What the 2012 election taught us

There are 20 comments on the Nov 6, 2012, The Washington Post story titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2733 Nov 21, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Projected cuts to our defense budget will result in countless thousands of lost jobs.
Rising taxes for EVERYONE to fund ObamaCare (and all other Obama fill-in-the-blank) will paralyze the economy.
Your party CANNOT control its mandatory taxing and spending.
So you are saying the government creates jobs? hmmm...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#2735 Nov 21, 2012
Real cuts over the last 2 year by Republicans in the House of Representative resulted in 600,000 public servants around the nation to include Emergency Responders, and Teachers, being cut. If we are all in this together, shouldn't the pain be shared?

Surely we can cut defense spending and the blot within that agency, since we cut firemen and policemen off of the streets in America.

The Obama proposal to allow the Bush Cuts to automatically expire only hit, if the Republicans stand up for the Middle Class; those with substantial earnings who haven't missed a beat in the nightmare Bush Economic disaster. As a matter of fact just in the last 3 years their wealth has multiplied greater than at any other time in history.
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Projected cuts to our defense budget will result in countless thousands of lost jobs.
Rising taxes for EVERYONE to fund ObamaCare (and all other Obama fill-in-the-blank) will paralyze the economy.
Your party CANNOT control its mandatory taxing and spending.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2736 Nov 21, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Real cuts over the last 2 year by Republicans in the House of Representative resulted in 600,000 public servants around the nation to include Emergency Responders, and Teachers, being cut. If we are all in this together, shouldn't the pain be shared?
Surely we can cut defense spending and the blot within that agency, since we cut firemen and policemen off of the streets in America.
The Obama proposal to allow the Bush Cuts to automatically expire only hit, if the Republicans stand up for the Middle Class; those with substantial earnings who haven't missed a beat in the nightmare Bush Economic disaster. As a matter of fact just in the last 3 years their wealth has multiplied greater than at any other time in history.
<quoted text>
I don't understand all the republican resistance to cutting our huge defense spending, especially as President Obama has shown more of a black ops and special forces type approach to any offensive actions.....Military(Defense has an emotional tie) spending has been the third rail in budget cuts for decades and along with our excessive foreign aid, should both be pared down.....
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2737 Nov 21, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Projected cuts to our defense budget will result in countless thousands of lost jobs.
Rising taxes for EVERYONE to fund ObamaCare (and all other Obama fill-in-the-blank) will paralyze the economy.
Your party CANNOT control its mandatory taxing and spending.
So what's the problem with the defense cuts son?

Don't tell me cons have changed their position!!!!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2738 Nov 21, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical "progressive"...all you can do is childishly disparage the source when the facts presented are irrefutable.
lol! The facts I presented were from the FRB. You "facts" came from a political opinion.

They're a heck of a lot more refutable than the FRB, who has the numbers.

I know, I know. You're just afraid to learn the truth. After all, that's how easy it was to get the background on "your guy!"

Typical con not wanting to know the truth!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2739 Nov 21, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Projected cuts to our defense budget will result in countless thousands of lost jobs.
Rising taxes for EVERYONE to fund ObamaCare (and all other Obama fill-in-the-blank) will paralyze the economy.
Your party CANNOT control its mandatory taxing and spending.
You were the same pollster claiming "government does not create jobs" - but when defense cuts are to be issued, you claim thousands of jobs will be lost.

Can't have it both ways bubba - why not get the "private sector" involved, like you and your ilk always claim are the cure all for everything.

You so called CONservatives think you can have it both ways? You really think no one will call you out on your hypocrisy?
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

#2740 Nov 21, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> I don't understand all the republican resistance to cutting our huge defense spending, especially as President Obama has shown more of a black ops and special forces type approach to any offensive actions.....Military(Defense has an emotional tie) spending has been the third rail in budget cuts for decades and along with our excessive foreign aid, should both be pared down.....
Bring it all home. Including the soldiers that are not military then we can start agreeing.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#2741 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
you're an idiot:
I get so tired of educating those who refuse to acknowledge the truth. For the last time, the Bush Tax cuts resulted in 54 straight months of economic growth. The recession occurred after Democrats gained control of Congress and began wildly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars and implementing their bone-headed and supremely irresponsible fiscal policy.
The economic numbers don't lie. Take a look for yourself:
http://forecast-chart.com/chart-gdp-rate.html
The economy grew every single quarter until Q4 of 2008. That's solid continual economic growth that directly resulted from the Bush Tax Cuts.
LOL, you get tired of manipulating statistics to show people they really live in some alternate world where black is white. You can do the same thing to the time period right before the great depression of 1929 and perhaps you call that growth as well.

Remember the three lies:

1. White lies
2 Lies
3. Statistics

That is because you can make statistics come to any conclusion you like. The usual trick is to ignore other statistics. Take a look at the earning value of an hour of labor and how it has decreased for the last 30 years. Perhaps the GDP has gone up, but every penny went to the rich, and those doing that work now make less than they did in 1980. That is not growth except for the very rich. That does not mean the US economy is doing well. That is a prescription for revolution. Once the rich are taking too much of the fruit of the labor of those who work (and they are beyond that point now) those who are being robbed will eventually rise up to reclaim what they earned.

To say to the millions bush put out of work, the economy is great, is to be oblivious. To ignore the crumbling infrastructure and claim it is perfectly adequate, I have a bridge in Minnesota for you to drive over. To look at the enormous federal debt and claim all is well, well, I guess that is being a republican.

Keep defending bush, eventually you will be able to talk to people who were not alive during his time and don't know how bad it was and maybe, just maybe, if they don't know you, will believe this nonsense.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2742 Nov 21, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were the same pollster claiming "government does not create jobs" - but when defense cuts are to be issued, you claim thousands of jobs will be lost.
Can't have it both ways bubba - why not get the "private sector" involved, like you and your ilk always claim are the cure all for everything.
You so called CONservatives think you can have it both ways? You really think no one will call you out on your hypocrisy?
Military Keynesianism

Military Keynesianism is the theory that John Maynard Keynes advocated government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. Keynesians maintains that he advocated that government spending be used "in the interests of peace and prosperity" instead of "war and destruction". An example of such policies are the Public Works Administration in the 1930s in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesi...

Keynes' 1933 Letter to Roosevelt

In 1933, John Maynard Keynes wrote an open letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging the new president to borrow money to be spent on public works programs.
<quoted text>
Thus as the prime mover in the first stage of the technique of recovery I lay overwhelming emphasis on the increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure which is financed by Loans and not by taxing present incomes. Nothing else counts in comparison with this. In a boom inflation can be caused by allowing unlimited credit to support the excited enthusiasm of business speculators. But in a slump governmental Loan expenditure is the only sure means of securing quickly a rising output at rising prices. That is why a war has always caused intense industrial activity. In the past orthodox finance has regarded a war as the only legitimate excuse for creating employment by governmental expenditure. You, Mr President, having cast off such fetters, are free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of war and destruction.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2743 Nov 21, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Military Keynesianism
Military Keynesianism is the theory that John Maynard Keynes advocated government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. Keynesians maintains that he advocated that government spending be used "in the interests of peace and prosperity" instead of "war and destruction". An example of such policies are the Public Works Administration in the 1930s in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesi...
Keynes' 1933 Letter to Roosevelt
In 1933, John Maynard Keynes wrote an open letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging the new president to borrow money to be spent on public works programs.
<quoted text>
While I understand your post and Kenysian policies, these policies were the ones directly attacked by the neo-cons on this site / I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of their trains of thought, nothing more.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2744 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
you're an idiot:
I get so tired of educating those who refuse to acknowledge the truth. For the last time, the Bush Tax cuts resulted in 54 straight months of economic growth. The recession occurred after Democrats gained control of Congress and began wildly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars and implementing their bone-headed and supremely irresponsible fiscal policy.
The economic numbers don't lie. Take a look for yourself:
http://forecast-chart.com/chart-gdp-rate.html
The economy grew every single quarter until Q4 of 2008. That's solid continual economic growth that directly resulted from the Bush Tax Cuts.
We could discuss reasons for the economic growth, such as how much was attributed to debt accumulation. The fact is over bush's term 3,000,000 jobs were created and of those 2,000,000 were government jobs. It takes about 1,500,000 or more jobs EVERY YEAR just to keep pace with new workers. You figure out how short that makes bush on jobs.

In addition, pay at the bottom and middle went down or did not change.

If nothing else that makes it a depression for the working crowd.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2745 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
Another economic illiterate.
Here's the cause of our 2008 recession, F ing asswipe Obama owns it:
books.google.com/books ...
Ted Krager - 2012 - Political Science
The True Causes of the Financial Crisis Ted Krager. As you are learning, it wasn't
Wall Street greed or the banks' greed that caused The Financial Crisis.(It was ...
BO and ACORN sue CITI Group to force banks to make bad loans, they win , opening the flood gates in app.1994:
Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force - Media Circus
www.mediacircus.com/.../obama-sued-citibank-u ...-...
Oct 3, 2008 UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make ... Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.
Banks are overloaded with bad loans they can't unload, Clinton comes to the rescue, rewriting Fannie and Freddie rules to allow them to buy the subprime loans
The Nature and the Origin of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
In the past Fannie Mae prohibited the lenders it was dealing with to engage in the ... of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to ... Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate .... the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will ...
A 33% increase in the number of buyers now looking for homes drives housing prices thru the roof.
Exactly what you think is going to happen, happens and here we are.
The irony of you calling someone else an idiot is hillarious.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2746 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong as all liberals are:
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.
So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
If bankers could blame CRA they would.

If Wall Street could blame CRA they would.

They would not spend millions trying to modify and change the new bills regulating them.

They would be spending millions trying to get rid of the CRA.

How much are they spending fighting CRA? ZERO

The only ones saying it is the CRA are ideologues doing it for political reasons. The only ones repeating their lies are the idiots like you.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2747 Nov 21, 2012
Hates Ignorance wrote:
Indy,
Increasing home ownership IS sound economic policy, and promotes prosperity. It's when you try to increase it at a rate greater than economic growth can match that you run into problems. Both parties are guilty of going about it to agressively, and financial institutions all to eager to take advantage of it. Especially when they know they will protected ( bailed out ) from losses, in return for their complicity.
Good post.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2748 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw over 700 democrats get their slimy asses kicked out in 2010. Douchebag failure Obama barely won re election if you hadn't noticed, imbecile.
The fact that Obama won at all in this economy says much more about the Republicans than it does Obama.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2749 Nov 21, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many are. An estimated $500 billion a year on all levels given away.
It is over $1 Tril counting just SS and medicare, the two largest, fastest grwoing, socialist, wealth redistribution programs in the United States today.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2750 Nov 21, 2012
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
And Lucifer was God's favorite amongst the angles. So are you saying that God got deceived by Lucifer? And if God is all powerful and all knowing, then that would mean God knew He was going to be deceived and allowed it to happen, but for what purpose?
I know you are phobic about Islam and for that I am sorry for you. They aren't all bad. Here's a little tid bit for you to mull over. Do you realize that God is the main cause of most of the wars that have plagued the earth?
Do you realize that if Christians on the Crusades had left the Muslim nations alone and tried not to 'cleanse the heathens' that we probably would be in this mess we are in today?
We would all be using camels instead of Mustangs for transportation.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#2751 Nov 21, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>especially Bush.
Medicare expansion: Why the new "prescription drug benefit" may be the worst legislation in U.S. history, and will cost the nation vast sums it can't afford
How the Medicare drug benefit will inevitably lead to higher taxes and price controls that will reduce the supply of new life-saving drugs
Why the chief "beneficiaries" of the drug benefit will not be hard-pressed seniors, but big corporations
Why the Bush tax cuts have accomplished relatively little economically. Why many of its provisions are the tax-equivalent of pork-barrel spending -- costing revenue while doing little or nothing to increase economic growth or improve the structure of the tax system
Why Bush may ultimately be responsible for the largest tax increase in history, as the inevitable result of his policies -- though it may not come on his watch
Why the inevitable tax increase will probably a European-style value-added tax (VAT)
How the Administration's policies are developed with little analysis or forethought, then rammed through a compliant Congress -- leading to both economic and political mistakes that could have been avoided
Why the Bush White House has the worst record on free trade since Herbert Hoover
Why Clinton was actually better on the budget than Bush -- vetoing bills because they cost too much (Bush hasn't vetoed a single one) and significantly reducing overall government spending (Bush has massively increased it)
The Regulatory President: how, after promising to roll back Clinton's regulatory excesses, Bush has sacrificed principle to politics and allowed regulation to flourish
Why Bush's policies have far more in common with Nixon's than Reagan's -- especially in his failed attempts to woo moderates by enacting liberal programs (like Medicare expansion) that harmed the economy and GOP fortunes
Why, thanks to the Bush economic policies, Republicans are likely to suffer significant losses in 2006 mid-term elections -- and possibly the Presidency in 2008
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/produc...
Look at the bottom line of the National Debt Clock. The liabilties in Social Security are less than the liabilities in Bush's Medicare drugs. The Medicare drug deal has I think over $20 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, and yet the total unfunded liabilities in the entire social security system is $17 TRILLION. You are sooooo right. Bush and Cheney saw being president and VP as make money, make them money, make millionaires into billionaires. The reason they didn't let people buy drugs from Canada or generic brands as this was a big, huge profit for those who own stocks in big Pharma, and Donald Rumsfeld is one of them. The people do not care as long as they get the free drugs. This is how they get away with drug profiteering, war profiteering, all of it.

The worst one is Cheney saw him being VP as a way for him to get waivers for the natural gas companies so they could finish off our water supply and finish off the ocean with the chemicals they dump into the ocean from fracking for natural gas. And, guess which company is involved in this?? Haliburton, and Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton. Both Bush and Cheney didn't see being the president and VP as to serve the country, it was ONLY for them to profit and profit and profit. I still say they did 9/11 in order to get control of the oil in Iraq for the major oil companies. It was just business to them, nothing more, nothing less.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#2752 Nov 21, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Projected cuts to our defense budget will result in countless thousands of lost jobs.
Rising taxes for EVERYONE to fund ObamaCare (and all other Obama fill-in-the-blank) will paralyze the economy.
Your party CANNOT control its mandatory taxing and spending.
You can't ask for spending cuts and less government and then complain when government workers get laid off. It's a game of cut spending, but if the Dems cut defense spending, then Fox goes on and on about how horrible it is to cut government jobs. Government jobs are government jobs, spending is spending. You can't start picking and choosing which government employees you want laid off. You either want spending cuts or you don't. Don't complain about layoffs in government employees. We need more of that.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#2753 Nov 21, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>We would all be using camels instead of Mustangs for transportation.
A cigarette instead of a horse?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Grey Ghost 1,220,920
News Thought We had a Deal: Iran leaders blast Us, m... 1 hr Silent Echo 343
News Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in... 2 hr Earthling-1 103
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Guru 187,432
News The Latest on GOP's 2016 hopefuls: Cruz on gay ... 3 hr Fa-Foxy 90
News Gay NYC businessmen who hosted Ted Cruz try to ... 4 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 4 hr Tracker 750
More from around the web