E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2014, 03:22 PM   #1
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Obama Is a Republican

He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
From The American Conservative

By BRUCE BARTLETT • October 21, 2014

Bruce Bartlett is a former Reagan administration domestic policy aide and an economic policy expert who left the Republican Party amid disgust with President George W. Bush’s fiscal policies.

Excerpts:

Quote:
...Obama has governed as a moderate conservative—essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today.
Quote:
It’s worth remembering as well that Bush did not exactly bequeath Obama a good fiscal hand. Fiscal year 2009 began on October 1, 2008, and one third of it was baked in the cake the day Obama took the oath of office. On January 7, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected significant deficits without considering any Obama initiatives. It estimated a deficit of $1.186 trillion for 2009 with no change in policy. The Office of Management and Budget estimated in November of that year that Bush-era policies, such as Medicare Part D, were responsible for more than half of projected deficits over the next decade.

Republicans give no credit to Obama for the significant deficit reduction that has occurred on his watch—just as they ignore the fact that Bush inherited an projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over the following decade, which he turned into an actual deficit of $6.1 trillion, according to a CBO study—but the improvement is real.


Quote:
Republicans would have us believe that their tight-fisted approach to spending is what brought down the deficit. But in fact, Obama has been very conservative, fiscally, since day one, to the consternation of his own party. According to reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times, Obama actually endorsed much deeper cuts in spending and the deficit than did the Republicans during the 2011 budget negotiations, but Republicans walked away.
Quote:
Contrary to rants that Obama’s 2010 health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), is the most socialistic legislation in American history, the reality is that it is virtually textbook Republican health policy, with a pedigree from the Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others.
Quote:
Despite Republican harping about Obama being anti-business, corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels during his administration. Even those progressives who defend Obama against critics on the left concede that he has bent over backward to protect corporate profits. As Theda Skocpol and Lawrence Jacobs put it: “In practice, [Obama] helped Wall Street avert financial catastrophe and furthered measures to support businesses and cater to mainstream public opinion. … He has always done so through specific policies that protect and further opportunities for businesses to make profits.”
Quote:
I don’t expect any conservatives to recognize the truth of Obama’s fundamental conservatism for at least a couple of decades—perhaps only after a real progressive presidency. In any case, today they are too invested in painting him as the devil incarnate in order to frighten grassroots Republicans into voting to keep Obama from confiscating all their guns, throwing them into FEMA re-education camps, and other nonsense that is believed by many Republicans.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 03:42 PM   #2
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Decific =/= debt

Tax receipts are at record highs, do the math
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 04:08 PM   #3
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
LOL, the continued head fake of comparing Obamacare to RomneyCare. They are totally the same, except they are totally different. No Republican ever presented a single piece of federal legislation with so much as a hint of ObamaCare or RomneyCare, because they understood that what might work for an individual state would not work (and I still maintain is unconstitutional, Justice Robert's contortions notwithstanding) at a federal level.

You really should take the day off. Your multiple fails today must hurt.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 05:21 PM   #4
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Please explain why Obamacare/RomneyCare won't or can't work at a broader federal level vs. a state level. Is there something inherent in it that somehow falls apart above a certain population size or geographical spread? Would it thus work better at, say, the county level than the state level? Interesting contention but I've seen little actually support it.

Some GOP representatives had proposed, somewhat half-heartedly, just such legislation back in the '90's as a market-oriented counterpoint/retort to Clintons more centralized, single-payer health care proposal. Dole was one, as I recall, and there were some others too. However, once they killed Clintoncare, they quickly lost interest and it really wasn't until Romney in Mass. that these GOP market-oriented plans were actually enacted, if only at the state-level in this case.

Disregarding how broadly applied, Obamacare/RomneyCare are conceptually quite similar. Indeed, Obamacare was specifically modeled after RomneyCare in a (misguided) hope that the GOP would support a market-based plan out of their own think tanks and states (Mass.). These GOP idea were not somehow limited to only the state level but discussed health care at a broader national level. The "it would (somehow) only work at the state level" argument really only came up, after-the-fact, after Obamacare was proposed, passed and upheld, again with little strong backing justification.

Last edited by Rhumb; 10-21-2014 at 05:26 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 05:32 PM   #5
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Decific =/= debt

Tax receipts are at record highs, do the math
"Deficit =/= debt" -- Umm, yeah..., I know that, and...

As a percentage of GDP, tax receipts are lower than most of the years since 1943, if I read this correctly:

Revenue as Share of GDP
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:37 AM   #6
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
"Deficit =/= debt" -- Umm, yeah..., I know that, and...

As a percentage of GDP, tax receipts are lower than most of the years since 1943, if I read this correctly:

Revenue as Share of GDP
That doesn't make it sound like Obama's policies are stealing money from the middle class though... the total tax revenue is at record levels.. now that's something that a Republican who just listen's to what they're told can get upset about
Wraisil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:39 AM   #7
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Decific =/= debt

Tax receipts are at record highs, do the math
Deficit goes up, debt goes up. Deficit goes down, debt goes up less, stays the same, or goes down. If you wish to reduce the debt, you have to reduce the deficit. It going down is something that has happened in recent years (not including years when a Republican occupied the WH).
Wraisil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:51 AM   #8
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,562
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Deficit goes up, debt goes up. Deficit goes down, debt goes up less, stays the same, or goes down. If you wish to reduce the debt, you have to reduce the deficit. It going down is something that has happened in recent years (not including years when a Republican occupied the WH).
There was a lot of going down the last time we had a Democrat in the White House too, nudge nudge wink wink.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #9
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
There was a lot of going down the last time we had a Democrat in the White House too, nudge nudge wink wink.
Never go full partisantard
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:08 AM   #10
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Never go full partisantard
By citing, irritatingly apparently, actual facts and data?

National Debt Graph by President


This graph was made from unmodified data straight out of G. W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget (up to Obama and except for the green line).

Quote:
Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” who told him he could have his cake and eat it too. They had a brand-new theory that said the government can collect more money by reducing taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! George H. W. Bush found this a bit hard to swallow and called it Voodoo economics.

In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan’s budget process and employed their Voodoo economics — cutting taxes to increase revenue. But just as Bush (and pretty much everyone) had predicted, it didn’t work. Instead, as you can see from the graph above, they turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. George Bush the First started reversing these policies and Bill Clinton continued with an even stronger reversal. But George Bush the Second, at Cheney’s urging (“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”), went right back to the voodoo. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased. Twenty years in a row can’t be just an accident.

Currently, supply-siders are still in control of the Republican party, and they will do this again if given a chance. But remember, this is not traditional balanced-budget conservatism. Reagan always said he would balance the budget, but that was based on the supply-side theory of “cut taxes to raise revenue.”

What about Obama? Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. (Bush was responsible for the turn-around from surplus to deficit soon after he took office, but not for the impact of the recession on the budget.) Nonetheless, Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.

Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that’s over.

The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.”

Republicans are quite embarrassed (1) by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for. Presidents propose the budget, and they have the most influence.
(1) By 1987 Ron Paul was asking "How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?"
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:18 PM   #11
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quick note, the "Presidents can veto" is a true statement. However, the budget does not get signed or vetoed by the President if no such budget is actually passed into law... can't veto a law which doesn't exist ...
Wraisil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:22 PM   #12
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Obama's net worth is millions of dollars, so by the Democrats definition, he's Republican.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Inline6 View Post
If there is one thing I despise most it's blacks always pulling the race card. It's so annoying and is often misplaced.

Last edited by bimmerfan08; Yesterday at 03:22 PM.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:43 PM   #13
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,562
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Obama's net worth is millions of dollars, so by the Democrats definition, he's Republican.
he's Kenyan, though, so they're all poor
__________________
NOVAbimmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:48 PM   #14
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 817
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
OBusha?
__________________

Present
2011 BMW 135i - BSM
Past
2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET

E46Sig
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:32 PM   #15
5ynd1cat3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 480
My Ride: swagger wagon
Obola?
__________________
5ynd1cat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM   #16
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Obama's net worth is millions of dollars, so by the Democrats definition, he's Republican.
I could certainly reference a lot of stats showing that the Dems, and their policies, are anything but antithetical to success and prosperity, especially on a broad scale, despite GOP rhetoric and caricatures to the contrary.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use