The Democrats Are In HUGE Trouble

BubberMiley · April 13, 2010

If it would have been 20% otherwise, then it was a great success. Speculative numbers, however, are all just speculation.

Shady · April 13, 2010

If it would have been 20% otherwise

It wouldn't have been 20%. In fact, much of the stimulus still hasn't been spent. But we're suppose to believe that it stopped an economic collapse? Pffftt. :rolleyes:

punked · April 13, 2010

No. The reason unemployment is still high is because Obama's been smothering the private sector since taking office. In fact, more jobs were lost in the 2001 recession than during the current recession. But the difference was that during the 2001 recession, Bush had slashed taxes, and the economy continued to create at least some jobs, offsetting a bit of the losses. Under Obama, the economy has created barely any jobs, so the the losses haven't been offset. It's what happens when you smother the private sector, with new taxes, new regulations, and new government entitlements. Not to mention sucking $800 billion dollars out of the private sector, and then injecting it back in via government, and claiming that you're stimulating anything.

Actually Reagan Cut taxes huge in 81 and unemployment stayed at the levels we see under Obama for 3 years Shady. Again it is something Call HISTORY!

Smallc · April 13, 2010

No. The reason unemployment is still high is because Obama's been smothering the private sector since taking office.

Proof is such a useful thing.

BubberMiley · April 13, 2010

It wouldn't have been 20%.

We'll need the parallel universe machine to know for sure what would have happened. But you don't understand how investment works. Just the promise of liquidity creates a favourable environment for investment, so tomorrow's stimulus makes today a whole lot brighter.

Glad to help you with the elementary economics.

Shady · April 13, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending April 11 puts Republicans slightly ahead of Democrats, 48% to 44%, in the congressional voting preferences of registered voters nationally
Gallup

And also related...

Recession over? Economists panel isn't sure yet
WASHINGTON — Most mainstream economists think the nation's deep recession is over, but a special body that makes such a determination took a pass Monday, saying what many Americans intuitively feel, that the data remain inconclusive.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit group of economists, determines when recessions start and end as part of its work in calculating the peaks and troughs of the business cycle.

The bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee met last Friday and concluded that the jury is still out on the recession's end, announcing that decision on its Web site Monday

Link

The stimulus worked so well that the recession isn't even over yet! :rolleyes: :lol:

Epic fail.

sharkman · April 13, 2010

We'll need the parallel universe machine to know for sure what would have happened. But you don't understand how investment works. Just the promise of liquidity creates a favourable environment for investment, so tomorrow's stimulus makes today a whole lot brighter.

Glad to help you with the elementary economics.

Maybe you could help with this: Obama twisted arms and told all that it was crucial to get this thing passed immediately to keep the unemployment rate at 8%. And so both houses passed it without reading the stimulus, and it sat on his desk for 2 days because he took off for the weekend. So that's 2 days lost.

Then we find out that only around 15% percent of the bill is going to be spent in the first year. He says the economy is dying, and sure enough it was, but he only earmarks less than a fifth of the budget for the initial attempt to save the economy. And he missed his numbers, it went over 8 percent unemployed and has only recently showed signs of stability a full year later.

My question for you is this. If Obama had signed the bill right away and not left for the weekend, and if they had earmarked twice as much money for the then current year, isn't it quite possible that the economy would have stabilized more quickly, and before the unemployment numbers got to above 8%?

Edited April 13, 2010 by sharkman

GostHacked · April 13, 2010

I would agree, if the stimulus' purpose was to increase the Dow. But it wasn't. It was suppose create jobs. More specifically, it was designed to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. What's the unemployment rate again?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Well if the Republicans get in power next time, and crap goes wrong are you still going to blame Obama?

punked · April 14, 2010

HEY SHADY AND SHARKMAN We have had our first house race after Health care past. Guess what the sky didn't fall and the Democrats won it and only by 30 something % of the vote. Guess what you set the bar high and have already had a blow to that bar setting. YOU LOSE THE FIRST HOUSE RACE OF THIS ROUND.

BOCA RATON, Fla. – A Democratic state senator on Tuesday handily won the first U.S. House race since Congress passed a massive health care overhaul, beating a decidedly underdog Republican who tried to use the backlash against the measure to pull an upset.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Florida state Sen. Ted Deutch had 62 percent of the vote compared to 35 percent for Republican Ed Lynch. No-party candidate Jim McCormick trailed far behind with just 3 percent. The Associated Press called the race just about two hours after the polls closed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_el_ho/us_congress_wexler_s_seat

Shady · April 14, 2010

HEY SHADY AND SHARKMAN We have had our first house race after Health care past. Guess what the sky didn't fall and the Democrats won it and only by 30 something % of the vote. Guess what you set the bar high and have already had a blow to that bar setting. YOU LOSE THE FIRST HOUSE RACE OF THIS ROUND.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_el_ho/us_congress_wexler_s_seat

Wexler's seat is in a deep blue district. The Dems aren't necessarily gonna have problems in those areas. It's the 50+ seasts they hold in districts that voted for McCain. You're talking apples and oranges. Probably on purpose.

How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?
that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

RCP

punked · April 14, 2010

Wexler's seat is in a deep blue district. The Dems aren't necessarily gonna have problems in those areas. It's the 50+ seasts they hold in districts that voted for McCain. You're talking apples and oranges. Probably on purpose.

You do know the Demographics for this area are leaning toward the elderly after all the Republican Fear mongering on death panels the Republicans ran against HCR and the Dem embraced it. It wasn't even close this is a +22 dem seat and he won by more the 30 points should tell you something.

Shady · April 14, 2010

You do know the Demographics for this area are leaning toward the elderly after all the Republican Fear mongering on death panels the Republicans ran against HCR and the Dem embraced it. It wasn't even close this is a +22 dem seat and he won by more the 30 points should tell you something.

No, what should really tell you something is the +dem senate seat in Mass that went to Brown, and the +dem gov in NJ that went to Christie. But please, don't take off your rose-coloured glasses on my account.

punked · April 14, 2010

No, what should really tell you something is the +dem senate seat in Mass that went to Brown, and the +dem gov in NJ that went to Christie. But please, don't take off your rose-coloured glasses on my account.

AND THEN HEALTH CARE PASSED. Game changed.

Shady · April 14, 2010

AND THEN HEALTH CARE PASSED. Game changed.

Yes, the game certainly changed, hasn't it? :lol:

Adding to Democratic woes, people have grown increasingly opposed to the health care overhaul in the weeks since it became law; 50 percent now oppose it, the most negative measure all year
AP

punked · April 14, 2010

Yes, the game certainly changed, hasn't it?

Yep winning races now instead of losing.

April 15, 2010

More bad news punked...
Bart Stupak to Retire

Link

Looks like there's no room for moderates in the Democrat party.

Don't know why you perceive that as good news as Stupak retiring opens the door for another Democrat to be elected, when chances are he wouldn't have been re-elected.

Shady · June 28, 2010

Wow!

Brown outpolls Kerry, Obama
US Senator Scott Brown, who only months ago was a little-known figure even within the tiny band of Republicans in the state Senate, not only catapulted to national stature with his upset US Senate victory, but is today the most popular officeholder in Massachusetts, according to a Boston Globe poll.

Link

dre · June 28, 2010

Its barely even relevant which whether the democrat or republic crime family wins the election in the US. Americans will get hosed either way.

bush_cheney2004 · June 28, 2010

Its barely even relevant which whether the democrat or republic crime family wins the election in the US.....

It's completely irrelevant for you!

dre · June 28, 2010

It's completely irrelevant for you!

Its irrelevant for Americans too.

bush_cheney2004 · June 28, 2010

Its irrelevant for Americans too.

No, you said it was barely relevant above. So I think you are confused about politics in a foreign country...maybe try China instead!

Shady · June 28, 2010

Its barely even relevant which whether the democrat or republic crime family wins the election in the US. Americans will get hosed either way.

This is a classic intellectually lazy argument.

BubberMiley · June 29, 2010

This is a classic intellectually lazy argument.

At least it isn't (sub-)intellectually dishonest, and it's also absolutely true. :lol:

dre · June 29, 2010

This is a classic intellectually lazy argument.

No its simply the truth. Americans have a very low opinion of their government in general, and give it a very low approval rating on a BIPARTISAN basis no matter which party is in charge. This is because the political system itself is profoundly broken and highjacked, and results in poor outcomes for Americans regardless of which party is elected.

Heres a quick quote...

Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century.

80% of Americans think their government is a useless piece of shit that doesnt and wont solve any of their problems or do their job competently. They arent disapproving of either party but the political system itself and the results it gets them.

No matter which party is in power, you can bank on them not doing a single thing of significant value. So it really doesnt make much difference.

Edited June 29, 2010 by dre

Shady · June 29, 2010

80% of Americans think their government is a useless piece of shit that doesnt and wont solve any of their problems or do their job competently.

No, what they're saying is that they don't trust massive federal bureaucracies to fix problems. Which is absolutely true. By definition, massive bureaucracies are inefficient. The problem is, that Democrats always wanna make the already massive federal bureaucracy bigger. Just making it more and more wasteful and inefficient.