I'm curious as to what timeframe you give the current President before the problems in this country because that person's own problem? Obama seems to think its 4-8 years, I seem to think its 0 days. If Romney is elected, how long will Republicans blame anything that goes wrong on Obama and what is the cut off point in which it'll be Romney's fault?

In Obama's defense, the economy was basically dead.
Still, he should have dropped the line in 2010.

That said, I fully expect Romney to use the same sort of excuse in his first year if he is elected.
Bush ad the ABC rule, "Anything but Clinton" policy, and I'm sure Romney will follow the same rules, blame the administration for the debt rules, and defense cuts, the lack of jobs that will come in the first few months, etc.

Obama gets credit for taking an economy that was basically dead to marginally better. I think a monkey with a wrench could have accomplished the same thing.

If you think that, you have no idea about what was going on between November 2008 and February 2009.

Day one.

If Urban Meyer blamed Tressel if they lost in week one he'd be crucified.

Obama didn't inherit anything, he campaigned on the weak economy and chose to take it on. That isn't an inheritance.

Once the economy was stabilized with TARP and the auto bailouts (all pretty much done before Obama took office), Obama was teed-up to see roaring growth in a recovery from a deep recession.

General rule is 18-24 months to see policy start to take effect. And we saw all the typical indicators with the stock market leading the job/GDP growth. But every prediction and expectation would have been GDP growth by now of at least 3-4% - and that's in a normal interest rate environment - at a 0-rate you should be north of 6-7%. This is what people are looking at when they say Obama's anti-business agenda and the massive debt/deficits are a drag on the recovery. And that should perhaps not be surprising because if you want European-style socialism, you should expect European-style growth which is kind of what we have.


And, let's take on European-style unemployment as well:


So, in conclusion, the path "forward" is permamently lower GDP growth and peristently higher unemployment. Not the change people were hoping for.

General rule is 18-24 months to see policy start to take effect.

I agree with this.

Moreover, I think you have to blame Obama for the current state of the economy, because he directly contributed to the economic uncertainty that plagues business today. One could argue that it is good to increase government spending to ease a recession...with the understanding that it is temporary and a method is in place to pay it back. But to build in the spending structurally by creating huge new entitlements during the depths? Talking about increasing taxes (if only on the rich) and engaging in brinksmanship with congress? No budgets?

It doesn't instill much confidence that the economy is going to take off and be worth investing in.

How BHO screwed up Keynes.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/

So everyone is giving the Republican members of Congress a pass for obstructing everything Obama's administration wanted to try? What previous administration in the history of the USA had to overcome this?

Bigdogg;1266788 wrote:So everyone is giving the Republican members of Congress a pass for obstructing everything Obama's administration wanted to try? What previous administration in the history of the USA had to overcome this?

The Dems had two years of complete control of the government. If they couldn't undo everything they claimed the previous administration broke, they earned the last two years.

queencitybuckeye;1266795 wrote:The Dems had two years of complete control of the government. If they couldn't undo everything they claimed the previous administration broke, they earned the last two years.

Not exactly true. The rules were changed and even the AHCA had to use a gimmick to be passed.

Bigdogg;1266810 wrote:The rules were changed and even the AHCA had to use a gimmick to be passed.

This same gimmick, a/k/a "Budget Reconciliation", will be used to undo it because Roberts ruled the mandate as a "tax". Ironic, eh? :laugh:

BGFalcons82;1266835 wrote:This same gimmick, a/k/a "Budget Reconciliation", will be used to undo it because Roberts ruled the mandate as a "tax". Ironic, eh? :laugh:

What will be ironic is when (if) the AFCA gets undone it will mostly likely keep many of the things it already has in it. Just ask Mitt, he said so yesterday

Bigdogg;1266788 wrote:So everyone is giving the Republican members of Congress a pass for obstructing everything Obama's administration wanted to try? What previous administration in the history of the USA had to overcome this?

A) - obama had his first two years with complete democrat control of all branches of government.

B) - after seeing the disastrous results of those first two years (i.e. obamacare, massive deficit spending etc..) the republican house of reps was doing its duty to stop what it could to prevent the infliction of even further damage upon the economy and every American. They should be applauded for doing all they could to curtail further government encroachment into our lives and freedoms. Most rational people understand all that.

Bigdogg;1266788 wrote:So everyone is giving the Republican members of Congress a pass for obstructing everything Obama's administration wanted to try? What previous administration in the history of the USA had to overcome this?

I don't recall the last administration that had their agenda so repudiated by the voters that it led to a 64 seat swing in the House, if that's what you're asking.

Bigdogg;1266893 wrote:What will be ironic is when (if) the AFCA gets undone it will mostly likely keep many of the things it already has in it. Just ask Mitt, he said so yesterday

He has said many times before that there are certain things he likes. Hell, nearly every R that voted against it said there were things they liked about it, but on the whole...well...they didn't want it. What Romney has also said is that he will repeal ObamaKare, the AFHCA, the AFCA or however you want to reference it. He will replace it with something else, also as he has stated before. The R's likely won't have a 60 vote filibuster-proof Senate majority, but they should muster at least a 50-50 split or better. Therefore, the Senate will have to pass the repeal via the "gimmick".

Bigdogg;1266810 wrote:Not exactly true. The rules were changed and even the AHCA had to use a gimmick to be passed.

Exactly how were the rules changed with the Republicans having only 40 votes?

If you want to be technical it's called PPACA I still think it is hilarious that many of the things in it are Republican ideas. If it was really true that Pelosi and Reid ran amuck, we would have a single payer system. Like the majority of people on this forum, it's hard to work with delusional people in Washington. Unlike most of the people on here, if Mitty boy wins I won't be over lee concerned. The middle class is screwed either way and nothing will change. White will become black, day will become nite. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

How long can you blame the former administration?



As long as there are ignorant people who soak it up, of which there appear to be many.

QuakerOats;1267029 wrote:A) - obama had his first two years with complete democrat control of all branches of government.

B) - after seeing the disastrous results of those first two years (i.e. obamacare, massive deficit spending etc..) the republican house of reps was doing its duty to stop what it could to prevent the infliction of even further damage upon the economy and every American. They should be applauded for doing all they could to curtail further government encroachment into our lives and freedoms. Most rational people understand all that.

And if the R's take back the Senate after November but fail to control 60 seats, there are those who would consider it the Democrats' duty to block everything and anything that is proposed by the majority. See, that works both ways.

The sad truth is that the Republican leadership was so pissed that their man lost to Obama that they were willing to sacrifice the middle class and the economy just so they would have this chance to reclaim the White House. Sadly, they nominated the best of what can only be described as a bunch of clowns leaving a Volkswagen. Now they are in serious danger of blowing it, as Mitt is falling behind in most polls. If Obama wins, the Republicans can't afford four more years of obstructionist policies, or else they will cease to be a major party in American politics. They might be forced to, OMG, compromise.

We understand how it works. And the Republican leadership actually understands that losing the republic is not an option, thus they tried to halt obama's destructionist policies which is precisely what the significant majority of Americans asked them to do by virtue of the landslide votes given to Republican's in the 2010 elections. Remember that? Hope so, because you are about to see even more of it.

QuakerOats;1270030 wrote:We understand how it works. And the Republican leadership actually understands that losing the republic is not an option, thus they tried to halt obama's destructionist policies which is precisely what the significant majority of Americans asked them to do by virtue of the landslide votes given to Republican's in the 2010 elections. Remember that? Hope so, because you are about to see even more of it.

It was my understanding that the "significant majority of Americans" were looking for Congress to do something about jobs, something virtually all of them campaigned on and on which Boehner railed at every opportunity ("where are the jobs?"). Since then they've gotten nothing from the House but symbolic votes, reading of the Constitution and right-wing attempts at social engineering. I'll be surprised if the do-nothing tea party newbies will be able to hold onto their seats in November. It's obvious they only wanted the paycheck, the perks and their moment in the sun. They weren't interested in doing the people's work, that's for sure.

right-wing attempts at social engineering

:laugh:... now that's funny coming from a democrat.

As far as Mitt and/or Republicans liking some aspects of the AHCA...of course they like SOME aspects. If you recall, the 'Pubs/McCain had their own proposals for healthcare in 2008. Democrats act as if they alone care about healthcare affordablity, minorities, women's rights. Nothing is further from the truth...the difference often is in method and funding. Is it just hubris or downright duplicity that they(Dems) have fabricated these supposed 'wars' on women and minorities?

as far as AHCA...why would anyone in their right mind support something that was negligently passed before anyone even read it?.... that required (in dogg's words) a 'gimmick' to pass it?

stlouiedipalma;1269982 wrote:They might be forced to, OMG, compromise.

Yeah - I guess they should learn how to compromise from the Dems. :rolleyes:

believer;1270344 wrote:Yeah - I guess they should learn how to compromise from the Dems. :rolleyes:

Dems are great at compromising, with terrorists.

stlouiedipalma;1270169 wrote:It was my understanding that the "significant majority of Americans" were looking for Congress to do something about jobs, something virtually all of them campaigned on and on which Boehner railed at every opportunity ("where are the jobs?"). Since then they've gotten nothing from the House but symbolic votes, reading of the Constitution and right-wing attempts at social engineering. I'll be surprised if the do-nothing tea party newbies will be able to hold onto their seats in November. It's obvious they only wanted the paycheck, the perks and their moment in the sun. They weren't interested in doing the people's work, that's for sure.

Actually no, the 2010 election was a dramatic pushback against obamacare and massive deficit spending. You cannot create jobs until you get the job killer out of the WH, that we all know. His dictatorial regulatory environment, from EPA to NLRB to Energy and on down the line to his huge upcoming tax increases and new taxes are the reasons we have no investment, no growth, no confidence, and no jobs. But you knew all that.