Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Voting: So who's it going to be, Romney or Obama???


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

Poll: 2012 Election (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will you support in the upcoming election?

  1. Obama (5 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. Romney (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  3. Independent (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  4. Not voting (2 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  5. Don't want to say (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 moed_over

moed_over

    He saw the spinning lights he knew it was a sign....

  • VibeTribe
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 12 May 2012 - 03:49 PM

So we are pretty much down to the point where you have two choices that will get elected. If you vote for an independent, you are ensuring one or the other will win.

Will you vote for Obama? Or be voting against Romney?

Will you vote for Romney? Or be voting against Obama?

Or will you vote for the small independent candidate without national recognition anyway?

Why are you making that choice?

I usually try to stay neutral here, but I'm curious on your thoughts. I personally will be voting for Obama. Despite my disappointment on some of his performance, I am impressed with other parts. I don't feel Romney has the American people's best interests in mind, is not prepared to actually be a successful president, and it would be a terrible four years with him in office.

Fire away.... ;-)

#2 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:37 PM

I'm voting against Romney for pretty much the same reasons as you.

#3 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:43 PM

Ralph Nader 2012!

#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:57 PM

Obama will sink us further in the economy because he's economically inept. Romney, has actual performance as governor for balancing the budget and leaving his position with a surplus for the state. It really depends on which issues you feel are the most important.

If you are against our foreign policy, vote Ron Paul. Because both Romney and Obama will perpetuate imperialist policies.

If you are for fiscal responsibility, I would pick either Romney or Paul. Obama's an economic train wreck.

If you are for civil liberty conservation, there is again, only one clear choice. It isnt either Romney or Obama.

If you're pro corporatism, either Obama or Romney will do. They will just go about it two different ways.

I'm not voting for either of the two establishment clowns in the running. Which means I'll be writing in my choice.

If I was looking to ruin the country further, I would vote Obama instead of Romney. Socialist lite is just putting the breaks on the train headed off the cliff. Full blown socialist will get the job done much quicker in destroying the nation.


Happy voting.

And for the record, romney has not sealed the GOP nomination yet. So this thread is premature.

#5 moed_over

moed_over

    He saw the spinning lights he knew it was a sign....

  • VibeTribe
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 12:57 AM

And for the record, romney has not sealed the GOP nomination yet. So this thread is premature.


No, I'm pretty realistic. There's no magic bullet that's going to bring Romney down. Who else could possibly get it at this point? Ron Paul doesn't stand a ghost of a chance as a Republican candidate. It's very much over, and this thread is right on time.

Now, if Ron Paul declared as an independent, I would have to add a category, but I don't see that happening.

#6 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 May 2012 - 01:07 AM

Are you going to be talking about Ron Paul right up until he officially loses on Aug. 30?

You know, the bigger they are the harder they fall. I'm worried about you, man.

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:14 AM

No, I'm pretty realistic. There's no magic bullet that's going to bring Romney down. Who else could possibly get it at this point? Ron Paul doesn't stand a ghost of a chance as a Republican candidate. It's very much over, and this thread is right on time. Now, if Ron Paul declared as an independent, I would have to add a category, but I don't see that happening.


Incorrect. Ron Paul could cause raucous at the GOP convention in Tampa. It's a small chance, but it is a chance. Realistic means knowing what options are out there and which ones are not. There is still the possibility of a Paul upset for Romney. It's all about understanding how the primary process works.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:16 AM

And derp, at least Im voting FOR something and not against something. You stand for nothing.

I also reject the idea that a vote outside the two establishment choices is a vote against one or the other. Screw that. If my vote goes to Paul, then it goes to Paul. It is not in favor of Obama over Romney or vice versa. That's a load of crap.

#9 moed_over

moed_over

    He saw the spinning lights he knew it was a sign....

  • VibeTribe
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 01:56 PM

Your not really reading what i said. I am voting FOR Obama, not against Romney. So no, I actually do stand for something. I think Obama has done an excellent job in many ways.

And, I disagree with your assessment of his economic policies. If your a monetarist, then yes you would think his actions to stabilize the economy were not correct. But, I think Keynesian economics was proved thoroughly correct once again with the financial crisis. Which means that Obama's actions were exactly correct, increasing government spending and attempting to clear the liquidity trap. It avoided another Great Depression.

Where I think he hasn't done enough is getting the banks under tighter regulation again. But, in this case, he has more people lined up against him politically than for him to get it done. So he had to make some compromises.

Ron Paul may be able to speak at the Republican convention, but his 87 delegates are NOT going to allow him to be much of a factor. The main group will keep him corralled. And if you want to argue that Santorum or Gingrich might hand him their delegates, no freekin way that is going to happen.

#10 vinandtonic

vinandtonic
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 02:11 PM

What all of you are failing to take into account here is that it doesn't matter who is president...the president is just a figurehead. Congress is the branch that really controls what policies are made. Add into that all of the corruption, bribery, etc and we're all fucked. Our entire government system needs a revamp. Won't ever happen though.

#11 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,728 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

I will continue to vote for a 3rd party candidate because I believe the system needs serious fixing and as long as we're only being fed the choice of Dem/Rep we're fucked.

#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 03:17 PM

Your not really reading what i said. I am voting FOR Obama, not against Romney. So no, I actually do stand for something. I think Obama has done an excellent job in many ways. And, I disagree with your assessment of his economic policies. If your a monetarist, then yes you would think his actions to stabilize the economy were not correct. But, I think Keynesian economics was proved thoroughly correct once again with the financial crisis. Which means that Obama's actions were exactly correct, increasing government spending and attempting to clear the liquidity trap. It avoided another Great Depression. Where I think he hasn't done enough is getting the banks under tighter regulation again. But, in this case, he has more people lined up against him politically than for him to get it done. So he had to make some compromises. Ron Paul may be able to speak at the Republican convention, but his 87 delegates are NOT going to allow him to be much of a factor. The main group will keep him corralled. And if you want to argue that Santorum or Gingrich might hand him their delegates, no freekin way that is going to happen.


I was talking about Peacefrog's vote AGAINST Romney.

Paul has more than 87 delegates. The counts are still coming in and predicted, or assumed delegate counts are inaccurate.

The financial crisis happened due to keynesian policies in the first place. So claiming it worked his highly suspect in the clean up effort. There is also that whole thing of 1.3 trillion in deficit spending and the 16 trill and counting of national debt. If you believe this is sustainable, then you're probably in favor of Keynes/Milton and bernanke's spin on both of their theories. Creating the climate of massive inflation. We also suffered a credit downgrade since this administration spending habits are so bad.

It is a mathematical fact that the federal governments spending spree is unsustainable. Yet I see no efforts to reduce spending. Tax increases will not begin to touch the fiscal problems we face. Spending cuts are necessary.

You are free to vote for whoever you want. But the fact remains that until the convention and the end of the GOP primary, the race is not over. Romney does not have the needed 1144 delegates. Paul is still picking up delegates and even bound for Romney delegates are Paul supporters in many state caucus;. So until it is settled on the gop candidate, it is not over.

Even after(should romney actually secure the nomination), I will not vote for fiscal irresponsibility, foreign imperial wars, civil liberty erosion or (D)/® for the sake of party lines. Obama is Bush all over again with the above policies.

#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 03:19 PM

What all of you are failing to take into account here is that it doesn't matter who is president...the president is just a figurehead. Congress is the branch that really controls what policies are made. Add into that all of the corruption, bribery, etc and we're all fucked. Our entire government system needs a revamp. Won't ever happen though.


Not true. Commander in Chief can end foreign wars without congressional consent. Reeling in the military, if that is all that we can get, is better than more of the exact same crap.

#14 moed_over

moed_over

    He saw the spinning lights he knew it was a sign....

  • VibeTribe
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 03:40 PM

The financial crisis happened due to keynesian policies in the first place. So claiming it worked his highly suspect in the clean up effort. There is also that whole thing of 1.3 trillion in deficit spending and the 16 trill and counting of national debt. If you believe this is sustainable, then you're probably in favor of Keynes/Milton and bernanke's spin on both of their theories.


Actually, Keynesian economics was largely ignored during the 80's and 90's. To be a proper Keynesian, you would have had to reduce government spending during times of economic prosperity, which Washington failed to do. They did not follow the model. Also, they eliminated Glass-Steagall, which was one of the most important acts of banking regulation that would have prevented the financial crisis.

I agree that the current spending is unsustainable, but don't confuse that with Keynesian economics.

#15 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:11 PM

What all of you are failing to take into account here is that it doesn't matter who is president...the president is just a figurehead. Congress is the branch that really controls what policies are made. Add into that all of the corruption, bribery, etc and we're all fucked. Our entire government system needs a revamp. Won't ever happen though.


I strongly disagree. One of the most important and influential decisions a President has to make is who to appoint to the Supreme Court. It's a decision whose consequences affect all of us for many years.

In addition to that, the President sets the tone for America and represents our country in front of the whole world. Children are taught to respect the President, so when he speaks, they listen intently.

Yes, the President also serves as a figurehead, but figureheads are necessary and important -- otherwise there would be no need. He meets with leaders of other countries around the world and represents our culture. This takes a lot of time, patience, and poise. Someone has to do it. I don't want just any old George Bush in there representing me.

#16 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:18 PM

Finally, our President is responsible for military decisions.

I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war if Obama was President at the time.

Furthermore, there hasn't been a foreign attack on US soil since Obama has been President, and Bin Laden is now dead. George W. Bush had no interest in capturing or killing Bin Laden because the war is very profitable for his supporters.

#17 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:24 PM

Ron Paul is just a wet dream, but if he somehow became President I believe there would be more gridlock in Washington. Nothing would get done because he would say NO to everything on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, and congress would say no to everything he proposes on the grounds that it's insane.

#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:53 PM

Actually, Keynesian economics was largely ignored during the 80's and 90's. To be a proper Keynesian, you would have had to reduce government spending during times of economic prosperity, which Washington failed to do. They did not follow the model. Also, they eliminated Glass-Steagall, which was one of the most important acts of banking regulation that would have prevented the financial crisis. I agree that the current spending is unsustainable, but don't confuse that with Keynesian economics.


Glass-Steagall was a regulation put in place to off set prior poor regulatory policies. The financial crisis was caused because of credit and monetary expansion by the federal reserve and poor acts of congress regarding home ownership. Keynes model of less spending during prosperity would/will never occur. Because the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Which is why central planning never works. Ever. It expects politicians to do the right thing, and people rarely ever do that. In the 80s during Reagan's term when he lowered taxes and regulatory measures and the country became prosperous after Carter's crap lolberal policies, he really never cut spending. That is where are debt exploded. His intentions were good and his actions were the onset of massive monetary expansion to meet the debt/interest on debt.

In all, it is the fiat money system and expansion policies of Keynes and Freidman, spun by former fed reserve chairman that cause the problem. The root of that problem is fiat money without a hard anchor. Which is why since 71 we've had nothing but boom and bust, boom and bust. We're out of places for those to occur now. The dollar is next.

At any rate, Obama is not going to fix any of this. His plan is to spend more, more and then some more. Which is why even democrats rejected his budget unanimously. He's a spender without any thought to recourse.

Vote for him if you want, but I do not see how his actions and policies are any different than Bush. Foreign wars, massive spending, civil liberty erosion. All Ive ever seen is people say he's better than Romney. Perceived. So it appears people are voting against something, not for something.

I'll not play a part in that.

#19 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:05 AM

vote for whoever you want....but if you vote for obama instead of ron jesus christ paul ur a piece of ignorant shit who wants to see the country turn communist and get ruined.
but you can vote for whoever...i dont care :lol:


now i remember why i dont come in here anymore

#20 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:10 AM

Yeah, that's what I said.

#21 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:11 AM

noone had to say it...

#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:18 AM

Mmmhhmmm.

#23 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:33 AM

and the supporting evidence is written all over this forum :lol:

#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:47 AM

Hmmm. I dont ever recall saying someone was an ignorant piece of shit for holding their beliefs. Ive certainly challenged ideas endlessly, and also quite uselessly. But do not recall using those words or any form of them to describe a poster for having a different view. Except maybe derp. I dont do it to him for his views though. I do it because he's here to get reactions, not make debate/discussion. Just giving him what I thought he was after. :dunno:

But you're allowed to project how you absorb what I say.

#25 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:25 AM

just reading between the lines. sorry for noticing the middle finger

#26 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:29 AM

most people on this board are too polite to give him the harsh dose of reality that he's lacking. (not a bad thing. It's definitely a good idea to be polite if your goal is to get everyone to like you)

I'm not here to polish anyone's knob. I belt it out exactly as I perceive it to be.

#27 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:44 AM

We're out of places for those to occur now. The dollar is next.


What commonly exchanged currency will take it's place? Most currencies are tanking.

Gold obviously isn't tanking, but I don't consider gold a commonly exchanged currency.

Strong currency really only matters for trade exchange. There are some negatives to a strong currency to though. It increases trade deficit for one. China and Japan artificially weaken their currencies because they are so export dependent.

We've been screaming for years that a major problem with the US economy is that manufacturing has been declining for decades. That's why Bubba proudly wears his Made in the USA t-shirt.

I agree with a lot of your concerns regarding the economy, but the position of our currency isn't one of them outside of beers costing more money than I'd like when I visit Canada.

#28 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:53 AM

actually, the price of gold has been dropping...

#29 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,670 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:59 AM

I'm bowing out of political discussions from now on on this board until the same old back&forth shit you people spew out starts getting a little fresher.

I know what you're going to say before you say it and it is beyond STALE.

#30 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 May 2012 - 03:40 AM

what we need to fix this country (once and for all?) is a preferential ballot.

This way, nobody can complain if their guy doesn't win, and third and fourth or even fifth parties will have an even shot at winning.

This is the only thing I think that can make the radical changes that some people seek.

In my opinion, this can't happen because the people who get elected by the system in place don't want to change it. After all, it's what got them elected in the first place.

Maybe if there were term limits on congressmen, that might make a difference. Career politicians are the worst.

(did everyone expect me to say that?)

#31 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:04 AM

Obama did not cause the S&P credit rating downgrade.

#32 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:06 AM

Also, Nader 2012.

#33 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:14 AM

I can respect Nader. Is that old fool running again? I'd probably throw him my vote for good time's sake

#34 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,926 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:54 AM

I'll be withdrawing my consent to this shitshow on November 6th.

Thinking about taking the day off and finding something to do which actually makes a difference.

#35 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,678 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:11 PM

Me vote for vagina. Always.

#36 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

What commonly exchanged currency will take it's place? Most currencies are tanking. Gold obviously isn't tanking, but I don't consider gold a commonly exchanged currency. Strong currency really only matters for trade exchange. There are some negatives to a strong currency to though. It increases trade deficit for one. China and Japan artificially weaken their currencies because they are so export dependent. We've been screaming for years that a major problem with the US economy is that manufacturing has been declining for decades. That's why Bubba proudly wears his Made in the USA t-shirt. I agree with a lot of your concerns regarding the economy, but the position of our currency isn't one of them outside of beers costing more money than I'd like when I visit Canada.


I couldn't tell you. I have no idea.

It isn't just China and Japan that deliberately weaken their currency. We do it too. As the world reserve, we're the reason others do it. Because we too, are largely dependent on imports vs. exports as the main stay of our economy. That's the global economy for you. Currency Wars is a good read on how it all works in currency/capital markets globally and a few thoughts on what might happen.

#37 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 24,002 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:17 PM

If those are my choices I will not be voting for President.

#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:00 PM

Obama did not cause the S&P credit rating downgrade.


i beg to differ. So does S&P.

http://www.cnbc.com/...ting_to_AA_Plus

The United States lost its top-notch triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poor's Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement.
"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011," the statement said.
The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, the S&P said in its statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.
On Aug. 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances.
The political gridlock in Washington and the failure to seriously address U.S. long-term fiscal problems came against the backdrop of slowing U.S. economic growth and led to the worst week in the U.S. stock market in two years.
"I did not expect this to happen this soon. This is something they gave the criteria on and I guess they stuck to it," said George Goncalves, chief Treasury strategist for Nomura Americas. "I really thought they'd take the two-stage approach and see how further cuts would come along."
This came after a confusing day of reports: Standard & Poor's told the U.S. government early Friday afternoon that it was preparing to downgrade the U.S.'s triple-A credit rating but U.S. officials notified S&P that it had made a $2 trillion mathematical error.
The error was in the calculation of the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio over time and was based on a misreading of what the correct congressional baseline was, government sources indicated. They said that once informed of the error S&P revised its rate-cut rationale to emphasize the political aspects of the country's debt situation.
"A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself," a Treasury spokesperson said.
Throughout Friday, markets were rife with speculation that S&P, which has had a negative outlook on the U.S. since April 18, would downgrade the country’s credit from its current triple-A level and that it could come as early as Friday night.

Goncalves said the downgrade could hit market confidence.
U.S. Treasurys, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

#39 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:11 PM


wrong.



GOP Causes S&P Downgrade, but Republican Candidates Blame Obama


It is clear from Standard & Poor’s statement downgrading the federal government’s credit rating that it places the blame squarely on Republican actions and policies. Two of S&P’s biggest concerns about whether the United States will pay off its debt are whether Republicans will be so insane as to refuse to lift the debt ceiling, a possibility Republicans intentionally stoked fears of, and whether the United States will raise much-needed tax revenue. Specifically, S&P changed its baseline assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire on schedule in 2012 because Republicans are so insistent that they must be renewed. “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” wrote S&P. That adds $4 trillion over ten years to the projected deficits.

So, how are Republican presidential candidates responding? By blaming President Obama, instead of their co-partisans in Congress who are actually responsible. “America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama’s failed record of leadership on the economy,” said front-runner Mitt Romney in a statement. “His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating.” Apparently, Romney knows better than S&P itself why it downgraded our credit rating, and it has nothing to do with lost revenue due to Republican tax cuts, or Republican threats not to pay our debts (a fairly straightforward threat to our creditworthiness if ever there was one.) No, it’s just because of our economic performance, which Romney seems to think is determined entirely by the actions of the president and is in no way beyond his control.

Nominal moderate Jon Huntsman was less partisan and more accurate in his apportioning of blame to Washington as a whole. “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history,” said Huntsman’s statement. “For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread.” That’s perfectly in keeping with Huntsman’s strategy of positioning himself above the partisan fray as Obama and John McCain both did during the primaries last time. Of course, the spending decisions that have brought this on—invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, enacting Medicare Part D, increasing defense and security spending after September 11, 2001—were all initiatives of the Bush administration and his Republican servants in Congress. Huntsman neglects to mention that and instead passively criticizes Obama—but not House Speaker John Boehner—for “presiding over” the downgrade.

Michele Bachmann—who as a member of Congress who refused to vote for a debt ceiling increase is one of the people most responsible for the downgrade—issued a particularly dour statement. “President Obama is destroying the foundations of the US economy one beam at a time,” said Bachmann.

Meanwhile Tim Pawlenty, speaking in Grinnell, Iowa, went on a baffling, nonsensical riff that twisted into knots trying to tie the downgrade to generic conservative talking points. “What he [President Obama] doesn’t understand is all this talk of the full faith and credit in the United States government, he needs to stop being reminded,” explained Pawlenty. “We need to have a president who understands what it means to put our full faith and credit in the American people. His vision for America is to take things out of the private sector and to put it into the government.” You can’t argue with that, can you?

Lost amid the finger-pointing is any review of how the downgrade could have been averted. But, of course, if you’re a Republican you probably don’t want to dwell too much on that question, because the ways we could have done so would come into conflict with Republicans’ obsessive subservience to the myopic interests of a few wealthy men like the Koch brothers and their fanatic supporters like Grover Norquist. Namely, we could have raised tax revenue. Note that I don’t say raising taxes, because we would not have to actually raise marginal rates. Merely allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule would have done the trick. So would closing tax loopholes while actually lowering rates, had they passed the president’s bipartisan deficit reduction committee’s recommendations, or agreeing to Obama’s $4 trillion debt reduction proposal.

If you want to take a longer view of how the US debt reached this height, Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly made a timeline illustrating how it is almost entirely the Republicans’ fault. But the long view is not of any interest to the modern Republican Party.


#40 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:20 PM

the s&p does NOT blame obama



Although the S&P report did not single out any party, "it’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans," he writes. One major factor causing the downgrade was S&P deciding that Congress would likely make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But even more than numbers, the S&P report is a harsh condemnation of the GOP's political warfare. "Even if the fiscal and inflationary risks of the United States are still tolerable to global investors, the political risks may not be," writes Andrews.



#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:22 PM

Nominal moderate Jon Huntsman was less partisan and more accurate in his apportioning of blame to Washington as a whole. “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history,” said Huntsman’s statement. “For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread.” That’s perfectly in keeping with Huntsman’s strategy of positioning himself above the partisan fray as Obama and John McCain both did during the primaries last time. Of course, the spending decisions that have brought this on—invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, enacting Medicare Part D, increasing defense and security spending after September 11, 2001—were all initiatives of the Bush administration and his Republican servants in Congress. Huntsman neglects to mention that and instead passively criticizes Obama—but not House Speaker John Boehner—for “presiding over” the downgrade. Interesting. So S&P waited a full ten years to downgrade us from failed Bush policies? Also, the last budget passed by the Bush adminisrtation was largely the works of a democrat controlled congress, no tthe bush administration. Which saw the debt to GDP go from 84% in 2009 (still a maassively high percentage), to 99.6% in 2011. We now exceed by 100%. I'm not arguing Bush policies weren't awful. they were. But this administration has not done any correcting and the downgrade happen 3 years into Obama's presidency. He's done nothing to stop the policies started by Bush. In fact, he's expanded on them. the downgrade is the result of all of washington, and the leader gets to take responsibility for that being he is part of the problem, not the solution.

#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:26 PM

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement.
"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011," the statement said.
The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, the S&P said in its statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.


i think thsi about wraps up S&P statement on the downgrade.

#43 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:33 PM

I don't know how you can read "Congress and the administration" simply as "obama". Oh wait, yes i do.

#44 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,728 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:36 PM

Here's what S&P actually wrote


Rationale

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public
debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent
with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions
," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S.
federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes,
which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of
the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate
threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt
ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to
allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few
years.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the
structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt
burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated
sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,"
June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in
framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to
manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to
achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal
stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus
might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by
then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term
fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S.
population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at
hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even
More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure
growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two
steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5
trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no
measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee
could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's
recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time
period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary
spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism
is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of
expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.

We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at
least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline
assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain
modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate
Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions
contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate
Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action
overriding existing law.

We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation.
However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves
open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and
Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even
assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act
envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general
government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid
financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case
fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term
rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net general government debt
would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and
85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high
in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise
under the act's revised policy settings.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP
growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as
consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to
stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it
incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and
2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration
is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government
debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015
and to 78% by 2021.

Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view
as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term
rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below
and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2
trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes
somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe
that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a
government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and
that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of
fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise
if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario
factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to
the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the
net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and
to 101% by 2021.

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative
revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis
announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions
underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of
the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was
deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously
thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is
slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the
current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous
post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic
recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had
financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private
sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case
scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation
of near 1.5% annually going forward.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that
we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also
observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the
U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we
estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to
GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the
U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP
ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with
the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project
that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to
decline, either before or by 2015.

Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our
T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign
restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange
needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the
U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that
official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of
either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this
risk as being highly remote.

http://www.standarda...dervalue3=UTF-8

#45 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:43 PM

us vs. them'd
same as it ever was

#46 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,728 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:48 PM

us vs. them'd same as it ever was

~And the beat goes on, yeah the beat goes on~

#47 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:50 PM

Thank you joker. I was looking for the full text but got frustrated with my janky tab.

Seems to be plenty of blame for all parties involved.

#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,963 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:54 PM

I don't know how you can read "Congress and the administration" simply as "obama". Oh wait, yes i do.


Is he not the leader of the country? I mean, when Bush was enacting shit policies, even with a democratically controlled congress, he was awarded blame for every single thing that went wrong. I stood amongst those ranks of blaming him too. He was an awful leader.

I do not see how it changes once Obama comes in that all of his short falls and failures rest on the republicans heads as if this was still 2005.

When do you think the Bush will be out of office so that the current administration will take responsibility?

#49 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

so how butt hurt are people gonna be when the next 4 years turns out better then the last?

#50 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,764 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

will they even admit it?