Potential defeat of the Democrats (USA elections)

[jennifergns]

In USA current House of Representatives' elections results will be: 233 for Republicans and 202 for Democrats, according to RealClearPolitics.
Is it the fault of Obama? Is he a bad president?

[Anime Daisuki]

I'll just talk about international politics:

He is a disappointment to the international community. People thought that he would be different from Bush, but he:
1) Continued making war in Afghanistan;
2) Continued to support the failed government of Pakistan, including aid to its military which uses American dollars for their nuclear program;
3) Continued 'nation building' in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not very different from what Bush did;
4) Instead of trying to promote peace between China and Taiwan, sold weapons to Taiwan in an attempt to prolong the status quo and separate them;
5) Failed to get America's puppet state Israel to make peace with Palestine;
6) Failed to cooperate with China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia to reach a deal for North Korea (the US was the only one holding out against 'pacifying' North Korea, but then offer no alternative);
7) Forced Japan to accept bases in Okinawa, against the wishes of the Japanese people and her government.
8) Picked reactionary neo-con representatives like Tim Geithner;
9) Continued to allow USA to act as if it owns the whole world. The de-facto world police.
10) Generally failed to live up to expectations despite getting a Nobel Peace Prize which he thoroughly don't deserve.


In the foreign arena, Obama is not so different from Bush.

[Grub]

Obama and many representatives & senators went against the will of the American people on several different issues. If you ignore the people who elected you and do whatever you want to the detriment of the country then the result is what's happening tonight. This appears to be one of the biggest mid term thumpings since the 1930s.

This is the start of repealing the socialist and unconstitutional obamacare. 2010 is the start and in 2012 will be the next thumping.

[Guy]

Obama and many representatives & senators went against the will of the American people on several different issues.

Well, that's not a new thing. I agree with you, but it's not like your last president always listened to public opinion.

This appears to be one of the biggest mid term thumpings since the 1930s.

House-wise, yes. Senate-wise it appears to be quite a good midterm. I'd rather be the Democrats in 2011 than in 1995.

This is the start of repealing the socialist

Socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

2010 is the start and in 2012 will be the next thumping.

Hopefully not, I've put quite a bit on Obama...

5) Failed to get America's puppet state Israel to make peace with Palestine;

If anyone actually expected that, they're delusional.

[Grub]

so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Nowhere in our Constitution does it allow the government to make you buy a service that it deems necessary for you. If you don't buy that service, you are then penalized by higher taxes. If you don't pay those taxes you go to jail. Obamacare is unconstitutional and will either be stopped by the next republican president in 2012 or the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.

Also, the way obamacare is set up, the ultimate conclusion of it will be for private insurance companies to go out of business with the gov't running all health care.

a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

[Guy]

The Supreme Court ruling parts of Obamacare unconstitutional will not strike it all down.

with the gov't running all health care.

Are there any new permanent government-owned healthcare-providing entities created? Not as far as I've heard.

[Cerb]

I'll throw a few comments in going back to the original question.

I don't think Obama is necessarily a bad president but he did make a monumental mistake by championing the health care reform bill. I believe the health care system did need reforming but the bill that passed had little or no popular support by the citizenry.


It is practically criminal to ignore the wishes of the populace and force through leglislation. It smacks of big brother knowing best and that isn't what the congress is supposed to be.

This is a fatal mistake and it showed last night. Though the democrats held the senate it got shaken to the core and almost none of the senate seats that were won last night held a strong margin.

Now with that said, I think what happened last night was about the best thing to happen to the US Govnmnt. It will require co-operation from all sides to get anything done and that is essential.

Oh and one last thing. I don't blame Obama for not fixing the economy. It's going to take more than a few years to make it right and none of us will find out if the action he took will provide positive results. I don't think the stimulus spending was the right thing to do, but I'm no financial genius so I can't say if it was right or wrong.

[Takaram]

The stimulus, though unpopular, was quite probably a necessary action which needed to be taken. You can go on and on all you want about the long run and how the economy would have fixed itself without incurring a massive debt, but then you have to stop and realize that, if that cost hadn't been incurred by the government, who would it have shifted to? The banks, and ultimately, the people.
And as for 2012, I really wouldn't rule Obama out yet. He still has two years, and, like him or not, I think everyone will have to agree the man is an excellent campaigner.

[Thanya]

Nov 3, 2010 3:48:45 GMT -5 Grub said:

Nowhere in our Constitution does it allow the government to make you buy a service that it deems necessary for you. If you don't buy that service, you are then penalized by higher taxes. If you don't pay those taxes you go to jail. Obamacare is unconstitutional and will either be stopped by the next republican president in 2012 or the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.

Also, the way obamacare is set up, the ultimate conclusion of it will be for private insurance companies to go out of business with the gov't running all health care.

a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

I'm glad to see that someone else thinks this. Every time I bring up Obamacare as unconstitutional, I get called stupid. The first time I heard that Obamacare was going to force American's to buy health insurance, I was completely shocked. I mean, what about the unemployed? Obviously, they can't pay for health insurance if they don't have the money. So, they are basically going to be put in jail for being poor and out of work? Then you have college students who are barely getting by, what with the cost of tuition and the cost of living in this economy. Then there's the fact that Obama's Health Reform was voted on before it was even fully looked over. How can that even be? There was no time for everyone to read 1,990 pages before they had to cast a vote. That's nice to know.

[Estayland]

Grub, Guy is right concerning SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare. Just this year, SCOTUS ruled the Public Company Oversight Accountability Board unconstitutional, which was part of Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley did not contain a severability clause and was still in place sans PCAOB. It's possible that small parts of Obamacare can be removed without killing the whole thing. However, if enough of it is struck down, the whole thing can be struck down if it becomes too vague or empty.

[Anime Daisuki]

Nov 3, 2010 17:11:57 GMT -5 Takaram said:

The stimulus, though unpopular, was quite probably a necessary action which needed to be taken. You can go on and on all you want about the long run and how the economy would have fixed itself without incurring a massive debt, but then you have to stop and realize that, if that cost hadn't been incurred by the government, who would it have shifted to? The banks, and ultimately, the people.
And as for 2012, I really wouldn't rule Obama out yet. He still has two years, and, like him or not, I think everyone will have to agree the man is an excellent campaigner.

The problem with the stimulus is, it wasn't large enough.

Look at the EU countries, China, and a host of other nations which also injected money into their economies. As a proportion of GDP, what Obama put into the economy is but a drop in a very large bucket. He can argue all he wants that "he did it". But I seriously doubt what the democrats or the government did had any effect at all.

[Takaram]

Oh, I agree that the stimulus needed to be larger. I wasn't arguing that. I was saying that it needed to be done.

[Bad Infinitum]

We wouldn't have even needed a stimulus if Bush was never president.

Just sayin'

[Cerb]

It would have happened sooner or later. It wasn't all Bush, it was the Clinton administration that pushed sub-prime lending.

No one person can own the responsibility.

As for Mr O. He is a fantastic campaigner. Trouble is, that seems to be about the limits of his capabilities.

Just sayin

[Grub]

That's true on that particular ruling, but remember about all of the different attorney generals that are suing over Obamacare. Mark my words, Obamacare will be found unconstitutional within the next 3-4 years.

Nov 3, 2010 17:22:34 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Grub, Guy is right concerning SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare. Just this year, SCOTUS ruled the Public Company Oversight Accountability Board unconstitutional, which was part of Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley did not contain a severability clause and was still in place sans PCAOB. It's possible that small parts of Obamacare can be removed without killing the whole thing. However, if enough of it is struck down, the whole thing can be struck down if it becomes too vague or empty.

[Guy]

Is there anything being seriously challenged apart from the mandate? I can see the mandate being unconstitutional, but hardly anything else.

AD, with TARP, it was more than 10% of the American GDP.

It is practically criminal to ignore the wishes of the populace and force through leglislation.

No. When you have a system of representational democracy, you agree that you can be screwed over by the elected officials.

[Cerb]

Is there anything being seriously challenged apart from the mandate? I can see the mandate being unconstitutional, but hardly anything else.

This is the same as saying, I see the nuclear explosion, but other than that is there anything else?

No. When you have a system of representational democracy, you agree that you can be screwed over by the elected officials.

I disagree, representation is there job. They broke that trust and did not represent the people.
It's for reasons like this that so many representatives are now ex-representatives.

[Enigmatic]

The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled.
--George Washington

[Guy]

Sure. And if you agree that WhateverYouWantToCallIt is constitutional, then it's not criminal not to listen to the will of the people, as Cerb is suggesting. Just give them the boot.

It wouldn't be criminal even if it was unconstitutional.

And no, it isn't Cerb. The mandate is one part of HCR, it can be struck down without bringing down the whole thing.

[Anime Daisuki]

Nov 4, 2010 0:43:17 GMT -5 Guy said:

AD, with TARP, it was more than 10% of the American GDP.

I think you might have mistaken some other data with TARP spending.

Let's start with the source everyone looks at first, wiki:

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent final net estimate of the cost, as of October 5, 2010, will be close to $30 billion, including expected returns from interest in AIG.[1] This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. The cost of that crisis amounted to 3.2% of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the current crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1%.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Then lets look at the Congressional Budget Office's press release.

Three initiatives—the Troubled
Asset Relief Program (TARP), net cash infusions for
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ARRA—drove that
growth, adding $353 billion to outlays in 2009, or 2.5
percent of GDP.

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-9-09MBR.pdf

[Guy]

Both sources just show the addition to direct outlays. Not spending. And that's an increase in outlays of 2.5 percent of GDP just in 2009!

[Anime Daisuki]

show me your source then

[Guy]

Well, just quick maths here. $787 billion for ARRA + $350 billion for TARP = $1137 billion

And then you've got quite a lot of other irregular appropriations/tax cuts. I'd say it easily gets to $1.4 trillion, but I have no source on this.

Again, this is spending, not increase to the deficit.

[Consortina]

Nov 4, 2010 9:54:26 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I disagree, representation is there job. They broke that trust and did not represent the people.
It's for reasons like this that so many representatives are now ex-representatives.

I disagree partially. It is true that a representative should never stray from the promises they made in their campaigns. However, I believe that they are NOT obligated to follow the will of the majority in every issue that arises. If that was the case, then the representative democracy would be no different from direct democracy and the existence of different parties would be pointless.

IMO, different political parties each offer a portfolio of opinions and programs on the issues that concern a country. Say party A wants to lower taxes, prohibit stem cell research and fund nuclear power plants while party B wants to increase taxes, allow SCR and prohibit the use of nuclear power. It turns out that the majority of the population wants to lower taxes, prohibit stem cell research and prohibit nuclear power. Party A is going to win the election (probably), but they will be getting bad vibes from the majority of the population when they build the nuclear plants, like they announced they'd do. Did they do something wrong? No, they just followed through on their intentions. If the people are dissatisfied, they are free to form a party with the program of party A minus the nuclear power thing. (This scenario kinda resembles the situation in Germany currently)

Of course this leads to the question, why representative democracy should be superior to direct democracy - and frankly the answer could well be: "It isn't". However, I am a firm believer that political issues can not be addressed one at a time. Especially in times of national crisis, it will become necessary to cut funding or raise taxes for certain groups. In a direct democracy it would be hard to achieve this because any group threatened by this would lobby against the decision and make a campaign to sway the majority. Just imagine what would happen if Greece was a direct democracy - the attempts to stabilize the finances would be a lost cause.

[Cerb]

I agree that they don't have to follow the will of the people. I think there has to be some level of reason to that though.

If two thirds of the country don't want something, and you can't even get a two thirds majority in the senate, I think it's likely time to stop forcing the issue, rather than using reconciliation to pass it.

It's not legally criminal, it's ethically criminal.

As for striking down the mandate, that would satisfy me. I can then legally ignore the rest. It's forcing me to accept the mandate that sticks in my craw.

[Guy]

Firstly, I believe you would find that more than a third support it. Obama and the Congressional Democrats were elected, and one of their main campaign promises was healthcare reform -- and they have delivered. It was not much stronger (if at all) than they said it would be.

Opinion polls aren't binding, the voting booths are.

[Anime Daisuki]

Guy, that's not what we were debating about.

Earlier, your sentence mentioned TARP only. And my response was to that topic, TARP spending.

Nov 4, 2010 0:43:17 GMT -5 Guy said:

AD, with TARP, it was more than 10% of the American GDP.

After I pointed out several sources to show this is not the case, you're now saying something different. Instead of just TARP, you are mentioning TARP, ARRA, and "tax cuts". You are shifting the goal posts, so to speak.

Nov 5, 2010 3:30:36 GMT -5 Guy said:

Well, just quick maths here. $787 billion for ARRA + $350 billion for TARP = $1137 billion

And then you've got quite a lot of other irregular appropriations/tax cuts. I'd say it easily gets to $1.4 trillion, but I have no source on this.

But then "all of the above" was not what you were talking about. You were just talking about TARP.

AD, with TARP, it was more than 10% of the American GDP.

And my response was to that statement. TARP is not 10 percent of the American GDP.

As initially conceived, the total amount of TARP money promised is around 700 billion dollars, to be paid over several years.

Our GDP was around 14.5 trillion. So 700 billion out of 14.5 trillion is about 4.7 percent.

In other words, the total amount of TARP money committed is no where near the 10 percent figure you gave. Not to mention the fact that the TARP money is dished over over several years, while GDP is calculated per year. If we assume TARP money is dished out over 3 years-- then TARP as a proportion of GDP is only about 1.6 percent annually.

In addition to that, a lot of those companies have already paid back the TARP money or are now rejecting the full amount that was promised to them. As a result, the total amount spent is going to be much less. There are many news reports on this, such as the earlier links I gave.

Here are a few more.

TARP to cost less than expected:
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=tarp%20calmes&st=cse

TARP break down:
money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

[Cerb]

Nov 5, 2010 10:16:55 GMT -5 Guy said:

Firstly, I believe you would find that more than a third support it. Obama and the Congressional Democrats were elected, and one of their main campaign promises was healthcare reform -- and they have delivered. It was not much stronger (if at all) than they said it would be.

Opinion polls aren't binding, the voting booths are.

This is an accurate statement, polls can be quite misleading. In this case though There may be some circumstantial evidence that supports my observation, considering 60 seats that were democrat are now republican. The party that had the two thirds majority gave it away.

You can't claim that this isn't an indicator that whatever they have done, it's clearly not popular with the majority of Americans.

I've asked many people about the health care reform plan, and the majority either dislike the way it was passed through, or simply have no idea what it means to them. I find that alarming in and of itself.

[Anime Daisuki]

Nov 5, 2010 16:59:17 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I've asked many people about the health care reform plan, and the majority either dislike the way it was passed through, or simply have no idea what it means to them. I find that alarming in and of itself.

The majority are not very informed about stuff in general. It's unfortunate that Obama's a college professor and not a salesman when it comes to policies.

Ultimately thou, its the economy that sank the democrats, I don't think the result would have been any different had they not pass the Healthcare reform bill. Like Clinton said, 'its the economy, stupid'. And the outlook is certainly gloomy here.

[Cerb]

I can only speak for the people and the state that I know. For them the economy sucking is bad, but they fear big government more.