I really don’t want to participate in an All-Recovering-Republican-All-The-Time thread, but it seems this is the place to mention that Obama and his advisers look to me to be giving an impression of not only out of touch, but actively in denial. If Obama really believes Goolsbee’s condescending nonsense about how Americans are too simple-minded to pay attention to unemployment figures, he looks set to not only to lose but to implode next year, the moment he’s confronted with any serious challenge to his bubble of fantasy.
Why do you need to make it a personal issue, esepcially when you are essentially conceding I’m right?
The ironic thing was I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until fairly recently. I thought he was essentially right on health care and I think we do need to roll back the Bush Tax cuts. But his lack of concern on this issue, his arrogance in not realizing that the mood in the country has shifted.
I go back to Bill Clinton. When he lost congress in 1994, he went into “triangulation” mode. In short, he co-opted parts of the GOP agenda that suited him (deficit reduction, welfare reform) while opposing other parts that were not as popular. (Jesus, I’m using Clinton as a good example?) Same with Bush-43. He lost congress, but still found ways to get things done, like the surge, by co-opting parts of their message.
Obama seems to want to retreat into his “Happy Place” where 2010 didn’t happen.
'Cause you’re a tiresome wanker who contributes nothing but insists on dominating the conversation. A blowhard. Someone who repels even those who’d be your ostensible allies in your wearisome little zero sum game.
Clear enough?
I feel the anger rising within you…with every moment you become more my servant… turn to the dark side!
Hey, hey, Mr. Moderator, what was that about not insulting other members again?
Since you won’t visit the BBQ Pit thread dedicated in your name, I’m more than happy to risk a warning to tell you to your face that you are ruining this forum. BTW, idiot, I’ve been conservative likely longer than you’ve been alive.
Unlikely… since I’m about 50. Unless you are claiming you’ve been conservative since 1962 and Goldwater redefined it.
And frankly, the thing is, I used to be conservative, now I consider myself a pragmatist. I go with the solution that works. If the liberal idea works better, I support the liberal idea. If the conservative idea works better, I support the conservative idea.
Average people don’t pay half of what they make to the government. They don’t pay anything close to that. Not to mention that, for the vast majority of people, federal taxes have decreased under Obama. Right now, Americans are paying an historically low amount. Frankly, if you Teabag pussies just sacked the fuck up and started paying a little fucking tax for a change you wouldn’t be so deep in the fucking hole. God, you people irritate me :mad:
You know, this is one of those things I see, and it always amazes me.
Yup, working folks are probably only paying about 11% in income tax, and the wealthy do pay more.
But then when you get into all the other taxes - Social Security (6% and 6% matched by your employer) Medicare (1% and 1% matched by your employer) and State income tax (5% here in Illinois) Then you are getting closer about 23-30% depending on how you count it.
But wait, there’s more. You have sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, fees, licenses, property taxes, and so on. Add those all up, and really, yeah, you are darned close to giving half of what you make to the government.
Now this is where I think “conservatives” have really fouled it up. They cut taxes before cutting government, and in effect, just made government more attractive. Look at all the goodies they get, and they don’t have to pay for it.
I’m not a “Teabag pussy” but I’m going to reply to this anyway. So you’re saying that more taxes will fix everything? How about a whole lot less spending out of the government? How about you pay more, since you think that’s the right thing to do? I’m sure the government will be happy to cash that check you’re going to send them.
I should have known that even this thread wouldn’t be able to stay on topic.
Koxinga, Recovering Republican, both of you need to stop the personal comments about each other or any other posters right now.
twickster, Elections moderator
It must be nice to be able to make stew from one oyster.
Well, it’s a pretty big oyster…
Also, please go back to my 1:55 post from yesterday, where I listed a whole bunch of other bread and butter kitchen table stats which look pretty bad for Obama.
At the end of the day it’s this. This election will be decided by the independent voter who will look at 9.1 unemployment, which effects him directly even if he has a job. (bosses can skimp on raises, he always has to worry he can be replaced with someone who’ll work cheaper.) He looks at his house, which is worth half of what he paid for it in 2007, but he’s still has 25 years of mortgage payments and can’t sell. It costs him $50.00 to fill up the gas tank.
And he’s got a choice between Obama, who promised us sincerely that unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%, and Rick Perry (who has grown jobs in his state) or Mitt Romney (who produced a lot of private sector jobs and knows how to run a business.)
I’m not one of these jokers who thinks that Obama is a secret Kenyan plant by George Soros to destroy America. (Seriously, go to Town Hall some time, or RealClearPolitics). I do think what is obvious is that the man is out of his depth.
I’m not confident that enough Americans are confident that a Republican could do any better.
Then I would say that you are looking at it like a partisan.
Let’s be clear. about 45% of the electorate will always vote for the Democrat, and about 45% will always vote for the Republican.
It’s that 10% in the middle that swing it.
About 10 milion votes (of 130 million cast) separated Obama from McCain.
Really, you only need 5 million of those to switch sides or be fed up with Obama for the Republican to win.
When you count up all the people who are 1) Unemployed, 2) stuck in jobs they hate because there’s really nothing better out there 3) like their jobs, but are frustrated that the poor economic conditions don’t have wages keeping up with inflation- uh, yeah, I think you can find enough people to switch their vote.
And you only need 5 million of those to be fed up with the Republicans for Obama to win. Your point?
A Canadian, actually.
The electoral college muddies things up a bit, but granted.
Yeah, but that doesn’t address my point - are they likely to conclude that a Republic president will do better by them? I figure some percentage of the American electorate is always going to be unsatisfied but it’s unclear to me that this consistently translates to voting out the incumbent (or least the incumbent’s party). Are there significant numbers of dissatisfied Americans who voted Dole-Bush-Kerry-Obama in the last four elections and can be counted on to add <2012 Republican Candidate> in the next?
I guess time will tell, of course.
Republicans aren’t in the White House. The running against Congress angle sometimes works, but not usually.
I can’t emphasize this enough. Right now, Obama might be able to make a little traction by villifying Boehner the way Clinton villified Newt.
Except Obama isn’t as crafty as Clinton and Boenher isn’t a walking gaffe machine like Newt was then or is now. But let’s say he actually is able to pull this off.
Well, it worked well for Clinton because Gingrich had to work hand in hand with Bob Dole, and Bob Dole was the nominee. It would be hard to link Boehner directly to any GOP hopeful except maybe Bachmann (because she’s a Congressperson). More likely, the GOP will nominate a Governor. - Romney or Perry.
The second reason why this won’t work. Besides having Ross Perot undermining Dole’s base (again, something that won’t be replicated this time), Clinton could point to a good economy. He brought unemployment down from 7.3 when he beat Bush-41 to 5.2.
@ Chronos -
Let me build on that past point. Approval of Congress almost always ends up being a reflection on the president. For instance, in November 2008, approval of Congress dipped to 18% while some 70% disapproved. Now, you would think that would have had serious consequences for Reed and Pelosi, but it didn’t. Quite the contrary, the Dems made serious gains in both houses, even better than they did in 2006.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
Oh, this canard again. Obama doesn’t set the price of gasoline; the market does. There is a rapidly expanding base, worldwide, of people ready to consume gasoline. The supply can’t keep up with the demand, and likely never will. If you think paying $4.00 per gallon is bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.