Obama or Romney, either way we're screwed.

Politics & Elections
1

If Obama wins, will the Reps continue to hold a gun to the head of the economy? Boehner said that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one term president, would they relent if his term reached its limit, or would they stand defiant as the economy tanks, all in the name of “It was Obama’s administration that let this happen?”

If Romney wins, is the economy going to magically improve? Are the Dems in charge just too stupid to see what would make everything sunshine and lollipops? The wealthy and corporations would get a boost, it’s almost written in the Repub charter these days. Can Romney affect changes on the European market to a degree where it helps the US? The answer everyone will agree on is no.

Romney would begin attacking Obamacare, other standing laws and bills, and then do what? Repeal all sorts of stuff, hand out favors to friends? Herman Cain at least had his 666 plan. Wait, I read that upside down, his 999 plan. Romney has “I made a lot of money as a business man”. Fine. You can’t buy and sell things as President though. Budget input yes, buying other nations no.

IMO Sarah Palin’s “How’s that hopey changey thing going for ya” *paraphrased. Speaks more about the general system that Washington runs by, rather than who is POTUS. This is obvious to most people.

WTF is Romney going to do other than appease the people that dislike Obama for whatever reason? Socially conservative issues? Really? Gays getting married is on the same level as fixing the national economy?

The economy can’t accelerate recovery until the rest of the world gets its shit together, and it’s going to be a slow road no matter what.

Do we choose the guy that’s been at the helm of a slow but steady upturn economically, or do we jump ship and go with the guy that 'knows business" and has no plan to speak of?

I think that the ineffectiveness of congress is starting to make them worry about their seats, and may drive them to act. Changing drivers won’t speed up recovery at all.

It could be worse, one of the other crack pots could have been in contention.

Please forgive any inaccuracies within, this is my first post of this nature.

2

It was actually McConnell who said their job was to make him a one-termer, wasn’t it?

So when he’s re-elected, all the Republicans will resign in disgrace. With their new majority, the Democratic congress and senate will fix the economy.

Note: this can ONLY happen with an Obama victory in November. So be sure to tell all of your friends how important it is that President Obama be re-elected.

And stop saying “Obamacare.” It is a slur.

3

Actually the West Wing and Chicago have both embraced it.

ETA: And so have I! It’s just so dang catchy!

4

Is this yet another variant of the “both sides are the same” meme?

Because they are not and it’s lazy.

If this is another variant of BSAB (both sides are bad), I can at least understand that frustration… I disagree with it though.

5

No. Supply shocks are tricky to address, but that’s not our problem. Enhancing the long run potential growth trend is challenging, but that’s not our immediate problem. What we have is a shortage of demand.

The fix is straightforward. We need to do some mix of enhanced spending, broad based tax cuts, and monetary easing. Where do we get the money? The treasury issues bonds and the Fed buys them. It’s really that simple. With unemployment above 8%, worrying that inflation might top 2.5% or heck 4.5% is silly.

The economics of deficit spending changes once we near NAIRU. But that problem is in our future.

6

Yes, the rate on the 10 year t note is down near 1.5% now! It’s almost like free money. Surely the return on investment for any infrastructure projects or an investment in education will top that.

7

Actually there are lots of things you can sell as POTUS, oil rights, land, government contracts. Its just that coming in as a CEO making a profit for the primary share holders (or rich super PAC contributors) and then leaving a dying husk, is a bit more consequential when you are talking about a nation rather than a steel company

Read the OP again, he is definitely not saying both sides are equal. The point is even if Obama is re-elected he’ll still not be able to get anything through congress with Republicans thwarting anything he tries.

8

I worked at the poll table for a local precinct during the Tuesday primary. We were told to ask all non partisan voters if they wanted to cross over and vote for the pres. candidates in the A.I. or Democatic parties (Repubs would not allow crossovers) or just stay NP. One guy replied, “I don’t like any of 'em. How about THAT?”

I feel the same way. However, there is no ballot for the I-don’t-like-any-of-'em-how-about-THAT party.

9

Assuming there will be a viable Obamacare after the SCOTUS ruling this summer… And if he tries to dismantle it, he might find that Obamacare is his Guantanamo closing.

But you forget that Romney was a governor of a state, too. He’s got a lot of executive experience, which is what you need to be president.

I’m not too worried about a Romney presidency, so long as the Dems keep control of the Senate. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they gain seats in the midterms after a Romney win. But I think Romney will be a mostly pragmatic, hard working executive. He’s not my choice, but I’m happy he is the GOP nominee instead of almost any of the others.

10

Even if this is true (and I will not concede this point) I would rather have someone in the White House who will try and make policy that helps me (me = middle class) and the majority of the country (majority = lower middle to upper middle class) and maybe fails to get a lot of it done thanks to an obstructionist Congress than someone who wants to make policy that hurts me and people like me and will have the assistance of a willing Congress to do so.

I will also not concede the point because I am willing to be there will be a different Obama in a second term, should he win it. No, I don’t mean the “secret plan” bullshit that the Right has been buggering on about; I mean that he does not have to be as diplomatic as he was in his first term. He can be more willing to go to bat instead of compromise. He can be stronger in statements and action.

But even if I am wrong, a stereotypically spineless Democrat in the White House is still better than a Republican with conviction of his bad ideas.

11

Well, Harry Reid at least has had a Damascus conversion: http://thehill.com/video/senate/231465-reid-ill-just-bet-you-there-will-be-filibuster-filibuster-changes-if-obama-dems-win-in-november
A frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he and other Democrats would likely push for changes to Senate filibuster rules if the Democrats hold the Senate in November, and blamed Republican obstructionism for forcing these changes.
…

“We can no longer go through this, every bill, filibusters on bills that they agree with. It’s just a waste of time to prevent us from getting things done,” he added.
More details: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/harry_reid’s_filibuster_rage/singleton/

Filibuster reform could help a lot. We would still have the problem of executive appointments: for example Obama is the only President with more judicial vacancies 4 years into his term than he did in the beginning of it. I doubt though whether the country is ready to abolish the filibuster, which IMHO they should.

Good treatment of the filibuster: The filibuster: let's talk about it - The Atlantic The significant thing about filibusters through most of U.S. history is that they hardly ever happened. But since roughly the early Clinton years, the threat of filibuster has gone from exception to routine, for legislation and appointments alike, with the result that doing practically anything takes not 51 but 60 votes. So taken for granted is the change that the nation’s leading paper can offhandedly say that 60 votes are “needed to pass their bill.” In practice that’s correct, but the aberrational nature of this change should not be overlooked.

12

Agreed. That explanation sounded better than my “It was always gonna be Romney, and I guess that’s the best opponent to hope for in case we blow it and lose.”

This is what I’m hoping for. Well put.

13

David Frum Tweeted (or maybe retweeted) the other day…

The ultimate point was that if Romney ended up winning, then Republicans could finally abandon the charade about caring about the deficit and government spending and maybe the economy could finally get the help it needed.

14

Up to three supreme court justices my retire in the next four years.

Do you really want Romney filling those slots?

15

I’m planning to vote for Obama. Are you trying to dissuade me from doing that? :slight_smile:

16

Is this a trick question? Yes.

17

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that the Republicans have revamped the Constitution by threatening fillibuster. Thus, it takes 60 votes, not 51, to pass any legislation through the Senate.

I see two outcomes that:
(1) The Democrats win enough seats to have the 60 votes, as well as having Obama re-elected. Thus, Dems, it’s not enough to re-elect Obama: you also gotta get a HUGE majority in the Senate.
(2) Whoever wins the Presidensity, the Republicans have now taught the Democrats how to block everything. The President alone can’t pass legislation; if Romney is elected but the Republicans don’t have MORE THAN 60 SEATS in the Senate, they won’t be able to get anything done either. Sauce for the goose, and all.

18

The flaw in that theory is that Dems generally lack the party discipline to vote as a unit much of the time. It’s easier for the GoP to pick up a few Dem votes than vice versa.

19

Purgatory is waking up every morning for the rest of eternity and finding out that Jimmy Carter is still POTUS. :eek:

20

That may be more a function of having a majority than which particular party it is. Yes, in general, the Republicans have better party discipline, but it’s really, really hard to get a majority in the Senate without a few so-called moderates. And as the Republicans continue their Tea Party purge of moderate candidates, their chances of regaining a majority decreases. As the Dems lose seats, it’s probably the more moderate ones that will go, making party discipline easier to enforce.