$21,750!
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
the 2001 dot com bust happened early in his presidency, the 2007-2009 crash was obviously worse.
That has been the modern day Republican history not to mention they have successfully feed this Bullshit their low information voters. The post is a prime example
Here is one place we agree. Bill Clinton - and in many ways Hilary also - were very republican to be democrats. The conservative media did such a good job demonizing Clinton that conservatives absolutely hated him, despite the fact that he shared most conservative economic ideologies.
both Clinton and Obama lost congress and had very little power to make major policy changes. most of obamas major policy changes were tied up in court and halted in his second term. the other branches of government pushed much of obama's practice to the center. while he made roads in social policy much of his other policy was halted.
biggest problems most have with obama is foreign policy, which president has vast powers in and requires little oversight and obamacare, which he blew his hold on congress by pushing through.
if they had made obamacare state optional then Clinton would be president right now.
Maybe, but I doubt it. He never mentioned the dot com bust, he did mention the real estate crash.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22). President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it".[1]
PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program—which had been in effect since 1935—and supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
And on Obama:
But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them.
The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?utm_term=.b349e1cdd6f2
Couple thoughts:
1) Given demographic trends and political idealogies, the recent upswing in the equity markets are benefiting upper income Democrats more than the current base of Republicans, who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to own stocks. I can assure you that most of these (wealthier) Democrats will not support Trump in 2020. There is some karma in that.
2) As was noted earlier, one should not confuse rising stock prices with economic growth. This administration predicts 3+% GDP over its first term. I think that is highly unlikely. However, if GDP soars, that WILL help current Trump voters, many of whom are stuck in manufacturing jobs that have been leaving the country due to a combination of wages and technology.
1) Given demographic trends and political idealogies, the recent upswing in the equity markets are benefiting upper income Democrats more than the current base of Republicans, who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to own stocks. I can assure you that most of these (wealthier) Democrats will not support Trump in 2020. There is some karma in that.
2) As was noted earlier, one should not confuse rising stock prices with economic growth. This administration predicts 3+% GDP over its first term. I think that is highly unlikely. However, if GDP soars, that WILL help current Trump voters, many of whom are stuck in manufacturing jobs that have been leaving the country due to a combination of wages and technology.
Help me understand point #1. Looks like upper income people voted for Trump over Clinton.
Breaking it down further, the support group with the highest average income was Kasich (where I was in the primary), but Trump was clearly ahead of Clinton and Sanders.
As someone who works in manufacturing, it's a lot more about technology and a lot less about wages/outsourcing.
People need to realize that many jobs of yesteryear will not come back, no matter how much deregulation is pushed through. For example: a lot of the textile business that has returned in the last five years has not resulted in the return of jobs. Automation has become both increasingly more complex and less costly to implement. Job seekers need to understand this new reality and adjust.
Plenty of blame to go around, but even if you concede the conclusion that Democrats started the fire, the Republicans threw gas on it for years and didn't call the Fire Department to put it out when they had full authority to do so between 2003-2007.
The Bill Clinton Theory is basically admitting that you treat politics like Team Sports.
i look at the income numbers and i see young people and the poor were certainly more likely to support clinton... but that every other income level it was practically negligible.1-2% spread for all income levels over 100K.Help me understand point #1. Looks like upper income people voted for Trump over Clinton.
Breaking it down further, the support group with the highest average income was Kasich (where I was in the primary), but Trump was clearly ahead of Clinton and Sanders.
That's an opinion piece from someone who works for the heritage foundation and doesn't accurately reflect the Obama policy.
The policy did not end the work requirement, but rather allowed states to create programs (like work training) in which the unemployed could enroll in order to get their benefits.
If we are going to bash Obama, let's do it for one of the many perfectly legitimate reasons to bash him, not for made up reasons.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
No doubt.
Work in manufacturing as well in an industry not effected by outsourcing. Employee less people in the plant now compared to 1980 despite having 3 more plants and making 5x product. Also we constantly have openings and the job force by and large is exactly how it is described in the first chapter of Hillbilly Ellegy at one of our plants.
It still refutes kw's claim that Republicans were less affluent, less educated and less likely to own stocks. Here's what he said:
upper income Democrats more than the current base of Republicans, who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to own stocks
85% of coal jobs lost were lost to technological advances.
note... timescale is different, but you get the idea.
i think your numbers showed that the republican hot spot is in low educated middle income workers in the 50-99K range... that was their biggest win on the chart.
i agree it is intellectually dishonest to say that upper income people trend democratic or even that college educated persons trend democratic, this is because even though dems might win college grads overall, they get overwhelming 80% plus, support from non white college grads. republicans still have a slight edge with well educated white people, and no matter how you cut it is close.
i'm personally worried by the trend of the republicans used to win some college, and college degree but would lose no college and graduate degrees... now republicans lost college degrees and grad degrees overall but won both some college and no college. that is what i find scariest, the base shifting away from and intelligentsia.
To be fair, modern Republicans have changed quite a bit too. Nowadays, any Republican who actually thinks issues out and is willing to compromise to get something done is labeled a RINO. In other words, if you are not a far right Republican then you are not a Republican at all. It certainly didn't used to be that way.
Yea. Pubs need to refine their platform to be social moderates and common sense fiscal conservatives. That would allow them to take command of this demographic.
Agreed. I joke around in these threads, but @steele-tiger 's team sport comment is accurate. It's just become a R vs. D battle royale and the big losers are the American people.
I am sorry for any confusion but I figured my reference to the DOW average tripling during his presidency would illustrate my opinion, which is based on an objective fact. I think the DOW is a fair rep of "big business" and their relative value increased by 300%.
Now, I was asking you to explain how it is "preposterous" to say big business did "do pretty well" during this period.
Believe me...all the boats have not risen, at least not yet. It has not been "happy days" for
American workers and middle class for the last 20 years. If you are a member of the investment class or a CEO of Fortune 500 company, it's "let the good times roll." I have not seen a $100 bills "trickling down" yet. Hope they do, but I have not seen it yet.
This is true but none of happened until he took a huge ass whipping in the first mid-term after the election. Remember Hillary was initially in the White House holding meetings to implement a single payer health system until she was called on the carpet. It was Gingrich and the "contract with America" that forced these issues. Clinton was a chameleon and would go along with the prevailing conservative ideas so he could take credit. Clinton was all about "looking good" and was not a strict ideologue. It all worked out pretty well.
In the last five minutes, I responded to Gallup Poll on the characteristics of the President. Strangely, it felt good for someone to ask for my opinion. I enjoyed the process.
Thinking and opinions like this is why stupid will never be left out of the public discourse.
hey guys just checking in to see how healthcare reform is coming along.
are you tired of all the winning yet? lol
are you tired of all the winning yet? lol
i'd love to see some form of the Graham Cassidy plan with more details and bipartisan committee editing come back around as a bipartisan plan.
have been a multi year supporter of making obamacare state optional, let every state determine their essential benefits, let every state determine if they want to cover pre-existing conditions.
make the bad guys the state legislatures, let magazines like US news and world report rank the states by quality of their health care system. if they do that, some liberal states and some conservative states will come up with good systems that work in different ways. other states will then copy their systems.
Last edited:
the stock market crashed in September of 2008, months before the election.
the bond market crashed in 2007, before the first primary voter had voted for Obama.
the bond markets impact on the financial sector and the derivatives held by investment banks is what crashed the stock the market. Lehman Brothers did not go bankrupt because the stock market realized that Obama would win the election 2 months in the future.
I can see some merit to what you're saying, I just worry that the state legislatures would screw it up. I'm a big gov't liberal, so take it with a grain of salt. I just don't see any of the essential benefits that I think insurance shouldn't have to cover and I think it's inherently immoral to not cover pre-existing conditions. I think that privatized insurance is the wrong vehicle to achieve all of this, but it's what we've got right now. Republican states would be the most negatively affected by allowing the states to reduce the comprehensiveness of their insurance plans.
this. i see what you're going for @toolucky52384 , but i don't see any way that could actually function. states like kansas would absolutely fvck their citizens.
i agree. i'm saying let those states do it. including south carolina... block grant the money to the states, keep the obamacare taxes, get rid of the employer mandates, let states decide on individual mandates... eventually when moderate states actually do something with the money and make it work then ultra conservatives states will copy the more conservative versions of universal health care, that or they will see people moving away to states that have better systems and therefore qualities of life.
as long as you keep the national taxes in place and block grant the money back to the states you won't have states holding out so they can become tax havens.
Last edited:
i agree, 100%... i'm saying let the idiot state legislatures screw it up. in 10 years, 20, years, 50 years, they will come around, or they will be proven right.
eventually good ideas are proven. i'm not a proponent of enacting experiments on a country wide level. obamacare was an experiment, based on a semi successful Massachusetts experiment. the biggest problem is it didn't fix the flaws of the Massachusetts experiment.
Had the civil war not been fought, slavery would still be illegal today, it probably would have only lasted 20-40 more years before trade sanctions made it a self defeating system. So in reality the civil war was not fought because the North was anti slavery and the South was pro slavery, but because the North became anti slavery at a different pace than the South. Economic pressures were then applied based on the perceptions of the rightness or wrongness and escalation followed... the point is not pro civil war or against, the point is that if states are allowed to make their own decisions some will make good ones, some will make bad ones, but eventually market forces will steer states towards the correct decisions or stubborn self inflicted economic annihilation.
i'd point out... South Carolina and Kansas are not going to come up with good systems. It will be a disaster and it will hurt the population of our state.
Texas, North Carolina, Colorado, New Hampshire, ... these states believe in conservative principles but also are not inherently anti government... not all of these states will come up with a good system, but a few of them stand a chance.
it won't be a hands off ultra conservative system, but it will be one that has free market empowerment built in.
While it's frustrating to see no progress, I suppose that is better than a solution that actually increases the cost of the legislation, which would be the democratic proposal. Whatever the "fix" is, it's also bound to suck in some major way. Maybe it's better to just let the program fail on its own. I work with a lot of health insurance execs, and many more plans will drop out after this year. They all lose money on the program and they are torn between a societal obligation to serve that population vs. the common business sense of exiting a non-profitable sector.
I've actually profited nicely due to ACA, so I'm torn. I also like the individual mandate, unlike most conservatives. I'd like to see a creative solution where the individual mandate remains, but it can be fulfilled by ultra-low cost catastrophic plans that cover preventative care, and the government can somehow loan the money to cover the deductible for those who can't pay it with non-bankruptable loans. Roll back medicaid, roll back the subsidies, roll back the taxes. Huge focus on cost reduction. Narrow networks to make ACA plans more affordable. Work with businesses and the COC to develop business friendly employee insurance rules. Etc.
Based on the subject line, I thought your were going to tell us this was your donation to IPTAY and your parking was bumped to East Beach.
I despise Trump but I would be the first person to come on here and give Trump credit if he would take this opportunity to take a leadership role in getting both sides to come together and fix what we currently have. I dont think that will happen though.
It does not help that if he were to do it, some of the media would pound him for taking a loss versus praising him for trying to do it. I wish they would lay off of him today, pointing out the loss is only going to make that petulant child more angry.
Similar threads
