Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

So much just plain wrong with this it isn't even funny.

The economic recovery had been ongoing for almost a year, with the jobless rate decreasing steadily in that time. Inflation and interest rates had come down greatly. He had much progress to point toward, and the nation as a whole felt that things were getting better.

The situation right now is nowhere close to that. Could that be the case by November? Maybe. But, if that is going to be the case, things have really got to start moving quickly on the jobless rate. I don't think this is likely.

Funny that you say Americans should settle on someone who has done nothing to better a terrible economy. Just shows how far people will go to protect their political "team". Maybe Pres. Obama's campaign slogan could be "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!"

Not a winning strategy.

If the economy stays the way it is, Pres. Obama should be a one term president. The only reason "should" isn't "will" is the republican party's ability to mess up a certain type of dream.

To my point on the economy...you can access macro-economic indicators all you'd like, but when it comes to how the economy affects an election you have to access it at the individual level. Individuals felt the economy tighten in '07...had they felt the recovery McCain likely would've won in '08...assuming your "it's the economy, stupid" mantra is the gospel.

And in my discussion here, I feel I'm looking at things objectively and not allowing my personal bias and beliefs creep in...I'm making no ringing endorsement of Obama...and while no, a "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!" campaign shouldn't win you an election, I think it will over anyone of the 3 uninspired and flawed (a bi-partisan belief) candidates the Republicans will trot out to run an "I'm not Obama" campaign. History shows those simply don't work.

I think to most voters stasis will be seen as navigating the economic down-turn safely...especially in the light of constant media attention to the woeful state of the economy really for the past 5 years now. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying its how it is.

This thread has gone on for 30 pages. 30 PAGES!

You boneheads are talking like you could actually trust these guys (Republican candidates or Pres. Obama).

You can't trust any of these guys! They say what they think you want to hear if you're in their audience.

Drop Pres. Obama into a room full of Tea Party folks, and he's going to try and sound moderate. Put pres. Obama in a room full of Occupiers, and he's going to sound very left. The same patronization would spew from any of the Republican candidates.

None of these men are running for President for the betterment of our country. They're not really looking out for you and me. None of us are at the top of their priority list. They are looking out for themselves and their massive egos.

As mentioned previously, Carter was neck-in-neck with Reagan in 1980 in November. Adjusted for inflation, gas was about $5.50 a gallon. They don't play as big of a role as you conservatives would like to think. I'd start putting my hope eggs in a different basket.

Actually gas didn't spike until after the election to $1.35, which is equivalent to roughly $3.13 today.

The economy hurts an incumbant and/or his party. It hurt McCain and I feel it's a good bet it will hurt Obama. But nothing will hurt Obama more than his policies he laid for the future and the dept damage he has placed on the backs of future generations already.

By the way, after seeing the stories the evening news was pushing last night, plus recent comments by Hillary, does anyone get the feeling the U.S. will be ramping up for military action in Syria soon?

Rick

Edited February 9, 2012 by FirefightnRick

Nobody is ever right in politics. This thread will never get anywhere.

This thread has gone on for 30 pages. 30 PAGES!

You boneheads are talking like you could actually trust these guys (Republican candidates or Pres. Obama).

You can't trust any of these guys! They say what they think you want to hear if you're in their audience.

Drop Pres. Obama into a room full of Tea Party folks, and he's going to try and sound moderate. Put pres. Obama in a room full of Occupiers, and he's going to sound very left. The same patronization would spew from any of the Republican candidates.

None of these men are running for President for the betterment of our country. They're not really looking out for you and me. None of us are at the top of their priority list. They are looking out for themselves and their massive egos.

I think most of us would agree with you. But it's football offseason and the basketball tourney is still a month away.

I'll see what I can dig up about the latest story on Pit Bulls chewing off someone's face for you to help you get over the hump.

Rick

Edited February 9, 2012 by FirefightnRick

This thread has gone on for 30 pages. 30 PAGES!

You boneheads are talking like you could actually trust these guys (Republican candidates or Pres. Obama).

You can't trust any of these guys! They say what they think you want to hear if you're in their audience.

Drop Pres. Obama into a room full of Tea Party folks, and he's going to try and sound moderate. Put pres. Obama in a room full of Occupiers, and he's going to sound very left. The same patronization would spew from any of the Republican candidates.

None of these men are running for President for the betterment of our country. They're not really looking out for you and me. None of us are at the top of their priority list. They are looking out for themselves and their massive egos.

I'm bored?

Politics is a talkin' sport?

If politics is gonna rape you might as well put your feet behind your ears and enjoy it?

Rick

Rick

???

I'm bored?

Politics is a talkin' sport?

If politics is gonna rape you might as well put your feet behind your ears and enjoy it?

He must mistreat you pretty bad? You should get out of that situation while you can?

Not healthy.

Rick

To my point on the economy...you can access macro-economic indicators all you'd like, but when it comes to how the economy affects an election you have to access it at the individual level. Individuals felt the economy tighten in '07...had they felt the recovery McCain likely would've won in '08...assuming your "it's the economy, stupid" mantra is the gospel.

And in my discussion here, I feel I'm looking at things objectively and not allowing my personal bias and beliefs creep in...I'm making no ringing endorsement of Obama...and while no, a "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!" campaign shouldn't win you an election, I think it will over anyone of the 3 uninspired and flawed (a bi-partisan belief) candidates the Republicans will trot out to run an "I'm not Obama" campaign. History shows those simply don't work.

I think to most voters stasis will be seen as navigating the economic down-turn safely...especially in the light of constant media attention to the woeful state of the economy really for the past 5 years now. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying its how it is.

Just remember, GHWB's economy was not nearly as bad as this one, and Pres. Clinton managed to get himself elected despite the Jennifer Flowers scandal in the primaries, a scandal Clinton had denied shortly before audio tapes were released that all but confirmed a sexual relationship between the two.

This country in 1990 was far more intolerent of such behavior in it's politicians. It didn't matter. Why? Because people directly felt a bad economy. Pres. Clinton was smart enough to focus on that issue. My biggest fear is the republican nominee won't be as smart.

It would be like Herman Cain winning the election this year (although this could never happen for a conservative, because they would be, and were, BBqed for the affair).

Nobody is ever right in politics. This thread will never get anywhere.

Party Pooper

I'm voting for whichever candidate installs leather upholstered people movers with ice chests and cup holders on the new bridge.

Just remember, GHWB's economy was not nearly as bad as this one, and Pres. Clinton managed to get himself elected despite the Jennifer Flowers scandal in the primaries, a scandal Clinton had denied shortly before audio tapes were released that all but confirmed a sexual relationship between the two.

Waaaaay more played into the '92 election. Clinton wasn't just a "not Bush" candidate...he had charisma, was well-spoken and as a southerner managed to carry states that would now never vote liberal.

My whole point is that I think a good Republican candidate would win '12. There just isn't one...and I anticipate a very similar campaign to what took place in 2004 (parties reversed, obviously)

He must mistreat you pretty bad? You should get out of that situation while you can?

Not healthy.

Rick

We're on to gay jokes now?

Right...I'm the 12 year old.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Censored by Laurie

My whole point is that I think a good Republican candidate would win '12. There just isn't one...and I anticipate a very similar campaign to what took place in 2004 (parties reversed, obviously)

I feel the same way, which is one reason you saw Clinton wait until 2008 to run. She knew there was a much better chance then than in 2004.

2016 will actually have some big-time Republicans probably enter the race: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jon Thune.

I think most of us would agree with you. But it's football offseason and the basketball tourney is still a month away.

I'll see what I can dig up about the latest story on Pit Bulls chewing off someone's face for you to help you get over the hump.

Rick

Probably wouldn't take you very long to dig that up... They're everywhere, sadly.

Funny story (not really):

Some lady was out "training" her yellow lab yesterday when my wife and daughter got out of the car. The dog began growling and barking ferociously at my daughter. Luckily, the dog was leashed. She said to the dog in a mocking voice, "Oh, you're all talk...", then turns to my wife and says, "We're trying to train her to be good around small kids". Ha!

Actually gas didn't spike until after the election to $1.35, which is equivalent to roughly $3.13 today.

The economy hurts an incumbant and/or his party. It hurt McCain and I feel it's a good bet it will hurt Obama. But nothing will hurt Obama more than his policies he laid for the future and the dept damage he has placed on the backs of future generations already.

By the way, after seeing the stories the evening news was pushing last night, plus recent comments by Hillary, does anyone get the feeling the U.S. will be ramping up for military action in Syria soon?

Rick

---I agree with your gasoline pricing pretty much... not the other one.. My father was in wholesale gasoline business so I remember those prices pretty well. When in college in the 60's you could get 3-4 gallons for a hour's work at min. wage... during the late 70's due to the Iranian revolution and OPEC [ nothing to do Carter being President] the price jumped greatly and you could not get 2 gallons for an hour's worth of min. wage... Now based on minimum wages ... we can get 2-2.5 gallons for an hour at minimun wage. Coffee and TV is missing this one although I do agree with a lot he says usually.

---Back in 2002 or so.... I thought then Bush went after the wrong one if he was intent on having a war... Iran was the real threat of nukes... Reagan had even sided with Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war and supplied him weapons.. He was extremely evil but not a threat to us. ... Syria is a bad situation.... We need to stay of of Middle East as much as possible... especially with troops on the ground... those people are too crazy, ignorant, and irrational and often religious nuts.. should not have been in Iraq either..

---Answering another question someone brought up .... different states have different state tax rates on gasoline.... that accounts for some of the different prices from state to state.

..

---Tell them to return to 2008 spending levels...????... the debt had just doubled in 8 years... !!!! Cutting 1% per year is about nothing... the interest is increasing it much more than that..... Increasing the debt that much is not conservative.. !!

We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. --the Bush administration sure didn't do that... the debt went from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion. I agree with your comment... but you need to look at what happened.

Conservative is not spending more than you are taking in.... applies to families as well. That wasn't happening then or now either..

..

2008 spending levels means budget spending, not the war spending over and above. I'm talking about the budgets. The plan to return to 2008 spending discounts the spending on the wars as we're not spending that money today.

If you end baseline budgeting, and CUT, not cut the increases which is what baseline does, but CUT the budget 1% each year for 5 years the math actually works just fine with current revenues and current economic growth. If we actually start seeing a recovery, it'll REALLY work out well.

You say 1% isn't a drop in the bucket, but we can't even get this administration to agree to it. The argument that the President has offered the biggest cuts since anyone with a caveat is the same as saying he hasn't offered anything. His Caveat will result in LESS Revenue which has been demonstrated by history (and simple arithmetic) over and over and over again. If you cut from a 2008 base, and then cut from there, cutting principal, not cutting the built in increases, the savings comes quickly. Clinton and the Republican congress didn't cut much and had good economic growth, and see what happened there?

I absolutely AGREE the Bush didn't do it. You don't read what I post, apparently. I put the lion's share of the blame for where we are now on the Republican Congress and Presidents in the decade of 2000, as they were most certainly NOT conservative when it came to fiscal policy. If you think I'm in here defending Bush's or recent Republican congress' record on fiscal matters, you're not reading what I'm saying. ...but this isn't a party argument. Its an ideas' argument. Bush and the 2000+ Republican congress had the wrong idea. This President and his Democratic congress has doubled down on those ideas. They are all wrong.

My argument about Conservative Fiscal Policy stands. The issue is that nobody, including those claiming to be conservatives have followed the basic principals of Conservative Fiscal Policy in decades.

We're on to gay jokes now?

Right...I'm the 12 year old.

Is that not what your implying?

You often post about men's genitals as if you have some infatuation with them, including mine. Yesterday you mentioned something about a Blowhole, and today you noted how a video that has Rick Santorum making vulgar gestures as if he's masterbating while stating something about meat, as golden?

It's ok though buddy. I don't hold that against you, and if I have said something that came across as discriminating to your preferences I apologize.

Rick

I giggle when I hear people talk about the national polls. Look at the swing state polls. This election will be over by 9CST on election night. Florida & Ohio. Done and done. Whoever wins them, wins. Simple enough. I think Obama is hosed in Florida, so it comes down to one state. Ohio is going to be CLOSE too. Ohio becomes irrelevant if Pennsylvania goes R, but that's a longer shot than Ohio.

The state to state polls mean far more this far out and even at the 11th hour than do the national polls.

This race is going to be 2000/2004 tight.

Is that not what your implying?

You often post about men's genitals as if you have some infatuation with them, including mine. Yesterday you mentioned something about a Blowhole, and today you noted how a video that has Rick Santorum making vulgar gestures as if he's masterbating while stating something about meat, as golden?

It's ok though buddy. I don't hold that against you, and if I have said something that came across as discriminating to your preferences I apologize.

Rick

Okay, hold on a second. In the ridiculous midst of talking about genitals and calling people 12 year olds, I need to stand up for the COMPLETELY apolitical Santorum video since I posted it first, simply as light comic relief. Firstly, it IS golden, and secondly it has NOTHING to do with anyone being gay - and can't conceive the mind that would go down that well, to be honest.

Bad Lip Reading. It's a satirical thing that's gone around this entire election season. Here's a WaPo article about it: http://www.washingto...roEuL_blog.html

They've done every candidate in the race, from Bachmann to Obama, and if politics doesn't suit you, try the Michael Buble or Taylor Swift!! It's a simple premise turned harmless bit, and they're all nonsensical and without agenda. The Santorum one is simply my favorite, was topical given his 3 state sweep, and was actually discussed on The Ticket that morning, so it was fresh in my mind (http://gordonkeith.w...ommercial-ever/).

It's the JibJab or Autotune the News of this election cycle, and it cracks me up. Why you're so cranky about it is beyond me, and I have NO clue how it affects who CBL sleeps with more than the Bush/Kerry "This Land is Your Land" .swf of 2004.

Oh, also, I have no idea where you get "meat", because he says "and I hold it so it's a fancy fist with joy!" during the debate clip. As nonsensical as anything else.

Sigh. I don't get it. I guess we can get back to shouting at each other, but this was just too weird to let pass. Maybe you just get bent out of shape if it's a perceived attack on a dude with a R after his name, so for fun's sake, here's the Obama they did - it's just not nearly as good.

Not even close...hell, McCain ran more on a "I'm not Bush" campaign than either Clinton or Obama.

I wasn't talking about what McCain did, because it didn't work. Obama continually identified McCain with Bush, and pretended like he was running against Bush. Remember "Hope and Change"? It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out that he was talking about change from who was then the present occupant of the White House, as the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And McCain was solidly ahead of Obama in the polls . . . until the economy tanked in September-October 2008. Bush got the blame, and McCain subsequently took a nose dive in the polls.

Obama had no "clear plan of action to move America forward." He was very general and ambiguous in his speeches. Okay, that's par for the course, but he was more so than usual. And the results of that election had everything to do with who made the better case of "I'm not (current president) ."

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mean Green 93-98

This one might be my favorite because I can actually see Ron Paul saying these things.

Edited February 9, 2012 by mattmartin817

2016 will actually have some big-time Republicans probably enter the race: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jon Thune.

If he had run this year, he would be a no-brainer as the republican nominee and probably win over 60 states in the general election (as long as there are no skeletons in the closet).

People forget that he is barely 40 years old. He may be waiting to get a little more political seasoning before running.

Is that not what your implying?

You often post about men's genitals as if you have some infatuation with them, including mine. Yesterday you mentioned something about a Blowhole, and today you noted how a video that has Rick Santorum making vulgar gestures as if he's masterbating while stating something about meat, as golden?

It's ok though buddy. I don't hold that against you, and if I have said something that came across as discriminating to your preferences I apologize.

Rick

I don't believe you. You can't possibly have such a vapid sense of humor. I think you just don't feel you can admit enjoyment in front of all these lesser beings.

I don't believe you. You can't possibly have such a vapid sense of humor. I think you just don't feel you can admit enjoyment in front of all these lesser beings.

You got me!

Rick

So much just plain wrong with this it isn't even funny.

The economic recovery had been ongoing for almost a year, with the jobless rate decreasing steadily in that time. Inflation and interest rates had come down greatly. He had much progress to point toward, and the nation as a whole felt that things were getting better.

The situation right now is nowhere close to that. Could that be the case by November? Maybe. But, if that is going to be the case, things have really got to start moving quickly on the jobless rate. I don't think this is likely.

Funny that you say Americans should settle on someone who has done nothing to better a terrible economy. Just shows how far people will go to protect their political "team". Maybe Pres. Obama's campaign slogan could be "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!"

Not a winning strategy.

If the economy stays the way it is, Pres. Obama should be a one term president. The only reason "should" isn't "will" is the republican party's ability to mess up a certain type of dream.

I just want to shed some light on something rarely discussed about President Reagan’s 2 terms or any President for that matter. The single most powerful governmental force affecting the economy is the Federal Reserve. This was especially true under Reagan. During the entire decade of the 70’s inflation was giving Americans a beating and the fed funds rate was on a consistent trajectory higher. Not something any President wants to see during their term, especially their first. Higher interest rates increase savings and an upward trajectory often reduces loan volume and loan amount. The fed was hard at work reducing the money supply already and when Carter appointed Volcker in 79' to the Fed it became down right draconian. For instance when Carter left office both inflation and the feds fund rate were over 11% and rising. Something most on this board could not fathom. In 1980 inflation spiked to 14%……..holly crap 14%!!!!!! Volcker took the strongest stance ever seen by the Fed and raised the Fed Funds rate to 20%……..20%!!!!!!!! Unemployment sky-rocketed to well over 10% and Volcker was one of the most hated men in the Country. Maybe even less popular than a very unpopular President Reagan. 1980 − 1982 were pretty tough times in this country because of this. I remember my parents bought a house in the early 80’s. What was their mortgage rate with good credit? 15%!! I currently pay 4%

The story has a happy ending though, especially for Republicans. Volcker crushed inflation (with a little help from Reagan cozying up with the Middle East) and the Fed Funds rate was lowered consistently through most the 80’s starting around the end of 1981. This brought unemployment down with it and a strengthening economy followed. Factor in that Reagan lowered taxes to the lowest levels in the post WWII era and massively increased defense spending through increased deficits and the economy was humming right along. Soooo….. With unemployment on a slow and steady path downward starting around 1982, folks happy with their recent tax breaks, and high savings rates for the previous 10 years, Americans were finally feeling pretty good. Reagan won in a landslide in 84’ with an unemployment rate higher than when he took office but on the decline.

Some here may want to argue everything that I am missing about Reagan’s first term. I don’t care. I just wanted to say, before you get all riled up about what a President did or did not do for the economy. It is the men and women of the Fed that are the true puppet masters.

Edited February 10, 2012 by HoustonEagle

I just want to shed some light on something rarely discussed about President Reagan’s 2 terms or any President for that matter. The single most powerful governmental force affecting the economy is the Federal Reserve. This was especially true under Reagan. During the entire decade of the 70’s inflation was giving Americans a beating and the fed funds rate was on a consistent trajectory higher. Not something any President wants to see during their term, especially their first. Higher interest rates increase savings and an upward trajectory often reduces loan volume and loan amount. The fed was hard at work reducing the money supply already and when Carter appointed Volcker in 79' to the Fed it became down right draconian. For instance when Carter left office both inflation and the feds fund rate were over 11% and rising. Something most on this board could not fathom. In 1980 inflation spiked to 14%……..holly crap 14%!!!!!! Volcker took the strongest stance ever seen by the Fed and raised the Fed Funds rate to 20%……..20%!!!!!!!! Unemployment sky-rocketed to well over 10% and Volcker was one of the most hated men in the Country. Maybe even less popular than a very unpopular President Reagan. 1980 − 1982 were pretty tough times in this country because of this. I remember my parents bought a house in the early 80’s. What was their mortgage rate with good credit? 15%!! I currently pay 4%

The story has a happy ending though, especially for Republicans. Volcker crushed inflation (with a little help from Reagan cozying up with the Middle East) and the Fed Funds rate was lowered consistently through most the 80’s starting around the end of 1981. This brought unemployment down with it and a strengthening economy followed. Factor in that Reagan lowered taxes to the lowest levels in the post WWII era and massively increased defense spending through increased deficits and the economy was humming right along. Soooo….. With unemployment on a slow and steady path downward starting around 1982, folks happy with their recent tax breaks, and high savings rates for the previous 10 years, Americans were finally feeling pretty good. Reagan won in a landslide in 84’ with an unemployment rate higher than when he took office but on the decline.

Some here may want to argue everything that I am missing about Reagan’s first term. I don’t care. I just wanted to say, before you get all riled up about what a President did or did not do for the economy. It is the men and women of the Fed that are the true puppet masters.

..

--That inflation all stated as Iranian oil( a huge American sourse then) became unavailable after the revolution and OPEC decided to kick up then prices on their oil...... All of this is oil...gasoline, asphalt, ALL plastic including plastic sacks and styroform, a lot of insulation, roofing materials, almost all lubricants at that time and so much more which kicked up costs of materials and transportation on about everything... that caused the extreme inflation. . There is so much more but the increased cost of oil raised the price of everything including delivery costs. It was all about what was happening internationally and not so much what happened here.

---Our Government doesn't control OPEC or those countries and shouldn't... It is their country.. It all fell apart when they dropped prices and West Texas suffered greatly because oil companies had too much invested in oil field equiptmentincluding multi-million dollar rigs that just rusted and the oil industry wthen cheaper oil from the middle east flowed again... I live in the West Texas oil fields. Oil dropped below $10 a barrel in 80's and so many out here were out of work and banks going belly up.. There was no construction and those companies went broke as well as apartments that went empty. Lots of retail stores and restaurants just disappeared The Reagan years were the worse for us.... not so much for what he did but what OPEC did raising and dropping those prices... That craziness is not occuring out here again now... less 4% unemployment here but so much in oil industry is now pay as you go and not on credit as they did then.. Blaming or crediting either Carter or Reagan is mostly foolishness.... you needed to be here and see what happened to us and America as a result of Iran revolution and OPEC to completely understand... Even mega sized oil companies disappeared or merged do business under two names [ Exxon and Mobil for example ]... Seen any Gulf stations lately...??? That was the largest to go.

--All of the above caused W.Bush to move from Midland... he lived about a 1/2 mile from me. They then bought the Texas Rangers from a bankrupted oil-man... Eddie Chiles .... at a bargain.

Edited February 10, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66