U.S.A, Obama vs Romney, Obama re-elected

[Gord]

The choice
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 1
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.

It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.

Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.

And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.

Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.

Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolished welfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.

In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.

Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.

Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.

And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.

And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.

Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.

Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.

[markg]

You didn't inculde Gary Johnson or Roseanne Barr!

[cranky]

We ought to be worried about our own elections for next time. This is scary stuff.
A poll shows that 72% of canadians would vote for Obama. And the rest of the world is not far behind.http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/4746...a-and-britain/

[Mutter87]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Canadians need to be as nationalist as our friends to the south and start being a bit less concerned about the US and more concerned with Canada.
.

Americans are in no way shape or form nationalists, they are Patriots. There is a big difference.

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by cranky

We ought to be worried about our own elections for next time. This is scary stuff.
A poll shows that 72% of canadians would vote for Obama. And the rest of the world is not far behind.http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/4746...a-and-britain/

Why does this surprise you? The BS he used to get elected 4 years ago is still fresh in many Canadian minds. Don't let the level of 'awareness' by those who post on threads like this fool you into believing that the majority of Canadians are any more awake and well informed than the rest of the sheep down south.

As long as we have our SUV parked in the driveway of our suburban McMansion and Big Brother graces the evening airwaves, we're happy to remain oblivious and not care as the titanic sinks.

I would love to further poll that 72% and ask them what Obama has done over the past 4 years that they support. The answers would be downright hilarious I'm sure.

[Rocky7]

Gord - thanks for that post. A link would be nice, too.

Krauthammer is one of the very most intelligent people in the media on our continent.

[Gord]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d93_print.html

[pat brennan]

I didn't see where I was "rabidly" attacking others who disagree, I suspect you were not referring to me specifically.

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by pat brennan

I didn't see where I was "rabidly" attacking others who disagree, I suspect you were not referring to me specifically.

LOL that's in response to my response to your post.

No sir, I was not referring to you specifically I saw nothing in your post to disagree with

[Smokey]

Nice find Gord...

A poll verses who you think would win would be interesting...

[Grain]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Or Canada could decide to NOT sign that deal and US arms manufacturers could relocate here to take advantage of a growing economy.

Now that's an interesting theory.
Original topic, I really don't know, yet, who is going to win their election. I'm not yet conviced that a lot will change either way, and I suspect undecided US voters may think the same. For example, based on Romneys track record, I'm not conviced he too wouldn't sign the arms treaty. I would certainly say odds are less if he were in power, but not George W. less, LOL.

[rugatika]

As much as I hope Romney wins for the sake of Americans and America...part of me thinks that just one dose of Obama apparently wasn't enough for almost half the country to see what socialism does. Maybe they need another 4 years and another 6 trillion dollars in debt to convince them. BUT, then again, there are some people that will always believe the deeper the hole, the faster they need to dig. I have a feeling that those people could be staring down the barrel of a 30trillion dollar debt, and still be demanding food stamps, welfare, and of course...free cell phones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[aulrich]

A or B is irrelevant, the US economy will go Greek either way and implode.

Too bad we will get buried in the rubble as it comes raining down.

It should have been an easy republican win with the economy the way it is, but then they picked Mit the Twit. But then he probably was the best of the bunch it seems the republican gene pool need some chlorine.

Rob Anders makes me think the Fed PC's need some too.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by rugatika

As much as I hope Romney wins for the sake of Americans and America...part of me thinks that just one dose of Obama apparently wasn't enough for almost half the country to see what socialism does. Maybe they need another 4 years and another 6 trillion dollars in debt to convince them. BUT, then again, there are some people that will always believe the deeper the hole, the faster they need to dig. I have a feeling that those people could be staring down the barrel of a 30trillion dollar debt, and still be demanding food stamps, welfare, and of course...free cell phones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Is there debt problems going to be much different with Mitt? Both Republicans and Democrats like to dish out the corporate welfare.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Smokey

Is there debt problems going to be much different with Mitt?

Yes. Total American debt from George Washington to the start of Barack Obama's reign = about 10 trillion dollars. Total American debt after about 3 years and 8 months of Barack Obama's reign = just over 16 trillion dollars.

In less than 4 years he almost equalled the total accumulated debt for the entire history of the USA. Given a second term, I'd say that he would easily reach the double point.

[The Elkster]

Ummm yeah like any party that is all for maintaining massive military spending (the biggest line item on the US balance sheet and the biggest form of corporate and social wellfare in the US) is going to make a dent in the national debt. Niave is too weak a word LMFAO

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Yes.

How?

Any hint of real austerity could lead to revolt and crush whatever embers are left of their economy.

Tax increases aren't the republican way but if they went down that road they'd be further axeing consumer spending and ending up with the same result as the above.

Print more money ala the Fed? Hahah... that works great until a loaf of bread is fifty bucks.

I'm on your team here, sir, just think that neither of these candidates have any magic pills.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Ummm yeah like any party that is all for maintaining massive military spending (the biggest line item on the US balance sheet and the biggest form of corporate and social wellfare in the US) is going to make a dent in the national debt. Niave is too weak a word LMFAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Un...s_and_spending

[Smokey]

Important endorsement from Mr. Burns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Ep1LP9CXU

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Wulfespirit

How?

Any hint of real austerity could lead to revolt and crush whatever embers are left of their economy.

Tax increases aren't the republican way but if they went down that road they'd be further axeing consumer spending and ending up with the same result as the above.

Print more money ala the Fed? Hahah... that works great until a loaf of bread is fifty bucks.

I'm on your team here, sir, just think that neither of these candidates have any magic pills.

The best way to reduce debt is not through cuts OR increasing tax rates. The best way to reduce debt is to increase GDP. Give business people a stable economy, with KNOWN regulations, whatever they are, and they can plan for the future and the economy will prosper. A prosperous economy will lead to an increase in gov't revenues, (even if tax rates remain stable or even decline a bit).

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The best way to reduce debt is not through cuts OR increasing tax rates. The best way to reduce debt is to increase GDP. Give business people a stable economy, with KNOWN regulations, whatever they are, and they can plan for the future and the economy will prosper. A prosperous economy will lead to an increase in gov't revenues, (even if tax rates remain stable).

I think you're absolutely right.

But....

I think that ship has already sailed down there. If Romney stepped up and tried to create the exact environment you're talking about, it would be too late.

Their debt level is crushing and their deficit level can't be addressed without massive pain and social unrest. The socialist/entitlement/welfare culture is now too entrenched. The middle class whose spending drives the stable economy you speak of is without any wealth and living entirely on credit.

To me, 'fixing the system' at this point seems analagous to making design changes to the Titanic after its hit the iceberg.

A leader with integrity down their would openly and apologetically default on their massive debt (while trying to cushion the landing) and try and redesign the system based on a gold/commodity backed currency without the massive amount of federal regulatory bodies.

That won't happen.

Whoever is in power will ultimately print cash until the currency is destroyed... and that will be a mess.. to put it lightly.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Yes. Total American debt from George Washington to the start of Barack Obama's reign = about 10 trillion dollars. Total American debt after about 3 years and 8 months of Barack Obama's reign = just over 16 trillion dollars.

In less than 4 years he almost equalled the total accumulated debt for the entire history of the USA. Given a second term, I'd say that he would easily reach the double point.

Somewhere George W. is laughing. Obama did all 10 trillion on his own, and the Republicans fought them on all their corporate ballouts of the banks, trust companies, auto makers...

GOP and Dems were for Tarp, bailouts, etc.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Yes. Total American debt from George Washington to the start of Barack Obama's reign = about 10 trillion dollars. Total American debt after about 3 years and 8 months of Barack Obama's reign = just over 16 trillion dollars.

In less than 4 years he almost equalled the total accumulated debt for the entire history of the USA. Given a second term, I'd say that he would easily reach the double point.

And that will continue to accelerate under Mitt. You do understand debt and interest charges don't you? Ever increasing interest just gets rolled into the existing debt so the debt growth accelerates even with no new spending. ANY spending cuts to the degree that would be required to make a dent in the debt would kill the US economy. Of course they all sell a rosy picture. What else they gonna do to convince the suckers.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

And that will continue to accelerate under Mitt. You do understand debt and interest charges don't you? Ever increasing interest just gets rolled into the existing debt so the debt growth accelerates even with no new spending. ANY spending cuts to the degree that would be required to make a dent in the debt would kill the US economy. Of course they all sell a rosy picture. What else they gonna do to convince the suckers.

I don't even know if Ron Paul's pipedream to reduce military spending to Bush levels would make much to fix the economy. Government gotten so bloated down there I could only wish for Romney to come riding in on White Stallion.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Wulfespirit

I think you're absolutely right.

But....

I think that ship has already sailed down there. If Romney stepped up and tried to create the exact environment you're talking about, it would be too late.

Their debt level is crushing and their deficit level can't be addressed without massive pain and social unrest. The socialist/entitlement/welfare culture is now too entrenched. The middle class whose spending drives the stable economy you speak of is without any wealth and living entirely on credit.

To me, 'fixing the system' at this point seems analagous to making design changes to the Titanic after its hit the iceberg.

A leader with integrity down their would openly and apologetically default on their massive debt (while trying to cushion the landing) and try and redesign the system based on a gold/commodity backed currency without the massive amount of federal regulatory bodies.

That won't happen.

Whoever is in power will ultimately print cash until the currency is destroyed... and that will be a mess.. to put it lightly.

It all hinges on Romney's ability to instill confidence in the consumers, entrepeneurs and investors of America to invest and spend. There is a huge pool of capital that is currently parked waiting for a reason to be unleashed. Obama has been unable to convince these people that their risk will result in suitable profits to compensate them. They have, to put it lightly, been villified by Obama, and hardly feel the urge to invest in an economy controlled by a socialist who seems bent on punishing the wealthy, and stifling business expansion with an endless stream of punitive regulations(unless it's making solar panels or wind mills...OR supports a huge union)

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The best way to reduce debt is not through cuts OR increasing tax rates. The best way to reduce debt is to increase GDP. Give business people a stable economy, with KNOWN regulations, whatever they are, and they can plan for the future and the economy will prosper. A prosperous economy will lead to an increase in gov't revenues, (even if tax rates remain stable or even decline a bit).

hmmm talk about selective frickin' memory.


And who the F outsourced all the jobs that created the middle class and made the US the powerhouse that it was. Why is GDP down so much? All for a short term buck. Hahaha I'll give you a hint....it had something to do with the business owners and CEO's that predominantly vote conservative. The one's who lobbied to be allowed to gut the middle class and cared more about tomorrows bottom line vs the next twenty years. The free market has its good points but we are now seeing the ultimate result of that short term thinking.

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by rugatika

It all hinges on Romney's ability to instill confidence in the consumers, entrepeneurs and investors of America to invest and spend. There is a huge pool of capital that is currently parked waiting for a reason to be unleashed. Obama has been unable to convince these people that their risk will result in suitable profits to compensate them. They have, to put it lightly, been villified by Obama, and hardly feel the urge to invest in an economy controlled by a socialist who seems bent on punishing the wealthy, and stifling business expansion with an endless stream of punitive regulations(unless it's making solar panels or wind mills...OR supports a huge union)

Well I'm in agreement... that needed to happen a decade or two ago. Right now it just feels like we're talking about closing the barn door after the horses got out.

The type of growth they'd need at this point to address their debt/deficit would have to be staggering (aka impossible).

And if federal policy did somehow get the money flowing again... they'd quickly have another problem too (especially considering helicopter Ben's trillions of printing).. inflation ... massive (perhaps even hyper) inflation... the kind that'll make the Mexican peso be very sought after.....

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

And that will continue to accelerate under Mitt. You do understand debt and interest charges don't you? Ever increasing interest just gets rolled into the existing debt so the debt growth accelerates even with no new spending. ANY spending cuts to the degree that would be required to make a dent in the debt would kill the US economy. Of course they all sell a rosy picture. What else they gonna do to convince the suckers.

What makes you think I don't understand debt and interest charges? Interest is the 4th largest part of the American budget.

Tax revenues averaged approximately 18.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the 1970-2009 period, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level. Tax revenues are significantly affected by the economy. Recessions typically reduce government tax collections as economic activity slows. For example, tax revenues declined from $2.5 trillion in 2008 to $2.1 trillion in 2009, and remained at that level in 2010. During 2009, individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%. At 15.1% of GDP, the 2009 and 2010 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years

A return to 2008 tax revenue levels alone would cover almost double the annual interest charges.

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

hmmm talk about selective frickin' memory.


And who the F outsourced all the jobs that created the middle class and made the US the powerhouse that it was. Why is GDP down so much? All for a short term buck. Hahaha I'll give you a hint....it had something to do with the business owners and CEO's that predominantly vote conservative. The one's who lobbied to be allowed to gut the middle class and cared more about tomorrows bottom line vs the next twenty years. The free market has its good points but we are now seeing the ultimate result of that short term thinking.

The free market hasn't been 'free' in a long time. The problem is that governments worldwide have picked the winners and losers via policy, regulation, and bailouts. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Had the free market been allowed to operate without corrupt or downright stupid politicians getting their fingers in the mix, the US wouldn't have near the same problems they now face.

I agree that 'globalism' is not a concept that is friendly to the western world and needs to be controlled but outside of that... politicians should get the hell out of the way of the free market.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Wulfespirit

The type of growth they'd need at this point to address their debt/deficit would have to be staggering (aka impossible).

Not really. Not if spending is cut, too - especially entitlement spending.

And if federal policy did somehow get the money flowing again... they'd quickly have another problem too (especially considering helicopter Ben's trillions of printing).. inflation ... massive (perhaps even hyper) inflation... the kind that'll make the Mexican peso be very sought after.....

Double digit inflation now seems a certainty. It'll be tricky to fuel that fire and then be able to douse the flames before the entire farm is burned, but it seems like the only way. You can't pay back $16T U.S. dollars....and counting. (If Obama gets back in, it'll be $20T at least.)

I agree that you can pay back $16T pesos but probably can also repay $16T of something in between.