or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When is the GOP going to recover??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When is the GOP going to recover?? - Page 8

Poll Results: When will the GOP find a new direction and recover some power?

 
  • 37% (6)
    10 years from now
  • 0% (0)
    15 years from now
  • 6% (1)
    25 years from now
  • 0% (0)
    half a century from now
  • 56% (9)
    in the 22th century
16 Total Votes  
post #281 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

An interesting article on the thread topic.

Give it a read.

Yes! Hence we need both sides. We're just not in the part of the cycle now that favors conservatives and won't be for awhile.

And I don't agree that all liberals do is deplete the coffers. We're in a situation that was created during a time of supposed conservatism. That's really at the heart of the problem.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #282 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

An interesting article on the thread topic.

Give it a read.

You can put me in the reformist column.
post #283 of 316
About that most recent Republican president here's an article that illustrates a point I argued many times on this forum about the Iraq war.

http://nymag.com/news/features/19147/

Quote:
What If 9/11 Never Happened?

Quote:
Yet if a war against Islamofascism was unavoidable, the same cant be said of the other war in which were currently, tragically, ensnared. Although many of the neocons in George W. Bushs administration had long nurtured fantasies of invading Iraq, 9/11 was the sine qua non for the transformation of those dreams into policy. Without the specter of the gruesome atrocity at the World Trade Center, Bush would likely have been unable to induce either Tony Blair or Colin Powell to support him and his doctrine of preemptionand without the complicity of those two, his designs on Baghdad would almost certainly have been stalled in their tracks.

An interesting read.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #284 of 316
Like so many conservatve critics, Ms USA judge loves lobbing the critics but doesn't like them put back in his face and when they are, he resorts to what would easily be labeled hate speech if it were directed at him. When the words which he easily admits here were intended to incite actually do incite violence, it of course, isn't his fault.

Defamer

When is the GOP going to recover? Probably pretty quick because the hypocrisy of the utopians is quickly being revealed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #285 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Like so many conservatve critics, Ms USA judge loves lobbing the critics but doesn't like them put back in his face and when they are, he resorts to what would easily be labeled hate speech if it were directed at him. When the words which he easily admits here were intended to incite actually do incite violence, it of course, isn't his fault.

Defamer

When is the GOP going to recover? Probably pretty quick because the hypocrisy of the utopians is quickly being revealed.

They'll recover when they get a clue as to why they need to recover. Not before.

You can plan on it soon if you want but I wouldn't hold your breath. Not unless you're fond of the color blue.

Oh! About John Heilemann :

Quote:
John Heilemann is a contributing editor at New York Magazine, where he writes The Power Grid column on national politics, business, and their intersection. He is the author of "Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and End of the Microsoft Era" and a National Magazine Award finalist for his reporting on the Microsoft antitrust case.

A former staff writer for The Economist, The New Yorker, and Wired, his work has appeared as well in Vanity Fair, GQ, Time, and Business 2.0. He appears regularly on The Chris Matthews Show, Charlie Rose, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and other national television programs. His four-part documentary on the rise of the Web appears on the Discovery Channel this winter.

http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs...ew/e_spkr/1891
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #286 of 316
I have a nice challenge for our friends on the left here declaring that the GOP needs to moderate itself to win votes.

Who is the last moderate GOP candidate to win a presidential contest and who ran as a moderate?

McCain came from the Senate and is considered a moderate Republican. He lost.
W. Bush won two terms.
Bob Dole is a moderate Republican who added Kemp as a supply-sider to boost conservative credentials. He lost.
Bush 41 ran as an extention of Reagan and won. Then moderated and lost within one term. (He raised taxes)
Reagan won two terms.

Where is this supposedly winning strategy as a moderate Republican? Can someone point out who has won with it since it is supposed to be such a winning idea?

Obama won running on a tax cut for 95% of the population. When Democrats won in 2006, they ran on fiscal responsibility, ending corruption and PAYGO.

I'm just wondering why people keep advocating to take a direction I haven't seen anyone win at taking.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #287 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I have a nice challenge for our friends on the left here declaring that the GOP needs to moderate itself to win votes.

Who is the last moderate GOP candidate to win a presidential contest and who ran as a moderate?

McCain came from the Senate and is considered a moderate Republican. He lost.
W. Bush won two terms.
Bob Dole is a moderate Republican who added Kemp as a supply-sider to boost conservative credentials. He lost.
Bush 41 ran as an extention of Reagan and won. Then moderated and lost within one term. (He raised taxes)
Reagan won two terms.

Where is this supposedly winning strategy as a moderate Republican? Can someone point out who has won with it since it is supposed to be such a winning idea?

Obama won running on a tax cut for 95% of the population. When Democrats won in 2006, they ran on fiscal responsibility, ending corruption and PAYGO.

I'm just wondering why people keep advocating to take a direction I haven't seen anyone win at taking.

We haven't said they need to moderate. Only you've said that. What we have said is that they need to reform and drop the more extreme elements : The Limbaughs, Newts, Bushes, McSames, you can keep the Palin for comiic relief ( just kidding ), and get some people in there that really care about solving the issues and not just blaming others for their mistakes. You know real statesman who care more about the issues than negative showmanship and mudslinging. People that are in touch with the American voter today.

But you're not interested in saving the party are you? You're just interested in the return to what we've already had from them for so long now.

Maybe just maybe if they became real Republicans again that had something to offer the public you might get a few votes again ( even win a few elections ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #288 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

We haven't said they need to moderate. Only you've said that. What we have said is that they need to reform and drop the more extreme elements : The Limbaughs, Newts, Bushes, McSames, you can keep the Palin for comiic relief ( just kidding ), and get some people in there that really care about solving the issues and not just blaming others for their mistakes. You know real statesman who care more about the issues than negative showmanship and mudslinging. People that are in touch with the American voter today.(aka the moderates but not that name, just the definition)

But you're not interested in saving the party are you? You're just interested in the return to what we've already had from them for so long now.

Maybe just maybe if they became real Republicans again that had something to offer the public you might get a few votes again ( even win a few elections ).

moderate - 1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression.

We're not saying you need to moderate. We're just saying you have to undertake the definition of moderate but we won't call it that.

The rest is same shit, different post. You...you...you... name calling, name calling, caricature, caricature.

Thanks for totally avoiding the point, and fixating on a bunch of personal attacks again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #289 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

moderate - 1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression.

We're not saying you need to moderate. We're just saying you have to undertake the definition of moderate but we won't call it that.

The rest is same shit, different post. You...you...you... name calling, name calling, caricature, caricature.

Thanks for totally avoiding the point, and fixating on a bunch of personal attacks again.

Ok so I guess some here will never get it and are a lost cause. Well while conservative numbers decrease and they can't figure out why I suggest they think about the fact that just because their numbers are small just saying they're right and we're wrong doesn't make it the truth.

However one truth is right now Obama is more like what the voting public want.

Hows that?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #290 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok so I guess you'll never get it and are a lost cause. Well while your numbers decrease and you can't figure out why I suggest you think about the fact that just because your numbers are small just saying you're right and we're wrong doesn't make it the truth.

However one truth is right now Obama is more like what the voting public want.
(logical fallacy)

Oh look I mentioned " We're " also! You're a Republican aren't you? You're the one who's post I'm replying to aren't you and talking about the ideas you put forth aren't I?. So how can I keep from mentioning you? Sorry.

You don't address the ideas I put forth. You address how you think I'm whatever nonsense you have in your head.(desperate, off the rails, etc.)

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

You keep claiming all these things using a fallacy. Fallacies cannot be facts. Fallacies cannot be the truth. Claiming one does not "get" a fallacy is the height of irony. Fallacies cannot be used to disprove anything.

fal·la·cy (fl-s)
n. pl. fal·la·cies
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.


Because I won't buy the lie, you've resorted to a number of personal attacks. Please stop. Winning a popularity contest makes you popular and nothing else. It doesn't make anyone or anything right.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #291 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You don't address the ideas I put forth. You address how you think I'm whatever nonsense you have in your head.(desperate, off the rails, etc.)

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

You keep claiming all these things using a fallacy. Fallacies cannot be facts. Fallacies cannot be the truth. Claiming one does not "get" a fallacy is the height of irony. Fallacies cannot be used to disprove anything.

fal·la·cy (fl-s)
n. pl. fal·la·cies
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.


Because I won't buy the lie, you've resorted to a number of personal attacks. Please stop. Winning a popularity contest makes you popular and nothing else. It doesn't make anyone or anything right.

Quote:
Because I won't buy the lie

What lie is that? Are you calling Obama a liar or me?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #292 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What lie is that? Are you calling Obama a liar or me?

The lie is the fallacy. Obama is right because Obama won the election, is popular, because the Republicans didn't win, etc. All forms of reasoning around that popularity premise are fallacies aka lies.

When you put them forward as reasoning, people don't buy it aka are not convinced by the lie.

You then call them names and address their intentions because they fail to be convinced by the lies.

"You just don't get it."
"You just want things to go back to the way they were."
"You are just desperate."
"You want the caricatures to win/rule/come back to power"
"You are a lost cause."

Etc...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #293 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The lie is the fallacy. Obama is right because Obama won the election, is popular, because the Republicans didn't win, etc. All forms of reasoning around that popularity premise are fallacies aka lies.

When you put them forward as reasoning, people don't buy it aka are not convinced by the lie.

You then call them names and address their intentions because they fail to be convinced by the lies.

"You just don't get it."
"You just want things to go back to the way they were."
"You are just desperate."
"You want the caricatures to win/rule/come back to power"
"You are a lost cause."

Etc...

Nope. Obama's just right and the naysayers are just wrong.

The country won last time because we've got someone actually at the wheel now and not letting things run on auto pilot.

Sorry if you don't agree. Time will prove me right or wrong but I have this feeling that if Obama turns things around you'll blame it on something else.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #294 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Nope. Obama's just right and the naysayers are just wrong.

I'm sure you think this is clever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The country won last time because we've got someone actually at the wheel now and not letting things run on auto pilot.

Given that under the current pilot the U.S. budget deficit has more than tripled to $984 billion (from $319 billion for the same period last year) we might all be better off under auto-pilot.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #295 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I'm sure you think this is clever.



Given that under the current pilot the U.S. budget deficit has more than tripled to $984 billion (from $319 billion for the same period last year) we might all be better off under auto-pilot.

I think I'll play trumptman's game.

Quote:
I'm sure you think this is clever.

No Frank.

The money was spent because the previous guy was inept. Ignoring that won't help. I'll repeat it as many times as anyone repeats this incomplete account. It didn't start during the Obama presidency. If the money hadn't been spent things would have been much worse. Also I'm not the only one saying that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #296 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You keep claiming all these things using a fallacy. Fallacies cannot be facts. Fallacies cannot be the truth.

Fallacies are "a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid", but they can be true, same as a broken clock can be right twice a day. In other words, just because they're fallacies, it doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means that there is no logical basis for the conclusion.
post #297 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The money was spent because the previous guy was inept. Ignoring that won't help. I'll repeat it as many times as anyone repeats this incomplete account.

Your constant repetition doesn't make it true though. In fact, it's a bullshit claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If the money hadn't been spent things would have been much worse.

And this claim is unsupportable by any facts. Not that this will stop you from repeating it ad nauseum however untrue it may be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also I'm not the only one saying that.

Let me guess who!
post #298 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Your constant repetition doesn't make it true though. In fact, it's a bullshit claim.




And this claim is unsupportable by any facts. Not that this will stop you from repeating it ad nauseum however untrue it may be.




Let me guess who!

Quote:
Your constant repetition doesn't make it true though. In fact, it's a bullshit claim.

Well you see from where I stand much the same could be said about your claims.

Quote:
And this claim is unsupportable by any facts. Not that this will stop you from repeating it ad nauseum however untrue it may be.

Is it not a fact that this crisis started during the Bush administration?

Isn't the president responsible for the country and what happens during his term in office? If not what does he really do?

At least with some presidents the buck stops here.

Is it not a fact that many economists said we have to spend money to bolster the economy?

Just because you're not in that camp doesn't automatically make your claims true or mine Bullshit.

The majority of the country thinks this also. It's not 2000 anymore. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #299 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well you see from where I stand much the same could be said about your claims.

You must be a genius or something because...well...my claims also don't become any more true because of my repetition. Did you figure that all on your own?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Is it not a fact that this crisis started during the Bush administration?

This is the claim (you've made) that isn't supportable by any facts (it is speculation):

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If the money hadn't been spent things would have been much worse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Isn't the president responsible for the country and what happens during his term in office? If not what does he really do?

By this reasoning, the bad things that have happened (e.g., the increase in unemployment) since Obama took office are his responsibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

At least with some presidents the buck stops here.

I look forward to seeing one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Is it not a fact that many economists said we have to spend money to bolster the economy?

Yes. But that doesn't make it true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Just because you're not in that camp doesn't automatically make your claims true or mine Bullshit.

I haven't made any such claim. You, however seem to be married to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The majority of the country thinks this also. It's not 2000 anymore. Wake up and smell the coffee.
post #300 of 316
Jimmac wrote:

Quote:
Isn't the president responsible for the country and what happens during his term in office? If not what does he really do?

and involuntary_serf replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post


By this reasoning, the bad things that have happened (e.g., the increase in unemployment) since Obama took office are his responsibility.

A second's consideration of the last two centuries of history will, of course, tell us that the president is, indeed, responsible for the country. This is why we have elections.

It is a fact that the crisis started during Bush's administration.

President Obama was not in office when the economic crisis began. The crisis, however, would be affecting the American job market whoever had been elected. Six months since the election is too soon to either reverse the crisis or significantly exacerbate it.

To pretend otherwise is a lame attempt to pass the responsibility for the crisis on to the man who inherited it.
post #301 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Six months since the election is too soon to either reverse the crisis or significantly exacerbate it.

I disagree with this point. Tripling the U.S. deficit, IMO, will significantly exacerbate the crisis.

The Fed is already a house of cards and running up the debt to consolidate government power will not help anyone.

Since the U.S. media seemingly won't cover what is really happening down south, maybe you guys should start reading Canada's premier newsmagazine.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #302 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Jimmac wrote:



and involuntary_serf replied:



A second's consideration of the last two centuries of history will, of course, tell us that the president is, indeed, responsible for the country. This is why we have elections.

It is a fact that the crisis started during Bush's administration.

President Obama was not in office when the economic crisis began. The crisis, however, would be affecting the American job market whoever had been elected. Six months since the election is too soon to either reverse the crisis or significantly exacerbate it.

To pretend otherwise is a lame attempt to pass the responsibility for the crisis on to the man who inherited it.


First, I was simply using the reasoning offered by jimmac.

Second, Obama people themselves estimated/predicted (hoped?) that unemployment would at least stall (possibly go down) with this stimulus. Not long term, but almost immediately. Yet it is going sharply in the other direction. That was the reason for the urgent nature to cut a check for $800 billion. Of course now we're hearing that everyone guessed wrong on this (nope). And also the unprovable assertion that, well, thing would have been even worse if the stimulus in place and that, well, we have "saved" X number of jobs. Uh huh. OK. Right.

Contrary to popular (and even mainstream economic) thinking, the government didn't have to "do something", and there are reasonable arguments (though dismissed or ignored) that doing nothing (i.e., no bailouts, no "stimulus", no nationalization of companies) would have actually been better.

But alas, this is the when is the "When is the GOP going to recover??" thread so, based on what Obama and the Democrats are doing, my guess is 2010 and 2012. Hopefully though they bring something to the table to actually fix (i.e., reverse) the "Obama doctrine". On that I'm far more skeptical. Regaining power and winning elections because the other guys screwed up doesn't mean you know how to fix it. People should keep this in mind with Obama and the Democrats right now, because that (and the sway of "history" and "personality" and eloquent speech giving) is what got them where they are now. Assuming it is because they are right on policy or that Americans agree with their policies across the board could be a profound tactical error.
post #303 of 316
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

First, I was simply using the reasoning offered by jimmac.

Second, Obama people themselves estimated/predicted (hoped?) that unemployment would at least stall (possibly go down) with this stimulus. Not long term, but almost immediately. Yet it is going sharply in the other direction. That was the reason for the urgent nature to cut a check for $800 billion. Of course now we're hearing that everyone guessed wrong on this (nope). And also the unprovable assertion that, well, thing would have been even worse if the stimulus in place and that, well, we have "saved" X number of jobs. Uh huh. OK. Right.

Contrary to popular (and even mainstream economic) thinking, the government didn't have to "do something", and there are reasonable arguments (though dismissed or ignored) that doing nothing (i.e., no bailouts, no "stimulus", no nationalization of companies) would have actually been better.

But alas, this is the when is the "When is the GOP going to recover??" thread so, based on what Obama and the Democrats are doing, my guess is 2010 and 2012. Hopefully though they bring something to the table to actually fix (i.e., reverse) the "Obama doctrine". On that I'm far more skeptical. Regaining power and winning elections because the other guys screwed up doesn't mean you know how to fix it. People should keep this in mind with Obama and the Democrats right now, because that (and the sway of "history" and "personality" and eloquent speech giving) is what got them where they are now. Assuming it is because they are right on policy or that Americans agree with their policies across the board could be a profound tactical error.

Wrong on both counts. Obama repeatedly stated that this recession was going to take "a long time" to recover. "Years, perhaps" he stated once. Nobody except you were expecting an immediate fix. To think so is silly since this is a huge country with a huge economy and momentum.

Every government has the duty to enact some kind of stimulus. It is the right thing to do economically. Almost every democratic country in the world has done so in THIS recession and the GOP and you are the only once out of touch with the reality of the world.

If the GOP has people like to as its base then it is going to recover, never.
post #304 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

You must be a genius or something because...well...my claims also don't become any more true because of my repetition. Did you figure that all on your own?




This is the claim (you've made) that isn't supportable by any facts (it is speculation):






By this reasoning, the bad things that have happened (e.g., the increase in unemployment) since Obama took office are his responsibility.




I look forward to seeing one.




Yes. But that doesn't make it true.




I haven't made any such claim. You, however seem to be married to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Trumptman would say :

Quote:
You must be a genius or something because...well...my claims also don't become any more true because of my repetition. Did you figure that all on your own?

Quote:
This is the claim (you've made) that isn't supportable by any facts (it is speculation):

Quote:
You, however seem to be married to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the personal references and Ad-homs ( wow you don't think I'm a genius? ).

And about what you've said. I'm not married to numbers make right. But they do make policy here in the US like it or not. So unless you want to go to some dictatorship where a minority rules this is the way it is.

Oh! And yes we think we're right!


Quote:
By this reasoning, the bad things that have happened (e.g., the increase in unemployment) since Obama took office are his responsibility.

The crisis that caused the unemployment started during the Bush administration. You can skate around it all you want. It won't fly. If Obama hadn't done something it would have been worse.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #305 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Wrong on both counts. Obama repeatedly stated that this recession was going to take "a long time" to recover. "Years, perhaps" he stated once. Nobody except you were expecting an immediate fix. To think so is silly since this is a huge country with a huge economy and momentum.

Every government has the duty to enact some kind of stimulus. It is the right thing to do economically. Almost every democratic country in the world has done so in THIS recession and the GOP and you are the only once out of touch with the reality of the world.

If the GOP has people like to as its base then it is going to recover, never.

Exactly!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #306 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Wrong on both counts. Obama repeatedly stated that this recession was going to take "a long time" to recover. "Years, perhaps" he stated once. Nobody except you were expecting an immediate fix. To think so is silly since this is a huge country with a huge economy and momentum.

I was speaking specifically about unemployment (which is a critical aspect of economic recovery and the whole point of the stimulus) and I'm afraid you are wrong:

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...han-predicted/

And to say that nobody but me expected unemployment to improve quickly with the stimulus is plainly wrong. In fact I personally did not expect it to improve, I expected things to get worse with Obama's dorking around with the economy. what's happening is about in line with my expectations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Every government has the duty to enact some kind of stimulus.

This is your opinion and nothing more. It's also a dubious one given facts, evidence and correct economic theory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

It is the right thing to do economically.

This is highly debatable and not supported by facts. In fact there is counter evidence and experiences to this claim. Taking a look at the economic downturn of the very early 1920's (where the federal government did almost nothing...it cut taxes and spending) and compared to that of the 1930's (where the federal government undertook the most massive power grab in the country's history...until now...raising spending/"stimulus" and taxes, price controls, etc., etc.) In 1920-1921 you get a fairly quick recovery, in the 1930's you get a decade of stagnation and "depression".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Almost every democratic country in the world has done so in THIS recession

So? Again that popular argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I find it funny that no one on the left was using that fallacy when GWB was re-elected in 2004, but now it is in vogue.
post #307 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I was speaking specifically about unemployment (which is a critical aspect of economic recovery and the whole point of the stimulus) and I'm afraid you are wrong:

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...han-predicted/

And to say that nobody but me expected unemployment to improve quickly with the stimulus is plainly wrong. In fact I personally did not expect it to improve, I expected things to get worse with Obama's dorking around with the economy. what's happening is about in line with my expectations.




This is your opinion and nothing more. It's also a dubious one given facts, evidence and correct economic theory.




This is highly debatable and not supported by facts. In fact there is counter evidence and experiences to this claim. Taking a look at the economic downturn of the very early 1920's (where the federal government did almost nothing...it cut taxes and spending) and compared to that of the 1930's (where the federal government undertook the most massive power grab in the country's history...until now...raising spending/"stimulus" and taxes, price controls, etc., etc.) In 1920-1921 you get a fairly quick recovery, in the 1930's you get a decade of stagnation and "depression".




So? Again that popular argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I find it funny that no one on the left was using that fallacy when GWB was re-elected in 2004, but now it is in vogue.

Speaking of fallacys this :
Quote:
It's also a dubious one given facts, evidence and correct economic theory.

Is just your opinion also!

Quote:
in the 1930's you get a decade of stagnation and "depression".

Until WWII of course. Let's hope this mess that Bush has made for us won't last that long.

Quote:
So? Again that popular argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Yes we should only do what a small minority wants us to do! I mean when Bush was catering to the top 10 % things worked for us so well didn't they?

Trickle down baby trickle down!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #308 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And about what you've said. I'm not married to numbers make right.

But it seems to be the only argument you ever make ("Well the majority think...blah blah blah").

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But they do make policy here in the US like it or not.

I'm not claiming any differently. But one would hope we'd strive for what is right not what is popular.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh! And yes we think we're right!

And thinking so doesn't make it so. Just so you understand that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The crisis that caused the unemployment started during the Bush administration.

To quote a great American:

Quote:
Isn't the president responsible for the country and what happens during his term in office? If not what does he really do?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If Obama hadn't done something it would have been worse.

This is your opinion nothing more and is not supportable by any facts or evidence.
post #309 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

But it seems to be the only argument you ever make ("Well the majority think...blah blah blah").



I'm not claiming any differently. But one would hope we'd strive for what is right not what is popular.




And thinking so doesn't make it so. Just so you understand that.




To quote a great American:






This is your opinion nothing more and is not supportable by any facts or evidence.

Well I don't have to know what would happen if I stuck my hand in a lawnmower while it was running do I? I just know.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #310 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Wrong on both counts. Obama repeatedly stated that this recession was going to take "a long time" to recover. "Years, perhaps" he stated once. Nobody except you were expecting an immediate fix. To think so is silly since this is a huge country with a huge economy and momentum.

Every government has the duty to enact some kind of stimulus. It is the right thing to do economically. Almost every democratic country in the world has done so in THIS recession and the GOP and you are the only once out of touch with the reality of the world.

If the GOP has people like to as its base then it is going to recover, never.

There is a big difference between fully recover and plateau and begin recovering. You are right that no one would be justified in declaring that Obama promised full employment, a full return to $13 trillion+ in economic activity, etc. That is a strawman. Obama's own estimates and the reasoning for his stimulus though showed that economic decline would stop and begin slow recovery.

So yes, full recovery is estimated to be six years from now by Obama's estimates but as you can see by this chart...



it is no where close.

Obama has already conceded double digit unemployment less than six months after his stimulus passed. Additionally but his own estimates, the economy still would have recovered without the stimulus. That $787 was about EMPLOYMENT and spending money so people would still have jobs. The whole premise was jobs, jobs, jobs. Now instead we read articles like this, The Case for Kenosha that show that this help is being used to sell companies to foreign holders and ship jobs overseas.

Answer me that, we drop billions on our automakers because domestic manufacturing and American companies that do it are so important and we sell Chrysler to Fiat and help GM send jobs to Mexico. Why are we spending billions to do that?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #311 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I don't have to know what would happen if I stuck my hand in a lawnmower while it was running do I? I just know.

Thanks for the terrible and completely unanalogous analogy. It truly bolsters your "argument".
post #312 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

First, I was simply using the reasoning offered by jimmac.

Second, Obama people themselves estimated/predicted (hoped?) that unemployment would at least stall (possibly go down) with this stimulus. Not long term, but almost immediately. Yet it is going sharply in the other direction. That was the reason for the urgent nature to cut a check for $800 billion. Of course now we're hearing that everyone guessed wrong on this (nope). And also the unprovable assertion that, well, thing would have been even worse if the stimulus in place and that, well, we have "saved" X number of jobs. Uh huh. OK. Right.

Contrary to popular (and even mainstream economic) thinking, the government didn't have to "do something", and there are reasonable arguments (though dismissed or ignored) that doing nothing (i.e., no bailouts, no "stimulus", no nationalization of companies) would have actually been better.

But alas, this is the when is the "When is the GOP going to recover??" thread so, based on what Obama and the Democrats are doing, my guess is 2010 and 2012. Hopefully though they bring something to the table to actually fix (i.e., reverse) the "Obama doctrine". On that I'm far more skeptical. Regaining power and winning elections because the other guys screwed up doesn't mean you know how to fix it. People should keep this in mind with Obama and the Democrats right now, because that (and the sway of "history" and "personality" and eloquent speech giving) is what got them where they are now. Assuming it is because they are right on policy or that Americans agree with their policies across the board could be a profound tactical error.

Jimmacs reasoning was that the nations choice of president affects the nation. You were using this (absurdly) to this make a cheap political point (which did not account for the fact that Obama inherited an economic crisis.)

Its far too soon to say that the presidents economic policy has fixed the crisis that he inherited. The problem, for you, is that it could, absolutely, work.

Im hoping that it will. You, on the other hand, are hoping that a fringe economic theory which now appears to be largely discredited, is correct.

If in six months time the unemployment figures are down youre welcome to come back and revisit your prediction of 2010.
post #313 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I don't have to know what would happen if I stuck my hand in a lawnmower while it was running do I? I just know.

Actually by your reasoning, if the majority of people told you to do it, it would be right. Additionally if someone had told you it would hurt you and we had been watching people get their hands cut off for six months, we couldn't call it wrong yet because not enough time has passed yet to know and we have to do something in the meantime because we can't do nothing.

Of and finally, the other guy cut off some hands for eight years so really......shut up and you lost so get over the hand cutting off bit. You just want to go back to when these caricatures were doing the hand cutting.

Isn't it amazing to see how all that dust, all those fallacies, are actually used to avoid determining if something is right or wrong? It's almost like that is their purpose or something like that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #314 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Thanks for the terrible and completely unanalogous analogy. It truly bolsters your "argument".

Too much for you? Sorry.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #315 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There is a big difference between fully recover and plateau and begin recovering. You are right that no one would be justified in declaring that Obama promised full employment, a full return to $13 trillion+ in economic activity, etc. That is a strawman. Obama's own estimates and the reasoning for his stimulus though showed that economic decline would stop and begin slow recovery.

So yes, full recovery is estimated to be six years from now by Obama's estimates but as you can see by this chart...



it is no where close.

Obama has already conceded double digit unemployment less than six months after his stimulus passed. Additionally but his own estimates, the economy still would have recovered without the stimulus. That $787 was about EMPLOYMENT and spending money so people would still have jobs. The whole premise was jobs, jobs, jobs. Now instead we read articles like this, The Case for Kenosha that show that this help is being used to sell companies to foreign holders and ship jobs overseas.

Answer me that, we drop billions on our automakers because domestic manufacturing and American companies that do it are so important and we sell Chrysler to Fiat and help GM send jobs to Mexico. Why are we spending billions to do that?

Yes mismangement from the last administration made a big mess for us didn't it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #316 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually by your reasoning, if the majority of people told you to do it, it would be right. Additionally if someone had told you it would hurt you and we had been watching people get their hands cut off for six months, we couldn't call it wrong yet because not enough time has passed yet to know and we have to do something in the meantime because we can't do nothing.

Of and finally, the other guy cut off some hands for eight years so really......shut up and you lost so get over the hand cutting off bit. You just want to go back to when these caricatures were doing the hand cutting.

Isn't it amazing to see how all that dust, all those fallacies, are actually used to avoid determining if something is right or wrong? It's almost like that is their purpose or something like that.

Quote:
Actually by your reasoning, if the majority of people told you to do it, it would be right.

No. But they might have more of a chance of getting their way.

Also this is more the kind of thing that would come from a small group that felt oppressed and wished me ill will.

Also it's the guy that used to own the mower shop that was telling people to stick their hands in while it was running.

The new owner is trying to turn the mowers off and install safety guards.

Please!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When is the GOP going to recover??