something is rare or unusual, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Yeah, voters make history. But that doesn’t mean that our next POTUS will not be a Democrat as you inferred.

Well you can make unsupported proclamations all you like. I am sure it makes you feel very important or smart or something. Good job! If the OP's assertion that people will vote for entitlements is true then trading money for votes is real. Please feel free to refute the OP's assertion.

LOL, except it isn’t an unsupported proclamation. It’s a fact and anyone who is even modestly informed would know that. Republicans like to rationalize their electoral failures by claiming Democrats bought the election, even though they have no evidence to support that claim.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-romney-presidential-election_n_2099504.html

This being the slowest economic recovery in history is factual, and that you seem to think it is, what, somehow more enormous than the Great Depression does nothing to change that fact.

Yes, size and magnitude is important, even thought that doesn’t fit with your ideological beliefs. The fact is, this was the largest recession the nation has seen in almost a century and it could have easily become a Great Depression 2.0. So your comparison of The Great Recession with a run of the mill cyclic recession, well that is like comparing apples to horses. They are two very different things. So you are wrong to treat The Great Recession as run of the mill cyclic recession. It was a Class A liquidity trap just like The Great Depression. As I said before, it took more than a decade and a world war to recover from The Great Depression. It took only a few years to recover from The Great Recession and no wars, due to actions taken during the waning days of the Bush II administration and the first 2 years of the Obama administration and Democratic congress, and actions taken by The Federal Reserve.

When Democrats lost the House the Senate ceased to function (like a petulant child throwing a tantrum), so there is no knowing if Republican policies would have helped or harmed the economy. But we do know the Democrats had two years of control of the entire government. Their priority was government assistance over general economic prosperity. The former, according to the OP, garnering them votes, and the latter producing more self-sufficient people with less of a need for a powerful centralized government.

LOL, yeah, Democrats in either house didn’t threaten and actually shut down government as Republicans did. Democrats in either house didn’t threaten to cause an intentional debt default as Republicans did on multiple occasions. When Democrats lost the House, Democratic leadership didn’t meet and agree to refuse to do anything and everything Republicans wanted to do. Republicans did. You have it back ass backwards dude.

Oh, and we do know what Republicans policies would have done. We have a century of economic data that informs us as to what Republican fiscal policies would have done to the nation. The correct response was to do exactly what the Democrats did, they provided fiscal stimulus and recapitalized the banking industry. Europe implemented the Republican light version of fiscal policy and that is why many European countries are still struggling with 25%+ unemployment, and after 6+ years are now finally implementing policies similar to what Democrats implemented in this country. We know Republican policies were wrong, because a century of studying economics says they were wrong. We know Republican economic policy was wrong because Europe tried what Republicans advocated and it was an abysmal failure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Government assistance, what is that supposed to mean exactly? You don’t think government should help its constituents? If not I guess you think government should harm its people. Democrats continued with the Bush II bailouts, which was the right decision. Democrats passed fiscal stimulus which is exactly what was called for. The political instability Republicans wrecked upon the nation with their threats of government shut downs and causing a government debt default and actual government shut down, slowed the economic recovery. There is no excuse for it.

What claim? We are talking about the two-party system in the US, and how their policy priorities tend to be heavily polarized, not how these programs are mutually exclusive. You could very well do both, but government assistance does lessen the need for job creation and vice versa.

You don’t remember writing:

The problem is that people will have the choice between government assistance or actual economic prosperity.

We were not talking about a two party system polarized or not. We were talking about your claim that we can either have “government assistance” or economic prosperity. And I pointed out, they are not mutually exclusive.

You are moving the goal post. This is the first time you mentioned a polarized two party system. As I pointed out government assistance and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive as you seemed to believe.

Well, I am still a little perplexed as to what you think is inappropriate government assistance. Are public schools inappropriate? Are roadways inappropriate? Are fire departments inappropriate? Are EMS systems in appropriate assistance?

Job creation has nothing to do with government assistance. It has everything to do with political stability and supply and demand. And Republicans have injected a lot of political instability into the US political system these last several years.

 

[Syne]

Hmm…were you not the one making the claim that history portends the future with your claims that voters don’t elect Democrats to 3 terms as POTUS? Didn’t you write, “Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election” or do your words have alternate meanings known only to Republicans – a common occurrence with folks like you.

As I said before, I don’t think voters know that much less consider that when they go to the polls and cast their ballot. People tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style. Using your line of what passes for reasoning, we should all be running around naked. Just because something is rare or unusual, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Yeah, voters make history. But that doesn’t mean that our next POTUS will not be a Democrat as you inferred.

You should try reading what I wrote a few more times. Here, I will even number them for ya, so you count along. If a president is elected to two terms (1 term + 1 term = 2), dies in office, his VP takes over, and is subsequently elected into office (1 term), then "voters don't [did] elect Democrats to 3 [consecutive] terms as POTUS". But that is understandable...people do get flustered when confronted with facts that induce cognitive dissonance.

The point, which you seem determined to completely miss (no doubt, to assuage that cognitive dissonance), is that voters do not have to have even the slightest awareness of that history. I would be surprised if more than a very insignificant, relative handful has ever been. You do have at least one thing right. People do "tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style." Good job! I agree. What you so miserably fail to get is that the voting history was made by people voting with that exact same motivation. All that need happen for history to continue to be consistent with a century and a half of precedent is for people to continue to vote for the same reasons they have always voted.

You seem to hang all your hope on some undefined precedent that will buck a 150 year pattern. Chin up, there is always hope...or faith, or blathering unsupported delusion. Take your pick.

LOL, except it isn’t an unsupported proclamation. It’s a fact and anyone who is even modestly informed would know that. Republicans like to rationalize their electoral failures by claiming Democrats bought the election, even though they have no evidence to support that claim.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-romney-presidential-election_n_2099504.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-romney-presidential-election_n_2099504.html

First, where in that link is ANYTHING about buying votes? Again, read my post a few more times. Like this bit:

If the OP's assertion that people will vote for entitlements is true then trading money for votes is real.​

Trading entitlements for votes is EXACTLY what you described as "People tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style." Neither me nor the OP ever mentioned a thing about campaigning finance. I mean come on, I know you can manage to address more of the actual points made here. Or do strawmen quell the cognitive dissonance that well. If so, by all means...quell away. Just do not expect me to continue drawing in crayon for ya.

Second, I never refuted your non sequitur that losers rationalize their loses. That is trivially true for any losers. Again, good job! I agree with you on that count. Gold star for Joe! Keep it up. Even if these points are complete tangential to the actual discussion, you are doing a great job at building an underlying, if insignificant, mutual agreement. You should be proud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-romney-presidential-election_n_2099504.html

Yes, size and magnitude is important, even thought that doesn’t fit with your ideological beliefs. The fact is, this was the largest recession the nation has seen in almost a century and it could have easily become a Great Depression 2.0. So your comparison of The Great Recession with a run of the mill cyclic recession, well that is like comparing apples to horses. They are two very different things. So you are wrong to treat The Great Recession as run of the mill cyclic recession. It was a Class A liquidity trap just like The Great Depression. As I said before, it took more than a decade and a world war to recover from The Great Depression. It took only a few years to recover from The Great Recession and no wars, due to actions taken during the waning days of the Bush II administration and the first 2 years of the Obama administration and Democratic congress, and actions taken by The Federal Reserve.

You are making things up, mate. Only you have characterized the recession as "run of the mill." Boy, that cognitive dissonance must really be doing a number on you. This is a huge, fabricated strawman that has no substance in anything I have posted. I have not marginalized the Great Recession, other than to imply that the Great Depression was worse, which is an objective difference between recession and depression. You know, that pesky thing called reality.

You are not arguing with voices in your head are you? Or are you just copy/pasting without taking care to make sure your recycled arguments are relevant?

There is a difference between a recession being over and the economy recovering from it. Remember? I was talking about "the slowest economic recovery in history."

The Great Recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which determines the start and end dates of U.S. recessions based on a range of economic indicators. Now, five years after emerging from recession, the best metrics of economic health suggest the economy is only between one-third and half of the way to fully recovered.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/five-years-after-the-grea_b_5530597.html​

The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, '31, '32 and '33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.

The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground.
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292​

LOL, yeah, Democrats in either house didn’t threaten and actually shut down government as Republicans did. Democrats in either house didn’t threaten to cause an intentional debt default as Republicans did on multiple occasions. When Democrats lost the House, Democratic leadership didn’t meet and agree to refuse to do anything and everything Republicans wanted to do. Republicans did. You have it back ass backwards dude.

The House did its job. It passed a budget to fund ALL necessary functions of government. You can look it up. It is an indisputable fact. The Constitution requires all spending bills to originate in the House. And it did. As such, the House has the right to decide how they want to spend the money. Period. These are verifiable facts that cannot be disputed by any but the wantonly delusional.

And yep, one branch of government was threatened with not getting its way. Boo hoo. That is called the Separation of Powers, which means that no one branch can act completely unilaterally to the others, but only within the purview of the specific powers granted it. Budget origination is not a power relegated to the executive branch, nor even the Senate.

It was the Democrat held Senate that stopped the funding and shut down the government. This too is an indisputable fact. Granted, a fact viewers of MSNBC seem completely ignorant of. Granted also, they had the right to refuse the funding, but with that decision comes the responsibility for all the government they refused to fund. The only things shut down were the things the House voted to fund and the Senate and President simply refused to accept the funding for (like petulant children when they do not get their way).

Democrats did not do this to get "anything and everything" they wanted. They did it to get only ONE thing. Refuse to accept the funding already approved for all but one program in the government just because they did not get that ONE program. And unless you have been living under a rock, I bet you know what that ONE thing was.

"Legislation by appropriation" is a well-established way for one branch of government to curtail another. Look it up.

And there was no threat of default. Tax money keeps coming in during a shut down, so the interest on the debt would have continued to be paid regardless. New debt could not be established, but that has nothing to do with a default. And if all else fails, guess what, the president has authority to prioritize payments, putting the responsibility for any possible default squarely on his plate.

Look em up. Them is the facts.

 

[Syne]

Oh, and we do know what Republicans policies would have done. We have a century of economic data that informs us as to what Republican fiscal policies would have done to the nation. The correct response was to do exactly what the Democrats did, they provided fiscal stimulus and recapitalized the banking industry. Europe implemented the Republican light version of fiscal policy and that is why many European countries are still struggling with 25%+ unemployment, and after 6+ years are now finally implementing policies similar to what Democrats implemented in this country. We know Republican policies were wrong, because a century of studying economics says they were wrong. We know Republican economic policy was wrong because Europe tried what Republicans advocated and it was an abysmal failure.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Unsubstantiated proclamations and inconsistent comparison. Largely socialist societies trying something advocated for free-market capitalism is trivially going to be a bad fit. Does not prove a thing.

Government assistance, what is that supposed to mean exactly? You don’t think government should help its constituents? If not I guess you think government should harm its people. Democrats continued with the Bush II bailouts, which was the right decision. Democrats passed fiscal stimulus which is exactly what was called for. The political instability Republicans wrecked upon the nation with their threats of government shut downs and causing a government debt default and actual government shut down, slowed the economic recovery. There is no excuse for it.

Here: http://bit.ly/1F4D2NU

You know, those things people need when they have no jobs.

I agree. There was no excuse for Democrats scaring the market with wild threats they had all the power to avoid. Another gold star! Good job!

You don’t remember writing:

The problem is that people will have the choice between government assistance or actual economic prosperity.

We were not talking about a two party system polarized or not. We were talking about your claim that we can either have “government assistance” or economic prosperity. And I pointed out, they are not mutually exclusive.

You are moving the goal post. This is the first time you mentioned a polarized two party system. As I pointed out government assistance and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive as you seemed to believe.

Well, I am still a little perplexed as to what you think is inappropriate government assistance. Are public schools inappropriate? Are roadways inappropriate? Are fire departments inappropriate? Are EMS systems in appropriate assistance?

Job creation has nothing to do with government assistance. It has everything to do with political stability and supply and demand. And Republicans have injected a lot of political instability into the US political system these last several years.

When the two parties heavily prioritize each exclusively, it is the choice and is because of the nature of our two-party system. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, in and of themselves. Again, good job! We are talking US politics. There is no way we can do so outside of the framework of its two-party system. If you do not understand that much, simply as a given, then perhaps you should take a nap or something else more productive. Who said "inappropriate"? I no longer know what you think you are talking about, but I have been talking about entitlements, such as welfare, this whole time. Sorry, I gave you more credit than you deserved there. My bad. Sufficient job creation largely removes the need for welfare.

 

[joepistole]

You should try reading what I wrote a few more times. Here, I will even number them for ya, so you count along. If a president is elected to two terms (1 term + 1 term = 2), dies in office, his VP takes over, and is subsequently elected into office (1 term), then "voters don't [did] elect Democrats to 3 [consecutive] terms as POTUS". But that is understandable...people do get flustered when confronted with facts that induce cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps you should consider making some sense and being honest. Just because it doesn’t happen very often, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. It’s simple logic, something to which folks like you are unaccustomed.
This is what you actually wrote:

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election . So unless you are betting on Obama dying in office, history has no precedent for your prognostication. On the other hand, the last time a Republican president followed another was after Reagan, and more of the Republican field is espousing unapologetic Reagan values than ever before.

In case you forgot, the conversation was about wither the next POTUS will be a Democrat or a Republican.

The point, which you seem determined to completely miss (no doubt, to assuage that cognitive dissonance), is that voters do not have to have even the slightest awareness of that history. I would be surprised if more than a very insignificant, relative handful has ever been. You do have at least one thing right. People do "tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style." Good job! I agree. What you so miserably fail to get is that the voting history was made by people voting with that exact same motivation. All that need happen for history to continue to be consistent with a century and a half of precedent is for people to continue to vote for the same reasons they have always voted.

Perhaps you should consider taking statistics 101 in order to see the fallacy you are promulgating. You are assuming all circumstances are the same, and that certainly isn’t the case. It’s a very big assumption you are making and one in which you have absolutely no evidence exists. The Republican Party of today is by far more radical and extreme than the Republican Party of the past. The Republican Party of the 80’s and earlier would never have threatened the nation with a debt default.
It’s always funny to hear folks such as yourself speak of cognitive dissonance. I am surprised you are even aware of the term. You are one of the many Republicans who last presidential election cycle had convinced yourselves Romney was going to win, even though all the polling said otherwise. And you want to accuse others of cognitive dissonance?

You seem to hang all your hope on some undefined precedent that will buck a 150 year pattern. Chin up, there is always hope...or faith, or blathering unsupported delusion. Take your pick.

LOL, oh my, more personal insults, it appears to me you are hanging all your hopes that past on a statistical artifact. And perhaps someday, if you pray, and practice long enough, perhaps you will be able to make a single cogent argument, an argument not based upon a pile of fallacies. But if I were you, I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

First, where in that link is ANYTHING about buying votes? Again, read my post a few more times. Like this bit:

I guess you missed the bolded words: “Liberals bought the election”.
I understand truth is difficult for people of your with your beliefs because truth and honesty just isn’t compatible with your beliefs. Here , you want another link? http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/10/26/republicans-in-ohio-accusing-democrats-of-buying-votes-by-giving-away-pizza/
And here is a quote from Kudlow and another link:
Some conservative pundits are a little over-eager to reinforce the racially tinged Republican narratives of election fraud. Take Lawrence Kudlow, host of a CNBC show and writer for National Review. In his column on Friday Kudlow asks, “With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?… I wouldn’t put it past that cynical bunch.” http://www.thenation.com/blog/170716/national-review-falsely-accuses-obama-vote-buying

Second, I never refuted your non sequitur that losers rationalize their loses. That is trivially true for any losers. Again, good job! I agree with you on that count. Gold star for Joe! Keep it up. Even if these points are complete tangential to the actual discussion, you are doing a great job at building an underlying, if insignificant, mutual agreement. You should be proud.

Need some meds?

First You are making things up, mate. Only you have characterized the recession as "run of the mill." Boy, that cognitive dissonance must really be doing a number on you. This is a huge, fabricated strawman that has no substance in anything I have posted. I have not marginalized the Great Recession, other than to imply that the Great Depression was worse, which is an objective difference between recession and depression. You know, that pesky thing called reality.

Oh, perhaps you can then show me where I characterized The Great Recession as a run of the mill recession? You cannot, because I never made that claim. I am always amazed at how disconnected folks like you are from reality. When you compare the Great Recession to previous smaller recessions and equate them as you have done, you are in fact comparing two very different events as I previously pointed out to you. There is no straw man there friend. Perhaps you should stick your nose in a logic class while you are taking statistics 101.

First You are not arguing with voices in your head are you? Or are you just copy/pasting without taking care to make sure your recycled arguments are relevant?

I don’t think it is my head you should be concerning yourself with friend.

First There is a difference between a recession being over and the economy recovering from it. Remember? I was talking about "the slowest economic recovery in history."

Well if you are talking about the slowest recovery in history that would be the Great Depression and not the Great Recession, and that happened before Obama was born.

 

[joepistole]

The Great Recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which determines the start and end dates of U.S. recessions based on a range of economic indicators. Now, five years after emerging from recession, the best metrics of economic health suggest the economy is only between one-third and half of the way to fully recovered.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/five-years-after-the-grea_b_5530597.html

And just what would those “best metrics” be exactly?

The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, '31, '32 and '33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.
The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground.
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292

Well, here is where you need to get your measures straight and consistent. Are you measuring recovery by NBER standards, by GDP or by employment? I know it’s tough for you. Remember the NBER? According to the NBER, the Great Recession lasted 3.6 years. The Great Recession by comparison lasted 1.5 years.

And actually, The Great Depression began in 1929…remember the NBER? Besides from getting the dates wrong, your WSJ opinion piece got everything else wrong too. Now why is it I don’t find that surprising?

If we are going to measure it by unemployment rates, unemployment was more than 3 times higher than it was before The Great Depression 12 years after the onset of The Great Depression.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html



Until the latter part of 1942, manpower needs were met by tapping the depression reservoir of the unemployed. From that time forward there was a shortage of labor which became progressively more severe. http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/chapter5.htm
Republicans are unfortunately heavily reliant upon deception and misinformation, a fact you have just demonstrated yet again.

 

[joepistole]

The House did its job. It passed a budget to fund ALL necessary functions of government. You can look it up. It is an indisputable fact. The Constitution requires all spending bills to originate in the House. And it did. As such, the House has the right to decide how they want to spend the money. Period. These are verifiable facts that cannot be disputed by any but the wantonly delusional.

LOL, like cherry picking much…? Yeah, the Republican House passed a budget, but it didn’t fund everything and it repealed Obamacare…you know one of “dem” minor details. House Republicans couldn’t get enough votes to repeal or defund Obamacare through normal order so they held the nation hostage to their demands by including it into the budget. The president and the senate asked for clean spending bills and that is what they got, after Republicans shut down the government in an attempt to get what they couldn’t get through normal order (i.e. normal votes). Republicans attempted to cram their political agenda down the throats of millions of Americans. Republicans valued their political agenda more than they valued the health and wellbeing of the state and millions of Americans. That is a simple matter of fact.

And yep, one branch of government was threatened with not getting its way. Boo hoo. That is called the Separation of Powers, which means that no one branch can act completely unilaterally to the others, but only within the purview of the specific powers granted it. Budget origination is not a power relegated to the executive branch, nor even the Senate.

Yeah, it’s called separation of powers. The House doesn’t control the Senate or the presidency. Unfortunately for Republicans, the nation isn't subject to House dictatorship. The House of Representatives is only one of two houses of congress and a portion of one of the three branches of government. If the founders wanted all authority to be invested in the House of Representatives, they wouldn’t have created the Senate or the presidency. Our founding fathers were distrustful of the House of Representatives, that's why the created the Senate and the other branches of government. Perhaps you need a history lesson as well.

It was the Democrat held Senate that stopped the funding and shut down the government. This too is an indisputable fact. Granted, a fact viewers of MSNBC seem completely ignorant of. Granted also, they had the right to refuse the funding, but with that decision comes the responsibility for all the government they refused to fund. The only things shut down were the things the House voted to fund and the Senate and President simply refused to accept the funding for (like petulant children when they do not get their way).

Actually the Democratically controlled Senate passed a clean spending bill which did in fact fund everything and they sent the bill back to the House where the bill was promptly ignored resulting in a government shutdown which cost the nation billions of dollars and damaged the economic recovery.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/26/boehner-house-wont-pass-clean-spending-bill/

Thanks again for demonstrating how misinformed Republicans really are.

 

[joepistole]

Democrats did not do this to get "anything and everything" they wanted. They did it to get only ONE thing. Refuse to accept the funding already approved for all but one program in the government just because they did not get that ONE program. And unless you have been living under a rock, I bet you know what that ONE thing was.

Oh, so now contrary to your claim the House passed a bill to “fund everything” you admit the House passed spending bill didn’t fund everything. You don’t think that is more than a little disingenuous? House Republicans had tried to defund and repeal Obamacare scores of times without success. So House Republicans attempted to their repeal down the throats of Americans by including the repeal in a must pass piece of legislation (i.e. government funding). This country isn’t a dictatorship. Others besides Republicans have a voice too.

"Legislation by appropriation" is a well-established way for one branch of government to curtail another. Look it up.

As evidenced by this post, you need to take your own advice and look some stuff up.

And there was no threat of default. Tax money keeps coming in during a shut down, so the interest on the debt would have continued to be paid regardless. New debt could not be established, but that has nothing to do with a default. And if all else fails, guess what, the president has authority to prioritize payments, putting the responsibility for any possible default squarely on his plate.
Look em up. Them is the facts.

LOL…and this is the guy who sees cognitive dissonance in everyone but himself. You seem to be mixing government shut downs with government debt defaults and they are two very different things with very different consequences. Your post reflects a profound ignorance of government finance, not to mention basic math. You do understand what a deficit is, don’t you? Show me the math which backs up your assertion. It’s easy to pull shit out of your derriere. It’s what Republicans do almost to the exclusion of all else. And when Republicans get in trouble, they just scapegoat Democrats. Ignorance and zeal are the two things I find most disturbing about the Republican Party, two attributes you well demonstrate. Believe it or not, there was a time when Republicans operated differently. It was pre-Republican entertainment, back when both sides of major issues were publicly vetted and because of that public vetting created a better informed electorate and a better governed state. The Republican Party of today couldn't survive that kind of public scrutiny. That is why Republicans have steadfastly opposed restoration of The Fairness Doctrine.

Yeah, why worry about a debt default? Republicans will just blame the Democrats as they always do. Republicans never have to be fiscally responsible, because they can just blame the Democrats and the Republican base will be none the wiser. Unfortunately it is very apparent Republicans believe that as long as they have a scapegoat, they never have to be responsible and that is why Republicans are a clear and present danger to the nation.

I am struck by your cavalier attitude as reflected in your comment, “And if all else fails, guess what, the president has the authority to prioritize payments”. Can you cite me the statue which gives the president that authority to prioritize payments? You can’t, because it doesn’t exist. Perhaps you need to reread the US Constitution. The president doesn’t have responsibility for government spending. The Republican controlled House does. Our founding fathers never envisioned a congress so stupid as to not pay its bills, so they didn't make provisions for same. Obviously our founding fathers never envisioned the modern American Party.

But as reflected by your posts, all is well as long as you can blame a Democrat for your transgressions. If payments have to be prioritized somebody isn’t getting paid, but that’s ok with you as long as you can blame a Democrat. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans most Americans are not that stupid.

Look em up. Them is the facts.

Before you go telling people to "look em up", perhaps you should "look em up"? Because it is very apparent and clearly demonstrated by your posts, you have no subject matter knowledge that goes beyond a Republican Party meme.

 

[joepistole]

Unsubstantiated proclamations and inconsistent comparison. Largely socialist societies trying something advocated for free-market capitalism is trivially going to be a bad fit. Does not prove a thing.

LOL, perhaps along with the statistics 1o1, logic 101, you need to add macroeconomics 101 to the courses you should take. Economics isn’t unsubstantiated, nor is a Nobel Prize winning economist. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=0

This is where you need to “look em up”, you know, those pesky facts. Only in your Republican world of the under educated and deluded, can such beliefs be treated as credible.

Here: http://bit.ly/1F4D2NU
You know, those things people need when they have no jobs.

And you think that makes sense?

I agree. There was no excuse for Democrats scaring the market with wild threats they had all the power to avoid. Another gold star! Good job!

It wasn’t Democrats who threatened to shut down the government or cause a debt default if Republicans didn’t pass legislation Democrats couldn’t get passed through normal order of business. Republicans in the House did repeatedly threatened and did shut down the government and did repeatedly threaten to cause a government debt default if Democrats didn’t pass the repeal of Obamacare in the process leave millions of Americans without healthcare insurance.

You are either extraordinarily ignorant or flat out lying. You had better keep your gold stars; you are going to need them.

When the two parties heavily prioritize each exclusively, it is the choice and is because of the nature of our two-party system. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, in and of themselves. Again, good job! We are talking US politics. There is no way we can do so outside of the framework of its two-party system. If you do not understand that much, simply as a given, then perhaps you should take a nap or something else more productive. Who said "inappropriate"? I no longer know what you think you are talking about, but I have been talking about entitlements, such as welfare, this whole time. Sorry, I gave you more credit than you deserved there. My bad. Sufficient job creation largely removes the need for welfare.

If you now agree that “government assistance” and “economic growth” are not mutually exclusive, then why did you write they that they were? You were wrong. It’s just that simple, unfortunately that isn’t unusual for you my friend. Our two party system has nothing to do with the fact that your assertion was wrong.

You again show one of the problems with Republican ideology, demagoguery and loose and fuzzy word meanings. If you were talking about entitlements, then you should have used the word “entitlements”. And the fact remains, you were wrong. It isn’t a choice between “entitlements” or economic growth. As I demonstrated, it isn’t an either or choice. Your fallacious assertion had nothing to do with our two party system.

 

[Kittamaru]

Wow... just... just wow... there is so much Kool Aid in here that I'm fairly certain I could float the USS Independence in it...

 

[cosmictraveler]

Wow... just... just wow... there is so much Kool Aid in here that I'm fairly certain I could float the USS Independence in it...

Reminds me of The book "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test". Here it is in its entirety if anyone cares to read it.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...BDPqo58uboNuvokj0Jh2JeQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.b2w

 

[billvon]

Wow... just... just wow... there is so much Kool Aid in here that I'm fairly certain I could float the USS Independence in it...

Yep. And there will be even more over the next two years.

 

[joepistole]

Reminds me of The book "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test". Here it is in its entirety if anyone cares to read it.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http://www.jellojello.com/temp/The%20Electric%20Kool-Aid%20Acid%20Test.pdf&ei=cjA1VdfjOI63oQTCk4BY&usg=AFQjCNGdNUmBDPqo58uboNuvokj0Jh2JeQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.b2w

You are usually the one carrying the Republican banner Cosmic.

 

[spidergoat]

the latter producing more self-sufficient people with less of a need for a powerful centralized government

Hilarious. I suppose if you cut off people's opportunities by reducing the help their government can give them, they will be technically more self-sufficient. But they will still be poor. And corporate welfare is what we are really talking about here. Fewer tax burdens on corporate interests is the same as welfare spending for the rich. To help them stay rich and get richer. Which is the base of the Republican party.

 

[cosmictraveler]

You are usually the one carrying the Republican banner Cosmic.

But I look for truth wherever it can be found no matter where it might come from. I've assessed the upcoming election and after seeing what the thrust of both parties are going to be and the candidates themselves. I can't see the Republicans getting into POTUS unless something really bizarre happens. There are more people today in government programs than ever before so that's one main reason I think the Democrats are going to win. There are more government workers involved with the government than ever before. So I'm calling the election now for those reasons and others.