Why I’m Voting

By donar | Related entries in Barack, Cartoons, Democrats, Obama, Republicans, Video



NY TIMES LINK

I like to consider myself a moderate and prefer voting for the best candidates regardless of their party origins. But I can’t see too many Republicans that are willing to push aside this simplistic view and try to make this government work. But when you are dealing with ignorant voters, you have to do your best to offset their rampage and wreckage that can be done if we have more zealots and bigots that are willing to tear this country apart. I may not agree with everything the Democrats have done, but I know damn well I prefer people willing to meet and work together.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 and is filed under Barack, Cartoons, Democrats, Obama, Republicans, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

41 Responses to “Why I’m Voting”

  1. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Why I’m Voting -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: Why I’m Voting http://ow.ly/19FcYA [...]

  2. mw Says:

    Shorter Donar: “Democrats good. Republicans bad.”

    Boston Globe today on why the Democrats are in trouble:

    “THE HILLS are alive with the sound of liberal Democratic contempt for the electorate. So are the valleys, the prairies, and the coasts. For months, voters have been signaling their discontent with the president, his party, and their priorities; in less than a week, they appear poised to deliver a stinging rebuke. Yet rather than address the voters’ concerns with seriousness and respect, too many Democrats and their allies on the left have chosen instead to slur those voters as stupid, extremist, or too scared to think straight…

    Heading into next week’s elections, Americans remain a center-right nation, with solid majorities believing that the federal government is too intrusive and powerful, that it does not spend taxpayer’s money wisely or fairly, and that Americans would be better off having a smaller government with fewer services. Nearly halfway through the most left-wing, high-spending, grow-the-government presidential term most voters can remember, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many of them are rebelling. The coming Republican wave is an entirely rational response to two years of Democratic arrogance and overreach. As the president and his party are about to learn, treating voters as stupid, malevolent, or confused is not a strategy for victory.”

  3. Wickedways Says:

    Well I respect your right to your opinion but this was about the funniest post I have ever read. We are still laughing at work.

    To paraphrase:

    I”m a moderate and vote for the best candidate but Republicans suck and are bigots and I would never vote for a republican which makes me….??

    A moderate.

    Translation. Progressive.

    But really I would vote for one of those if……….

    Nah!!! Not really. But it sounded good when I was writing it!!

    I never use the LOL tag but this post deserves a LOL.

  4. Buwahaha Says:

    Donar, buddy, come out of the progressive closet. You’re not moderate, and you shouldn’t have to pretend to be one. It sort of perpetuates the meme that progressives are too oblivious to realize that their views aren’t moderate.

    Clever animation, btw.

  5. kranky kritter Says:

    MW, that’s not the Boston Globe’s opinion. That’s Jeff Jacoby’s opinion. In case anyone is unfamiliar, Jacoby is the Globe’s token conservative. I have enough familiarity with his work to be comfortable calling him an archconservative.

    However I agree with you both that nothing Donar says makes him sound like a legitimate moderate.

    There are lots of Americans out there who take pride in their self-image as being reasonable and fair-minded. Whether liberal or conservative, they like to think of themselves as moderateeven if they almost never have occasion to vote for , you know, that other party.

    If you have not cast votes for at least 3 or 4 republicans and 3 or 4 democrats (and I mean upticket votes: governor, senate, president) then really you aren’t moderate or independent.Or you’re at least less moderate than you think you are. After awhile, if you’re honest with yourself, you have to stop thinking it’s just a combination of coincidence and circumstance that keeps you voting for the same side election after election after election.

    A partisan in practice is in fact a partisan, regardless of theoretical self-image.

  6. theWord Says:

    When the GOP had people like Jim Leach, Tom Ralisback, Bob Michel, Edward Brook, and John Anderson it was easy to say you can vote for them. When they have Palin, O’Donnel, Paladino and company as candidates voting Republican is not in the same ballpark and it certainly isn’t something I’d be proud of. There are differences, although some take pride in believing there aren’t. I haven’t voted Republican in quite some time now and based on their current crop, don’t really understand how anyone could. I once ran a Presidential campaign for Anderson but they haven’t had anyone of his caliber in decades.

  7. Chris Says:

    Kranky, find me 3 or 4 republicans in a state that are worth voting for, and then I’ll call myself a moderate.

  8. gerryf Says:

    Shorter MW: I’m not conservative. I believe in divided government–as long as the GOP is the one doing the dividing.

    Shorter Wickedways: Anyone who doesn’t believe what I and my fellow rightwing co-workers believe is a leftist. LOL.

    For anyone who has been paying attention over the years, Donar has taken shots in his editorial cartoons at both the left and right.

    Unfortunately, the deliberate and devicive politics of the past 35+ years has squeezed and attacked the middle.

    You’ve got right wing extremist like Limbaugh and Beck calling the middle cowards and appeasers to the point where anyone identifying himself as a moderate is now attacked by the right as being a liberal in disguise.

    And while it wasn’t that common until recently, increasingly that same person is attacked by the left as being a closet right winger.

    It takes considerable gall for people like Wickedways and MW to foist their definitions on people, and I am sure they are right now saying “Oh, that theWord, Chris and gerryf–freaking left wingers are liars at worst and at best don’t even know what they are!”

    It doesn’t matter that theWord or I worked on Republican campaigns in the past–they were not or Conservative Republican enough!

    A deliberate consequence of the right’s political strategies of the past 35+ years–from Nixon’s southern strategy to Karl Rove’s wedge issues–is that we are engaged in a race to the bottom.

    And, oh joy, the left has learned the lesson and has begun applying it as well.

    Throw out the unbelievers!

  9. mw Says:

    “Shorter MW:.. I believe in divided government–as long as the GOP is the one doing the dividing.” – gerry

    Well… yeah… That is kind of the only way it can happen if you have a starting condition of One Party Democratic Rule – by definition.

    Now if we turn the dial on the Wayback Machine to 2006 when we had One Party Republican Rule, then it was possible to have Democrats do the dividing. Which is exactly what I was advocating at the time.

    @Donar,
    Meant to start with this, but instead will finish with it – Kudos on a very clever and well executed presentation. Despite being wrong headed and – as ww says- promoting a completely laughable premise that voting straight Democratic is the only moderate option since the opposition are all crazy extremist bigots.

    @Kranky
    I’m not a regular reader of the Boston Globe and not familiar with Jacoby, but also not surprised he is their token conservative. It was flagged as an opinion piece and read conservative. My intent was to simply indicate the source link, not to say that it was Boston Globe opinion, but I guess I could have made that distinction. In any case – Jacoby is spot on in this column and offers a lesson that has yet to be learned by our hard-core partisan Democratic friends here on the Donk . Specifically – “treating voters as stupid, malevolent, or confused is not a strategy for victory.”

  10. Chris Says:

    His premise is not laughable at all MW. It could possibly be that the democrats on your local ticket are more moderate than the republicans. I’m not saying whether it’s reality or not, but the premise is believable.

    But it’s pretty hard to be “moderate” when these people are on the opposite political spectrum of you:
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/male-rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head-of-female-moveon-member-outside-debate.php

  11. Wickedways Says:

    It is really not about the person.

    It is about the agenda. Those that hide behind tags and labels pretend that they are moderate or libertarian or liberal but in the end its the agenda.

    Everyone knows that a vote for a MODERATE DEMOCRAT is just another vote for the Obama agenda. A vote for a Republican moderate is a vote for someone who will caucus with the GOP and give them strength but who in the end will most of the time side with the GOP.

    When pulling that handle for a national candidate people have to know going in who they think better represents their own views and this election is all about Obama’s agenda.

    If his agenda was moderate I would say that moderates might mean something. The fact that moderates and independents are flocking to the GOP this election says one basic thing.

    They do not agree with the Obama agenda. But they are no less moderate because they vote for a GOP vs a Democrat. They simply understand that a vote for ANY Democrat, much less a moderate one is a vote for the Obama agenda.

  12. kranky kritter Says:

    @ Chris:

    Kranky, find me 3 or 4 republicans in a state that are worth voting for, and then I’ll call myself a moderate.

    If you aren’t calling yourself a moderate, I think we’re both happy.

    You seem to be saying that you basically can’t ever find anyone worth voting for unless they are a democrat or farther to the left. That’s fine, You’re liberal, and in practice you vote as a partisan for those values.

    I don’t have any felt need to convince other folks to BE moderate.

    @MW Jacoby is a really smart guy. And I VERY strongly agree with him. About one time out of 4, that is. Rest of the time not so much. His intelligence mainly serves a pretty rigid ideology, which makes him tedious and predictable.

    And in this case, i do agree that insulting and condescending to voters is not a good idea. But here’s the thing: I hear conservatives complaining that democrats are condescending and out of touch and insulting towards the electorate A LOT MORE than I actually see democrats doing this. Most of the time, I think most democrats aren’t doing this. I find this kind of conservative stereotyping of democrats as tedious as liberal stereotyping of conservatives as being a bunch of Becks and Limbaughs. Or like Chris’s silly stereotype that “these people” are head-stompers.

  13. kranky kritter Says:

    @ Gerry

    For anyone who has been paying attention over the years, Donar has taken shots in his editorial cartoons at both the left and right.

    I’ve been paying attention. I would say I’ve had occasion to read at least 20 or 30 Donar cartoons. They lean towards criticism of the right most of the time. I am certain that if we reviewed them one by one, I’d be proven correct.

  14. Chris Says:

    Kranky I find it tedious being surrounded by conservatives that believe whatever limberger and beck tell them to. I’d love to find a moderate conservative out there, but I haven’t seen any recently. I think you perhaps overestimate the reasoning ability of the general populous.

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

  15. Justin Gardner Says:

    So let me get this straight…you all believe that the Republicans are acting reasonable and have tried to be cooperative with any sort of sincerity throughout the past couple years? You think they can fix our problems? Even with a Republican President if that’s what happens in 2012? You also believe that the Tea Party is actually good for the national discourse? Because if you don’t…you should probably be in the same boat as Donar.

    Also, is Donar espousing some radical, left wing agenda on the blog? Of course not. I’m a moderate Dem and that’s most likely what Donar is too. You guys act like a moderate has to be firmly in the middle. They don’t. That’s a centrist, and it’s a whole other ball of wax. And I’ve been saying that for years.

    To address what mw has said… I think it’s pretty obvious that Donar is saying that 1) many (not all) Republicans are obstructionists right now because of politics, not policy and 2) the Tea Partiers are the zealots and bigots. Therefore, if you want actual progress on the issues of the day, you should vote with the Dems. Again, I don’t find that to be a radical notion. If you do, explain why.

  16. mw Says:

    @Justin
    Because 1) Most (not all) Republicans are fighting the Obama/Democrat agenda on policy and principle not politics and 2) The Tea Party are not Zealots or Bigots to any greater extent than the Democrats are Communists and Anti-American defeatists.

    Moreover, Democrats who use that kind of language to describe the Tea Party and Republicans are exactly as bad as Republicans who use that kind of language to describe Liberals and Democrats.

  17. Alistair Says:

    mw:

    Explain to me why would Mitch McConnell would say a couple of days ago that he would try his best to make him a one term President and not get called on it except from Joe Scaroborogh. Had any other Democrat would have said that while W Bush was in office, Hannity and the Fox crew would be calling him or her a traitor.

  18. gerryf Says:

    KK,

    I never said that the Donar is an 50-50 critic, I said he has been critical of the left and right. So, are you saying because he does not take aim at the left in one cartoon, and the right in the next, this is proof he’s a leftwing asssassin who only takes shots at the left to trick everyone into thinking he’s a moderate?

    Please. The right gets the lions share because lately the right deserves the lion’s share.

    Bat crap crazy is an inviting target.

  19. gerryf Says:

    mw,

    If you really believe number 1, you are delusional.

    If you say most Republicans are “opposed” to Obama because of policy and principal, and by that mean the body of Republicans, there may be room for discussion.

    But if you are saying most Republicans are “fighting”–as in the active party machine that is engaged in political discourse you are full of crap. We’re not talking about a GOP that has come in from the wilderness and found this extreme president and congress behaving differently than the previous presidents and congresses.

    The feigned outrage over fiscal responsibility and government overreach is hypocritical BS coming from a group who spent money like drunk salors and wielded congressional and presidental power with impunity.

    As for self-identified Tea Party people being Zealots or Bigots, I agree with you there. Many tea party people are just angry. However, much of their energy has been coopted by zealots, bigots and fearmongers. Unfortunately, too many of the tea party people are low information voters who are being partially manipulated.

  20. Wickedways Says:

    I for one do not believe the GOP has too many good ideas. But I for one also believes that the left unchecked we would have 50 trillion in debt. 80 percent tax rates and 15 percent unemployment in 10 years.

    Thats why I will vote for any (R) on the ballot this year. Not because of politics or the person….but because of policy.

    The Democrats just have it plain wrong. Thats not politics. Thats their policy that drives me to the polls and its got nothing to do with the color of Barak Obama’s skin. Good lord people. Get over the racial thing.

    Oh wait. You cant. Because its politics not policy that drives the right. But its policy not politics that drives the left.

    Got it. Short version. Democrats good. Republicans bad.

  21. Mike A. Says:

    “They do not agree with the Obama agenda. ”

    This may be true at face value, but I would wager few of these people could explain what Obama’s agenda consists of. The average citizen does not comprehend the basic structure of our government, let alone the short and long term implications of topics such as TARP. They are angry that things haven’t been fixed in 2 years, What they best understand is The Message. Republicans are excellent at controlling The Message, but it would be ridiculous to think this message resembles the truth, or that disagreement represents understanding.

  22. Mike A. Says:

    “its got nothing to do with the color of Barak Obama’s skin.”

    Maybe not for you, but it does for a significant segment of the population. People in middle to upper middle class of America. People I personally know. Some friends. Not everyone is as enlightened as you may be.

  23. Justin Gardner Says:

    The Tea Party are not Zealots or Bigots to any greater extent than the Democrats are Communists and Anti-American defeatists.

    The Tea Partiers (meaning people within the Tea Party) contain the zealots and bigots, but they are obviously not all zealots and bigots. Not a majority and not even a super majority. But you can’t tell me that they don’t have a seat at the table…especially when they elect people like Angle, Paladino, Miller, O’Donnell and Paul.

    Let’s take Paul for example, who isn’t a bigot but is most definitely a zealot. So much so that he can’t answer a question about prohibiting private businesses from discriminating based on somebody’s race.

    Also, you can’t tell me that there’s a zealotry for strict constitutionalism that is so blindly ignorant of the founding fathers actually intended it boggles the mind as to how it has gained a foothold. It’s as if these people have never heard of the idea of an “Amendment.” The Tea Party has absolutely no clue how things actually work and that simplistic, sound byte friendly nonsense could seriously hamstring our ability to pull ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug. But hey, please…vote for a Tea Party candidate to restore “balance” to the Congress. By the way, I have this bridge I’d like to sell you…

    I for one do not believe the GOP has too many good ideas. But I for one also believes that the left unchecked we would have 50 trillion in debt. 80 percent tax rates and 15 percent unemployment in 10 years.

    Yeah, that’s what will happen. Because the economy hasn’t stopped losing jobs and now is gaining jobs since Obama took office. The GDP isn’t in positive territory. The stock market hasn’t completely rebounded. Bipartisan commissions haven’t been formed to take a hard look at our long term debt problem.

    And no, the GOP isn’t saying we need to reduce the deficit, while still calling for ALL of Bush’s tax cuts to renew. And it’s not the GOP’s intention to slash or privatize social safety net programs, let the private sector take over all sectors of government (including the military) and nation build whenever they get a chance.

    Glad you’ve been paying attention.

  24. Justin Gardner Says:

    Here’s the thing…at the end of the day you all are assuming that Republicans and Tea Partiers are reasonable. Because that’s how divided government works. Politicians are able to reach compromises and make sound policy. That’s how it’s supposed to work…in theory.

    Well, I hope they are reasonable and willing to work, but I’m 99% positive they aren’t. Why? Because they’ve already said publicly that their goal is to make him a a one term president. And that’s not coming from some Tea Party zealot, that’s Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. This isn’t some hidden agenda.

    Moving on…

  25. kranky kritter Says:

    I never said that the Donar is an 50-50 critic, I said he has been critical of the left and right.

    No you didn’t. But you seemed to imply that he was balanced enough to viewed as credibly non-partisan. If you didn’t imply that, my bad.

    So, are you saying because he does not take aim at the left in one cartoon, and the right in the next, this is proof he’s a leftwing asssassin who only takes shots at the left to trick everyone into thinking he’s a moderate?

    As you ought to know well by now, I am not the type of person who is so foolish as to think that a 50/50 split would be necessary.

    Why are folks here so prone to responding to a reasonable objection by using the form “so are you saying __really stupid thing that makes no sense based on other things you’ve said__”

    I absolutely don’t think Donar is trying to trick people into thinking he is a moderate. Anyone who has read his cartoons over the years knows that he leans pretty strongly towards criticizing the left.

    Aren’t you the one who suggested he fearlessly criticizes both the left and the right? While I don’t think a 50-50 split is necessary, I am hard-pressed not to view someone as a partisan when 8 or 9 out of 10 of their criticisms is directed at one side. Off the top of my head, I can’t recall any instances where Donar directed any hard wit against conservatives. I am simply willing to believe they have occurred from time to time. But not enough enough for me to doubt that as far as his political criticism goes, he’s a critic of the right first and foremost.

    Now, folks who lean liberal are always eager to claim that they are really moderates but that the right is so loony and so much worse than the left that they have no choice but to primarily criticize the right. For how long can that he a credible story. I belive that you are what you do more than you are what you say. If you mostly criticize the right, then you’re a critic of conservatism. This is not a very complicated idea.

  26. mw Says:

    I must have missed something. Since when are Republicans in Congress supposed to work for the re-election of a Democratic President? Could you please list for me all the Democrats in Congress who were working for the re-election George W Bush. I can’t recall any.

  27. kranky kritter Says:

    @wickedways

    I for one do not believe the GOP has too many good ideas.

    Me neither. I do share their concerns about the gross overspending of the last 3 budgets and a few other positions. And it’s frustrating to me that simply because I do, I am viewed as anti-democrat.

    But I for one also believes that the left unchecked we would have 50 trillion in debt. 80 percent tax rates and 15 percent unemployment in 10 years.

    See, that way overstates it for me. I am not sure why folks use such hyperbole to make their points. The left isn’t going to be “unchecked.” Our government, faults and all, is designed around checks and balances. All other things held equal, it really is reasonable to believe that Democrats are more in favor of big programs, subsidies, and government funding of things that liberals think are morally sound.

    But I don’t think democrats are utterly unchecked by fiscal realism. They do believe that high deficit spending during big recessions is necessary, and they would probably prolong that sort of spending for longer than Republicans. But rhetoric aside, there are plenty of democrats who recognize that the gov’t overspending we’ve seen since the last budget deficit has to end quite soon. A divided congress will address this next spring, or voters will shuffle the deck again in 2012.

    To hear republicans explain it, you’d think that the main reason we’re in a deep and painful economic trough is because taxes are too high, government red tape is too onerous for small businesses, and the democrats expanded access to healthcare. But none of these things caused the economic collapse of 2007-8.

    Anyone with half a brain knows that we are in this fix because our leaders, from both parties, were either asleep at the switch or in bed with powerful interests who let an unsustainable real estate bubble go on for far too long. Everyone from both parties was on the side of letting the party go on, and anyone who complained that regular folks would get priced out or that liar loans would eventually collapse the system was ostracized as a turd in the punchbowl. And the fixes were far too generous to entities that were part of the problem then, and are too afraid to be part of the solution now.

    And that’s the big problem…powerful entities doing as they wished while the electorate was asleep at the switch, too. As long as most prospered, not enough of us wanted to give credence to serious questions that might spoil the party.

    The people’s only power these days is the power to shuffle the deck every few years. In between those days, there is very little reason to think that our leaders put regular folks needs first. Not when there’s a parade of special interests and re-election fundraisers and lobbyists. Congresscritters probably think they do. But on complicated issue after special issue, they spend almost no time asking regular folks’ views on most things.

    If any of us really wants to change that, we need to crawl up congress’s ass. And stay there. I hope that in 2012, we see an unprecedented number of viable independent candidates,

  28. kranky kritter Says:

    @Justin. You’re wrong:

    Here’s the thing…at the end of the day you all are assuming that Republicans and Tea Partiers are reasonable. Because that’s how divided government works. Politicians are able to reach compromises and make sound policy. That’s how it’s supposed to work…in theory.

    Who are you even talking to here? I don’t know anyone outside the tea party who believes this about tea party folks. All I believe is that one beneficial result of the big 2010 deck-shuffling is that it will focus the minds of the next congress. They’ll be on stage with everyone watching. And nothing that isn’t hammered out via hard debate and meaningful compromise simply won’t happen.

    Well, I hope they are reasonable and willing to work, but I’m 99% positive they aren’t. Why? Because they’ve already said publicly that their goal is to make him a a one term president. And that’s not coming from some Tea Party zealot, that’s Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. This isn’t some hidden agenda.

    It is ALWAYS the case that the agenda of the party not holding the oval office includes making the current President a one-termer. No politician of either side mever makes any moves without consideration to the chess borad leading to the nect election. So what?

    Bill Clinton and a republican congress found a way balance the budget at the end of an acrimonious back and forth. When it happened, democrats declared defeat and foretold their dark visions. Then Clinton got re-elected while taking all the credit for the balanced budget.

    We all need to be prepared for high acrimony and congressional movement on only the most urgent things. Hard battles will be fought and satisfaction will be extremely low among partisans. The outcomes of the 2012 election will be determined based on who does a better job of taking credit for the positive outcomes while blaming the negative ones on the other side. Surely this surprises no one.

  29. Wickedways Says:

    I have been paying attention.

    7 million jobs lost and were adding back a few thousand a month. The Dow Jones was almost 14,000. Its now 11,000. The S&P was almost 1600, its now almost 1200.

    “We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.”…….Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury testifying before congress in 1939. Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

    Keynesian economic policy did not work in 1930-1941 and it is not working now. The only thing it does is add debt, increase the size and scope of government.

    MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY. JANUARY 17,1935

    Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans….FDR’s actual words. Look it up its on the Social security website.

    Even FDR suggested that SSI should eventually be self supporting. It is not. The only way we can guarantee the sustainability of SSI and SSDI is by drastically increasing premiums.

    There is no money in Social Security’s Trust Fund. For years, Social Security has taken in more money than it has paid out; but instead of saving these surpluses, the government spends them and writes the Trust Fund an IOU, a special-issue government bond. When Social Security cashes in these IOUs to pay benefits, starting in 2017, the money still has to come from somewhere–cutting other spending, raising taxes, or slashing benefits. Remember, this starts in just 12 years. Personal accounts directly address the trust fund problem.

    The government can tap into the Trust Fund today when it needs money, but it would not be able to take money from worker’s own personal accounts.

    Once again this is about policy not politics. Forcing Americans to pay into private accounts run by the government that could not be touched to pay for wars in Iraq would be a substantial way to force our government into fiscal responsibility.

    As it is right now they simply spend wrecklessly because there is always money hitting the coffers and when there is not…they just print up more money. Literally.

    A vote for the (D)’s is a vote for their agenda of keynesian spending till we drop. I will vote for (R)’s and yes I have been paying attention.

  30. Justin Gardner Says:

    7 million jobs lost and were adding back a few thousand a month.

    So you’re actually going to blame Obama for jobs lost as he came into office? That alone signals that you’re not interested in having an honest debate about this. Also, we’re adding tens of thousands every month and some times hundreds of thousands of jobs. Here’s the graph.

    The Dow Jones was almost 14,000. Its now 11,000

    No, the Dow Jones was at 8,100 when Obama came into office.

    The S&P was almost 1600, its now almost 1200.

    Again, no. The S&P was hovering around 840 when he came in.

    You’re like the kid who asked for the G.I. Joe Headquarters for Xmas and got upset when you also didn’t get the Aircraft Carrier or the Hovercraft. Wait for next year and the year after that. Turning around the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression may take a bit more time than you might have anticipated. That doesn’t mean Obama’s policies are dangerous/bad/etc.

    And, I’m sorry but you haven’t been paying attention. Especially to history. Deficit hawks forced FDR to stop spending and focus on balancing the budget in the middle of the New Deal and that created a double dip. The only reason we got out of the Great Depression is we spent like CRAZY on WWII.

    Also, as Repubs don’t spend like drunken sailors? Lest we forget Reagan…

    Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18]

    And George W Bush…

    By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[100] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[101][102] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion.

    No offense, but your argument is literally bankrupt.

  31. Chris Says:

    I don’t think you have. But here are some links for you:
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-voters-don-t-know-gdp-grew-with-tax-cuts.html

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/28/barack-obama/obama-says-most-job-loss-occurred-his-economic-pol/

  32. kranky kritter Says:

    Justin, I missed the part where WW said that Obama is responsible for the collapse of the stock market. All he did was describe how far we’ve fallen. You’re arguing against premises that he hasn’t contended.

    He has not expressed much interest here in the battle of which party gets the blame for the fall. He has only stated his opposition to the notion that the solution to our current economic condition is for the government to spend our way out of it. His faith.

    You’ve stated your support for that premise on multiple occasions. Your faith. Whether you like it or not, the government is going to begin moving away from your faith and towards WW’s soon.

    None of the data anyone collects about the results of various policies on economic growth during this period will prove remotely conclusive. You are doomed to spending the rest of your life using whatever facts, statistics and studies best support a contention that you fail to understand is something you actually hold as an article of faith. The good news there is that you’ll have plenty of company both sides. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    It’s 4 days until the midterm election. We’re at douche-con 5, Red alert folks.

  33. Chris Says:

    Should’ve hit refresh I guess before I posted, but my links basically back up some of what Justin posted.

    I think what brought justin into this is that, if I’m readin himg right, is he’s as annoyed as I am at people who think that voting for republicans is a vote for any sort of fiscal responsibility. That’s just not reality.

    KK, and being moderate or even centrist doesn’t mean that you support both parties equally with votes – because that also does not match reality. You vote for whoever is going to do the least amount of damage, and if that’s always the democrats in recent years, that doesn’t make you a liberal.

  34. Wickedways Says:

    I don’t recall blaming Obama for anything. I have been discussing the Democrats and by default the fact that Obama has an agenda.

    This agenda will be supported by a vote for anyone with a (D). It will be rejected by anyone with an (R). This vote is about Obama’s agenda.

    Its about Policy and the left is trying to paint the right as bigoted zealots in order to win votes. That’s not about policy. That’s about politics.

    I simply point out Justin that as much as you claim to be a moderate your language is filled with pejoratives which can do nothing but sully the debate and squelch any meaningful moderate or at least centrist debate because you are I believe, approaching it with an already predefined set of conditions.

    Your opponents are wrong. They are zealots. They are bigots and the very thing they are protesting they have themselves engaged in.

    In 2007 Obama said of Iran. I am committed to making things work but Iran’s got to change the way they do things.

    This is exactly what I mean…..preconditions that preclude any wiggle room means that the chance for succeeding is already poisoned before the first sentence is uttered.

    Donar and now you precondition your starting points with an attitude that the opponents are totally wrong and the only way to succeed is to whip them into believing what we believe.

    It is why I will rarely use percents or statistics. I have tried that in the past and the other side can take 2×2 and make it mean that Bush is Hitler in about 30 minutes.

    So I try to go for policy and agenda and then perhaps if we can get past who did what and whose to blame we might actually find a reason to have a dialogue about solving problems.

  35. Wickedways Says:

    Tax rates under Carter, when he was elected.

    70 Percent….

    Is 80 Percent unreasonable given the desire by the left to spend trillions on every pet project they ever dreamed of?

    Unemployment 10 percent today. With much higher tax rates then we have today is 15 percent unemployment a stretch? Hyperbole?

    As for Debt. We are 13 trillion in the hole today. AT the sustained rate of 1.3 trillion per year for 10 years thats another 13 trillion plus inflation and increased interest on the debt could easily see our debt reach 30 trillion in 10 years.

    If unchecked the democrats today are talking about we have not spent enough. We need to spend more. 1.3 trillion in the hole and we need to spend more.

    If you grow the government you have to grow the taxes. Its pretty well accepted that higher taxes means higher unemployment. Even the left is starting to acknowledge this.

    Hyperbole….Its a matter of how you define the term. As for me If something is within shouting distance its hardly hyperbole.

  36. Wickedways Says:

    This might post twice if so, sorry.

    Hyperbole.

    Tax rates under Carter, when he was elected.

    70 Percent….

    Is 80 Percent unreasonable given the desire by the left to spend trillions on every pet project they ever dreamed of? Progressive disdain for the wealthy.

    Unemployment 10 percent today. With much higher tax rates then we have today is 15 percent unemployment a stretch? Hyperbole?

    As for Debt. We are 13 trillion in the hole today. AT the sustained rate of 1.3 trillion per year for 10 years thats another 13 trillion plus inflation and increased interest on the debt could easily see our debt reach 30 trillion in 10 years.

    If unchecked the democrats today are talking about we have not spent enough. We need to spend more. 1.3 trillion in the hole and we need to spend more.

    If you grow the government you have to grow the taxes. Its pretty well accepted that higher taxes means higher unemployment. Even the left is starting to acknowledge this.

    Hyperbole….Its a matter of how you define the term. As for me If something is within shouting distance its hardly hyperbole.

  37. Chris Says:

    Donar and now you precondition your starting points with an attitude that the opponents are totally wrong and the only way to succeed is to whip them into believing what we believe.

    … … and you aren’t doing the exact same thing?

  38. Wickedways Says:

    Chris

    Excellent question. Worth delving into.

    Justin wrote this above:””’To address what mw has said… I think it’s pretty obvious that Donar is saying that 1) many (not all) Republicans are obstructionists right now because of politics, not policy and 2) the Tea Partiers are the zealots and bigots. Therefore, if you want actual progress on the issues of the day, you should vote with the Dems. Again, I don’t find that to be a radical notion. If you do, explain why.”"”"

    Why is this a radical notion?

    Because of the precondition that Tea Partiers are zealots and bigots. Presupposed is that only a fool would defend a zealot and a bigot.

    I have been attempting to explain why Republicans and most notably Tea Party people are more about policy then politics. There are no preconditions in my debate. I have not called the left radical, zealots or bigots as Justin has done in defending his (D)’s.

    I have set no preconditions other then addressing Justin as being wrong for including preconditions as a part of his premise to discuss why we should vote for Dems over Repubs.

    So I would say that no I have not done the exact same thing. In fact I have attempted to stay away from the zealot, bigot meme and attempted in good faith to answer his question.

    If you predefine your opponents with pejorative language then you are forcing your opponent to deal with either the precondition or the policy matter. I have tried to stay away from the precondition and address the policy matter as per Justin’s request.

  39. Chris Says:

    So the republicans cockblocking every legislative effort for hte past 2 years is all about policy, and not politics? Even though some of the legislation was stuff that the republicans themselves had written?

    Those are some rose tinted glasses you wear.

  40. Joe Sortais Says:

    I’d vote for a Republican if I could find just one on the ballot who is willing to work with other people for the betterment of our society and has intelligent proposals that are more than just saying “No” to any new idea. That seems to be a pretty steep curve to achieve apparently.
    Joe Sortais

  41. kranky kritter Says:

    I’d vote for a Republican if I could find just one on the ballot who is willing to work with other people for the betterment of our society and has intelligent proposals that are more than just saying “No” to any new idea. That seems to be a pretty steep curve to achieve apparently.

    Depending on where you live, that might be a problem. Maybe you just need to move to a state with open primaries. Here in MA, we had a 4 candidate race for governor where all 4 candidates added productively to the debate. It left me feeling that we were pretty lucky to have such serious, intelligent, committed candidates to chose from. Astonishing, huh?

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: