Why Romney Lost

[dustwun77]

In any case, I do believe we are in desperate need of some REAL recovery and some REAL reporting on the state we actually find ourselves in this country!

 

[dustwun77]

I think I've found the problem here. You don't understand that the US government isn't a parliamentary system, which is understandable since your country is parliamentary, and that's probably all you've ever known. But the US government is not parliamentary; the executive branch is not intertwined with the legislature. President Obama is not the leader of the majority party in Congress, and therefore can't command Congress to do his bidding. President Obama can't dissolve the government if it doesn't obey him. And most importantly of all, the President of the United States of America has no power or obligation to legislate.

I hope that helps you get that sorted.

As for the annual budget deficit, the US government can operate that way. There's no law saying that the federal budget must be balanced, unlike in many of the states.

He isn't supposed to legislate, obviously, he is in the Executive branch. He is supposed to lead and he has the power to veto.

The Legislature has not passed a budget his whole term in office. That is unacceptable and a blatant failure of leadership and good sense.

This failure can not be blamed wholly on the stubbornness of the GOP either. For a while, till the 2010 elections, his party controlled both Houses of Congress. If they aren't going to get the job done, they all ought to go home.

 

[ElasticNinja]

It appears to me that there is actually some merit to the argument that if you lower the tax rate that you do increase revenue.

I don't think we should raise taxes, I think we should keep them the same or even lower them and cut spending.

Regarding the revenue increases - if you create a massive budget deficit during healthy economic times, you will obviously increase tax revenues.

Making the deficit bigger is not the solution. Increasing taxes depresses the economy, as does cutting spending. The trick is to tax and cut in the least harmful ways, while being fair.

Increasing taxes on the top 33% is less economically negative than taxing the middle 33% more, for example.

Things like increasing taxes on alcohol, drugs (tobacco I guess), and fuels actually can have a net positive economic effect (nevermind the deficit reduction!), if smuggling etc is curtailed. Although excise increases do affect those on lower incomes more.

 

[Speed Daemon]

He isn't supposed to legislate, obviously, he is in the Executive branch. He is supposed to lead and he has the power to veto.

The Legislature has not passed a budget his whole term in office. That is unacceptable and a blatant failure of leadership and good sense.

And bearing that in mind, the failure in leadership is that of the leaders of the intransigent Republicans who closed ranks against the President, even flip-flopping on their own legislation. Those leaders: Boehner, McConnell, Cantor et al. are to blame, but not, as we agree, President Obama.

This failure can not be blamed wholly on the stubbornness of the GOP either.

I'm referring to the things that go a lot farther than mere stubbornness. I'm talking about a willful refusal to do their sworn duties.

For a while, till the 2010 elections, his party controlled both Houses of Congress.

That's not true. The Democratic majority in the Senate was nullified by the unprecedented and near-constant use of the filibuster and the secret hold by Republican Senators. During that period, the Democrats did not have the numbers to reach a supermajority and therefore was unable to control the Senate. Add to that the fact that the Democratic Party wasn't closing ranks as the Republicans were at the time, and not getting many Democratic victories in the House either. That's mighty far from "full control"!

If they aren't going to get the job done, they all ought to go home.

If you're talking about Congress, IMHO going home was part of the problem. They spent more time away from Capital Hill than they spent earning their salaries!

Every salaried job I've had docked my pay if I worked less than 40 hours a week. Maybe if we had docked their pay and suspended all privileges and benefits for time spent outside of the Capitol Building unless they put in a nominal 40 hours a week, every week, either in their D.C. offices or on the floor of their houses, we might have gotten Congress to do some work.

 

[dustwun77]

And bearing that in mind, the failure in leadership is that of the leaders of the intransigent Republicans who closed ranks against the President, even flip-flopping on their own legislation. Those leaders: Boehner, McConnell, Cantor et al. are to blame, but not, as we agree, President Obama.

I'm referring to the things that go a lot farther than mere stubbornness. I'm talking about a willful refusal to do their sworn duties.

That's not true. The Democratic majority in the Senate was nullified by the unprecedented and near-constant use of the filibuster and the secret hold by Republican Senators. During that period, the Democrats did not have the numbers to reach a supermajority and therefore was unable to control the Senate. Add to that the fact that the Democratic Party wasn't closing ranks as the Republicans were at the time, and not getting many Democratic victories in the House either. That's mighty far from "full control"!

If you're talking about Congress, IMHO going home was part of the problem. They spent more time away from Capital Hill than they spent earning their salaries!

Every salaried job I've had docked my pay if I worked less than 40 hours a week. Maybe if we had docked their pay and suspended all privileges and benefits for time spent outside of the Capitol Building unless they put in a nominal 40 hours a week, every week, either in their D.C. offices or on the floor of their houses, we might have gotten Congress to do some work.

Well then, perhaps, they should have put forth a budget proposal that could have been agreed upon and get over the idea that MY money is THEIR money and they can make any rules they want or spend it anyway they want!

 

[Speed Daemon]

Regarding the revenue increases - if you create a massive budget deficit during healthy economic times, you will obviously increase tax revenues.

How?

Making the deficit bigger is not the solution.

Nor is it the problem.

Increasing taxes depresses the economy, as does cutting spending.

President Clinton disagrees. He raised the tax rate and had a booming economy. During that time he paid down 60% of the debt run up during the Reagan/Bush/Gramm/Rudman years.

The trick is to tax and cut in the least harmful ways, while being fair.

The least harmful way to raise tax revenue (and we MUST increase revenue to affect the more important sovereign debt) is to raise taxes on those who will be least inconvenienced by the raises: the wealthy. And the least harmful cuts would be to cancel the various DOD war materiel purchases that our military doesn't even want. The most harmful would be kicking old people to the curb, which is all that the Republicans in Congress will talk about.

Things like increasing taxes on alcohol, drugs (tobacco I guess), and fuels actually can have a net positive economic effect (nevermind the deficit reduction!), if smuggling etc is curtailed. Although excise increases do affect those on lower incomes more.

Doing harm to the poor is unacceptable.

Right now the US has three factors that could be combined to create a win-win-win, as it did before when FDR and Obama did it. !. The US government can borrow at a negative interest rate, and use that money to save 2. our failing national infrastructure. Doing this will create 3. jobs, which will put people back to work, increase morale and consumer spending. The spending will generate revenue if we lit it happen, and the government will have its money back.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Well then, perhaps, they should have put forth a budget proposal that could have been agreed upon and get over the idea that MY money is THEIR money and they can make any rules they want or spend it anyway they want!

They aren't doing it on their own, and IIRC it would take a 75% majority to change the system to force them to.

That leaves us constituents. Want change? Write your Representatives and Senators and tell them to straighten up and fly right...or else!

 

[Speed Daemon]

I don't believe the answers to our problem are MORE taxes and no real cuts in spending. Especially when our spending is so far out of control.

Sorry I missed this.

How is our (I presume you mean our federal government) spending out of control? It's not like Congress has passed any new spending laws lately. Our nation's two biggest expenses are: 1. war, and 2. paying interest due on money borrowed for war and tax give-aways for the most profitable corporations and the wealthy.

We can end the war part faster if we really want to, but if we don't pay the interest on our sovereign debts, the nation will default on those loans and things will get real bad real fast.

None of this is a surprise. We knew going into Gulf War 2 unfunded, during a time of high interest rates that we'd be into debt as much as $30 trillion. Most of that is compounded interest.

 

[dustwun77]

They aren't doing it today, either, and, apparently, for the second year in a row, not even one Democrat would vote for Obama's budget.

BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0 - Guy Benson

I can't be reading that correctly, can I?

And one of the things it says is, " Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own. Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:..."

That can't be right, can it? This is all the fault of Bush and those dastardly Republicans who want to kill the old people.

 

[dustwun77]

And I am not an economist, so I had to look up some of this stuff,

Macroeconomic Impact of Military Spending | Costs of War

But is said, "...How much of the increase in federal indebtedness is due to war spending? By the end of 2011, deficit spending on OEF/OIF will have raised the ratio of debt to GDP by about 10 percentage points, or between a quarter and a third of the total increase. By 2020, the increase will be 20 percentage points if war spending and the rest of the budget continue as forecast.

There are many other reasons the debt has grown since 2001, including tax cuts, increases in other government spending, and the effects of the largest postwar recession and the policy response. But military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised annual deficits by about 1 percent of GDP, a trend that the Congressional Budget Office expects to continue through 2020.

Does the U.S. government have to pay interest on borrowing for the wars? How much? Interest is due because the government chose to finance the wars by borrowing rather than raising taxes or reducing other spending. The U.S. has already paid about $200 billion in interest on war spending over the last decade. If war spending continues as forecast by the CBO, the country can expect to have paid about $1 trillion in interest by 2020. That number grows if the effect of increased debt on interest rates and thus the cost of servicing all other debt are also included...."

We have run over a trillion dollar deficit every year of Obama's reign, er, I mean Presidency. I think some of that might be from poor handling of the recession and policy response.

 

[Speed Daemon]

They aren't doing it today, either, and, apparently, for the second year in a row, not even one Democrat would vote for Obama's budget.

(link with annoying pop-ups withheld)

I can't be reading that correctly, can I?

Your reading is OK, but the Republican propaganda website is lying by not telling the whole truth.

The whole truth is that 1.) the President isn't in Congress, and therefore can't submit a bill in either house, 2.) Congress voted down or filibustered away EVERY budget submitted, and 3.) it was the Republicans who introduced the so-called "Obama budget".

Senate games: Every budget goes down - Scott Wong - POLITICO.com

And one of the things it says is, " Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own. Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:..."

Just as the POTUS can't submit a bill, neither can a political party. If they're not naming names of the people sponsoring the bills, they're not being truthful. And again, because of the Republicans' unprecedented and copious use of the filibuster and secret hold, very few Democratic senators ever see their submissions go to a vote. I guess that right-wing website conveniently forgot that part.

House Democrats' Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: The Details | Bipartisan Policy Center

In the house, where there is no filibuster or secret hold, there is a budget. Because a bill has to pass both houses to become law, you can be assured that some Democratic senator is trying to get the bill to the senate floor.

No matter what Republicans say, the facts say that they're the only ones who are refusing to cooperate.

 

[Speed Daemon]

But is said, "...How much of the increase in federal indebtedness is due to war spending? By the end of 2011, deficit spending on OEF/OIF will have raised the ratio of debt to GDP by about 10 percentage points, or between a quarter and a third of the total increase.

LOL...that's a great obfuscation. What is that in dollars?

If the GDP was a measure of federal revenue instead of private sector profits that may or may not leave the coffers of the businesses, using the GDP as a measuring stick is only for high-level economists.

The costofwar.org website is nice, but it's not the principal that's worrying, it's the interest.

U.S. National Debt Clock

Notice the $15 trillion difference between the principle cost of war and the total national debt. Sure some of that is from paying Congress for not showing up for work and other government employees. But the sum total of those expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of maintaining the money borrowed for the tax give-aways and the wars. Although you have concentrated on the wars (not including "black" spending of course), it's the tax give-away that's the single largest budget-buster. The IRS is giving tax "refunds" to the most profitable corporations in the US.

 

[dustwun77]

Your reading is OK, but the Republican propaganda website is lying by not telling the whole truth.

The whole truth is that 1.) the President isn't in Congress, and therefore can't submit a bill in either house, 2.) Congress voted down or filibustered away EVERY budget submitted, and 3.) it was the Republicans who introduced the so-called "Obama budget".

Senate games: Every budget goes down - Scott Wong - POLITICO.com

Just as the POTUS can't submit a bill, neither can a political party. If they're not naming names of the people sponsoring the bills, they're not being truthful. And again, because of the Republicans' unprecedented and copious use of the filibuster and secret hold, very few Democratic senators ever see their submissions go to a vote. I guess that right-wing website conveniently forgot that part.

House Democrats' Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: The Details | Bipartisan Policy Center

In the house, where there is no filibuster or secret hold, there is a budget. Because a bill has to pass both houses to become law, you can be assured that some Democratic senator is trying to get the bill to the senate floor.

No matter what Republicans say, the facts say that they're the only ones who are refusing to cooperate.

In your own article it says, "For a third straight year, Senate Democrats refused to offer a budget resolution of their own

 

[dustwun77]

...
Does the U.S. government have to pay interest on borrowing for the wars? How much? Interest is due because the government chose to finance the wars by borrowing rather than raising taxes or reducing other spending. The U.S. has already paid about $200 billion in interest on war spending over the last decade. If war spending continues as forecast by the CBO, the country can expect to have paid about $1 trillion in interest by 2020. That number grows if the effect of increased debt on interest rates and thus the cost of servicing all other debt are also included...."

We have run over a trillion dollar deficit every year of Obama's reign, er, I mean Presidency. I think some of that might be from poor handling of the recession and policy response.

Right there, that is how much they said it was in dollars.

 

[dustwun77]

Some interesting points from your source:

House Democrats' Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: The Details | Bipartisan Policy Center

"...The House Democrats

 

[Rico ANDROID]

LOL...that's a great obfuscation. What is that in dollars?

If the GDP was a measure of federal revenue instead of private sector profits that may or may not leave the coffers of the businesses, using the GDP as a measuring stick is only for high-level economists.

The costofwar.org website is nice, but it's not the principle that's worrying, it's the interest.

U.S. National Debt Clock

Notice the $15 trillion difference between the principle cost of war and the total national debt. Sure some of that is from paying Congress for not showing up for work and other government employees. But the sum total of those expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of maintaining the money borrowed for the tax give-aways and the wars. Although you have concentrated on the wars (not including "black" spending of course), it's the tax give-away that's the single largest budget-buster. The IRS is giving tax "refunds" to the most profitable corporations in the US.

Right! And to add, this whole "over the cliff" gop disagreement is, again, their reaction first: because they couldnt impeach the President in his first term, second: they are angry their great hope couldnt convince America to accept their tactics, third: they are not about to give up one rich nickle for the sake of fairness and the country, fourth: simply want to make this all look likr its the Presidents fault so to make him look bad, fifth: they are just old angry rich stogies......but its good America sees the issue and sees exactly whose allowing this issue to escalate and know "why".... a lot have lost respect for republicans for this issue. They pushed the war that caused the inflation and will not bend out of arrogance to contribute.

Just likr the ceos of big business who rather see layoffs, souplines and people on the streets as a result of layoffs rather than take even a years cut and save jobs and hardships.....sad

 

[dustwun77]

Robert Heinlein:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded

 

[ElasticNinja]

How?

Because it will increase the amount of money in circulation among private interests, who will thus spend more, in turn generating more tax revenue.

Nor is it the problem.

Well it is, you can't simply continue to spend 9% of GDP without any basis in taxation.

President Clinton disagrees. He raised the tax rate and had a booming economy. During that time he paid down 60% of the debt run up during the Reagan/Bush/Gramm/Rudman years.

I never said it would stop the economy booming. I said it would have negative effects. And as it happened, the Clinton tax rises affected one of the least economically harmful categories. Of course I support tax rises.

The least harmful way to raise tax revenue (and we MUST increase revenue to affect the more important sovereign debt) is to raise taxes on those who will be least inconvenienced by the raises: the wealthy. And the least harmful cuts would be to cancel the various DOD war materiel purchases that our military doesn't even want. The most harmful would be kicking old people to the curb, which is all that the Republicans in Congress will talk about.

Given that misinformed, backwards old people are a Republican stronghold, I doubt they want to harm them too much. Republicans would rather put the burden on the bottom 50%.

Doing harm to the poor is unacceptable.

Increase some benefits the, to make up for the induced price inflation.
You cant just say its unacceptable. Undesirable yes, but everyone has to take a hit.

Right now the US has three factors that could be combined to create a win-win-win, as it did before when FDR and Obama did it. !. The US government can borrow at a negative interest rate, and use that money to save 2. our failing national infrastructure. Doing this will create 3. jobs, which will put people back to work, increase morale and consumer spending. The spending will generate revenue if we lit it happen, and the government will have its money back.

Unfortunately, much of the borrowing right now is to maintain current standards of living, rather than to promote investment. I agree about the negative interest rate, it makes sense for countries to borrow. A lot of countries have been stockpiling low interest money for this reason.

 

[Deleted User]

Heres my opinion on well fare though.. if you can work get a job. Don't just get the free crap from us, we don't want to support you from OUR money. It would go better to education or reducing the deficit than giving it to you so you can go buy an iPhone. I saw an interview the other day

" if I do it right I can be drawing by the time I'm 21. I'm 20 in a week so things are looking good so far. Obama will even give me one his phones too. Hell why wouldn't someone plan to do this"

Things like that just tick me off more and more... where is all that money going? To lazy people who need to get off there couch and work! Most aren't even injured

 

[Speed Daemon]

Right! And to add, this whole "over the cliff" gop disagreement is, again, their reaction first: because they couldnt impeach the President in his first term, second: they are angry their great hope couldnt convince America to accept their tactics, third: they are not about to give up one rich nickle for the sake of fairness and the country, fourth: simply want to make this all look likr its the Presidents fault so to make him look bad, fifth: they are just old angry rich stogies......but its good America sees the issue and sees exactly whose allowing this issue to escalate and know "why".... a lot have lost respect for republicans for this issue. They pushed the war that caused the inflation and will not bend out of arrogance to contribute.

Roughly a year ago the Republican majority in Congress decided to be intransigent about a.) making irresponsible demands with the full knowledge that the responsible people in US government would never agree to harming the American people. b.) demanding that the President (who had a lot of important matters on his plate) to drop everything to accommodate them, c.) abusing the President's good faith by storming out of his office without making any effort to do their elected jobs, d.) refusing to participate in any good faith negotiations about the budget. e.) putting together a committee that was designed to accomplish nothing at all, f.) not showing up for work when there was work to be done.

That's not reacting. The GOP members of Congress are the architects of what was and still is their refusal to do their jobs.

Yes, it does look like it was done for no other reason than to make political hay out of their misbehavior by blaming the President for not doing their jobs for them. And they're doing the exact same thing (with the same old props even) this year.

It was inexcusable then, and inexcusable now.

 

[dustwun77]

It sounds to me like you are proposing to borrow money and use it for a Stimulus.

Well, how did that work out the last couple of times?

First 2 years of this administration they concentrated on forcing through Obama care and did little or nothing to promote jobs besides Stimulus.

When I look at the graphic I see a miserable failure. The results are nowhere near what Obama said was going to happen and are in fact MUCH worse when you consider how many people who have completely dropped out of the workforce.

 

[dustwun77]

Roughly a year ago the Republican majority in Congress decided to be intransigent about a.) making irresponsible demands with the full knowledge that the responsible people in US government would never agree to harming the American people. b.) demanding that the President (who had a lot of important matters on his plate) to drop everything to accommodate them, c.) abusing the President's good faith by storming out of his office without making any effort to do their elected jobs, d.) refusing to participate in any good faith negotiations about the budget. e.) putting together a committee that was designed to accomplish nothing at all, f.) not showing up for work when there was work to be done.

That's not reacting. The GOP members of Congress are the architects of what was and still is their refusal to do their jobs.

Yes, it does look like it was done for no other reason than to make political hay out of their misbehavior by blaming the President for not doing their jobs for them. And they're doing the exact same thing (with the same old props even) this year.

It was inexcusable then, and inexcusable now.

Excuse me? It has been pointed out here numerous times that we have not had a budget in years. Yet we do keep spending money and it isn't all on war debt, either.

It has also been pointed out that the Republicans COULD NOT have stopped the Democrats from passing a budget if they had wanted to. It doesn't look like they want to .

It has also been shown that the Stimulus plan has not worked.

Time for something new, and not class warfare and it being 'Fair' for the government to take money that isn't theirs to blow on whatever ill advised scheme they can come up with next!

 

[Speed Daemon]

It sounds to me like you are proposing to borrow money and use it for a Stimulus.

Well, how did that work out the last couple of times?

It helped, which is why I'm all for continuing to do what works, and stop indulging people who make unacceptable proposals that do harm to US citizens.

First 2 years of this administration they concentrated on forcing through Obama care and did little or nothing to promote jobs besides Stimulus.

Who is "they" and why should I care?

As for President Obama, we know that he was doing many things. Here's a top 50 list for you.

 

[Gmash]

The stimulus helped keep us from going into a 2nd Great Depression. Sorry it wasn't a magic bullet to solve all of our problems. How quickly people forget how bad things actually were at that time.

 

[dustwun77]

It helped, which is why I'm all for continuing to do what works, and stop indulging people who make unacceptable proposals that do harm to US citizens.

Who is "they" and why should I care?

As for President Obama, we know that he was doing many things. Here's a top 50 list for you.

That list is mostly a bunch of nonsense. Improved America's Image abroad? With who?
Eliminated Osama Bin Laden, nope, he was sitting in some room in DC. Our military did that based upon information that had been years in the gathering.
Toppled Gaddafi? Well that worked out well, how about, Let our men in Bengazi die without lifting a finger?

How about playing golf? There is one that should be front and center.

And how about you trot out a little proof that the Stimulus would have been better than doing something else or even nothing?