Obama spent more than a year trying to reach out to the Republicans when they clearly weren't interested in any kind of compromise, so yes, he's perfectly capable of "moving to the center." I think he should have acted more like Bush and told them to go to hell, because trying to work with them came back to bite him on the ass as we're seeing right now. The guy embraced a health care reform policy that was basically drafted by Republicans in the first place and was branded as a communist for it. He hasn't been particularly progressive so far, so why would anyone expect him to all of a sudden become progressive when facing a Republican Congress?
Yes, damn us americans for prefering our heroin of 4.6% unemployment rates and $250 billion dollar deficits instead of taking our vegetables in the form of 9.6% unemployment rates and $1.5 trillion dollar deficits.
We had divided government for the first two years of Obama's term, with the Republicans voting in a block against everything suggested by the president, and it looked like this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmP4Gb2pEsY"]YouTube - Congressman Emanuel Cleaver spit on by teabagger before healthcare vote - new video![/ame] That is just ugly and unseemly. Even more of that is not what the country needs. (Unless the argument is that if the GOP is rewarded for its obstructionism with control of Congress, that the Republicans will suddenly become more amenable.)
It was a mirage. Did you miss the part when the bubble burst? That wonderful time pre-2006 was us getting one last high, rather than dealing with our addiction. In doing so, we made the detox that much more difficult.
And whe exactly did the Bush have a fillibusterproof Senate? It is clear you just blame everything on republicans. There are a lot of other people who blame everything on democrats. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and it should be expected that there will be a swing in the pendulum back after the huge gains the democrats made in the last election.
So now we are dealing with our addiction by increasing spending and entitlements. Doesn't sound like much of detox program to me.
I'm not going into this with you. You don't think we should have been saved from the gaping chasm. It's all Barry's fault. We get it. Now quit changing the subject every ********ing time you get the chance to harp on your pet issue, ok?
Of course you don't want to get into it because we weren't saved from a gaping chasm, we lept off the edge. Do do realize these trillion $ deficits aren't a one off don't you? CBO is projected trillion $ deficits for the next ten years.
Why the new tea Party people did not support Ron Paul? Even Fox news played down the popularity of Paul in 2008. WTF? Now I even wonder if R.P. gets invited to tea Party events, it looks to me that the godfather of the Tea Party has been pushed out. I also know that a lot of the original tea party people are not socially conservative (some are) I wonder what will happen when some house members that came from the tea party start pushing anti-choice, anti-gay agendas? Will that split the team party? like the legalizeing weed issue. The Libertarian party is also split on the Abortion Issue, I believe that the mayority is anti-abortion, but many of them are Pro-choice.
Many TP people (and they certainly aren't uniform in their beliefs) aren't big Ron Paul fans because he doesn't support military interventionism overseas or lots of defense spending at home. Unfortunately, it's probably the other way around, or at least close to 50-50. Generally it's not a big issue I don't think.
So what you are trying to claim is that the situation was so bad in 2006 when the democrats took control of congress that they should not be held responsible for their role in the current economic situation. In your view, the seeds were sewen in 2006 and nothing the democratic congress could have done would have prevented us from going from 4.6% unemployment rates and $250 billion dollar deficits to 9.6% unemployment rates and $1.5 trillion dollar deficits? So the congress should not be held responsible for their role in the current situation, and in fact should be rewarded for doing such a fine job? Me personally If I were given the choice, take over the economy of 2006 or the economy of today, I would choose 2006. I think it was completely possible to implement policies that would have slowly deflated the housing bubble without pulling down the entire economy. OTOH I think today we have accumulated such a massive debt that it will be very very difficult to implement any policies to try to really turn the unemployment situation around. I think with the proper policies it would have been much easier to maintain a decent level of growth between 2006 and 2010 than it will be to implement policies today that would allow for that same type of growth for the next 4 years.
What I'm saying is that the current economic situation is a result of 20 some-odd years of regulatory and monetary policy that created, by 2006, a ticking economic timebomb that we were in absolutely no position to defuse with a quick bill here and an interest rate change there. There is no way that Congress was going to suddenly force stiffer regulation on the shadow banking system when they barely managed to pass a finance bill with any teeth AFTER the shit had hit the fan and the political pressure to accomplish something had changed. Even THEN, the Republicans fought it every step of the way. How do you expect they were supposed to do something with a bare slimmest of "majorities" in the Senate (49 Dems, if I recall) and a Republican president? And that's the Congress that began in '07. Obviously nothing was going to happen before that. I'm also saying that you also can't blame the 2006-8 congress for lacking the foresight that 2 decades of not just politicians, but economists had lacked. But they were Democrats, so you'll make the argument anyway. This paragraph is a fine example of strawman construction. Good work. You have your opinion, based on 20/20 hindsight. I disagree with you. 2006 was 1928. A reckoning was coming and we were way too late to stop it. Even if Congress had known that the bubble existed and just how big (and global) it was (which they didn't), there's only so much they could have done to make the inevitable pop less painful. The fact of the matter is that we're closer to getting the world back to something resembling functional now than we were 4 years ago. Yes, it's not the same. Guess what? It never will be. Because all that growth was based on an unsustainable asset bubble. Your good old days were a chimera. I think that the idea that we could have continued to grow in the face of a GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN is, frankly, naive. You can feel free to make the argument that Congress didn't do the right thing once the meltdown had begun, but to blame them for not reacting to it before they saw it coming is, well... pretty partisan of you.
I just don't agree that it was "timebomb" that could not be defused. Yes you couldn't correct things overnight, but that doesn't mean that if corrections had been made slowly that we couldn't have had a "soft landing" instead of the explosion we had. You assume that "stiffer regulation" was the way to defuse the time bomb, I don't agree wih that assumtion. Did they even try to adress the housing bubble? But some here are trying to blame all republicans, even the ones who were not in congress at the time. That is the issue, we are talking about the upcoming elections for the house. Should incumbent democrats be allowed to maintain the control they have had since 2006 or should a batch of new Republican's be elected? I think it is perfectly rational for voters to look at this and say, both the republicans and the democrats that have been in power have screwed up, so it is time to replace them. If that is the case it should not be a shock that the party in power will end up seeding control to the party out of power. Actually they are questions not an argument. Do you or do you not believe the democrats who have been in power in the congress since 2006 have done a good job, and they should not be held responsible for the negative aspects of the economy today? I don't think 2006 was anything like 1928. We will just have to agree to disagree that the reckoning had to come in such a calamanous form. And I think it is reasonable that most voters feel the same way, and they are justified in holding the members of congress in power responsible. I just don't agree. bubbles can be deflated instead of popping. I think there was ample evidence of the bubble and Congess was turning a blind eye to it just like Bush. John McCain already paid for the sins of Bush but the Democrats in congress have yet to pay. I think it is logical that now is the time. I just don't agree with that. I think the deficit is hanging over our head like the sword of Damocles. I don't think the majority of the growth was based on an unsustainable bubble, but when the bubble was popped in such a violent manner it took all the good parts of the economy down with it. For instance just look at how much Less the TARP is going to cost us than projected. The banks were really not in as bad of shape as some led us to believe, but there was a huge "confidence" issue. The democratic congress has been useless in helping to restore the confidence that will be necessary to get this economy moving again. I think we lead the "global meltdown" we weren't pulled into it. Well they should have seen it coming, just like Bush should have, but you know what, Bush is not up for election right now, the democratically controlled congress is. There is no doubt that Bush will be looked on as having done a terrible job, and the republican party has paid dearly for his sins. It is time for the democrats in congress to pay for theirs.
Why is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YjadJ1T8Pk"]YouTube - Iott Nazi Controversy[/ame]
Here's one thing I think that Dems should take heart in - This is far from over, and the Democrats, faced with all kinds of problems and a high unemployment rate, are being VERY competitive. IMO - the House is still a toss up because of the large number of highly contested seats.
Based on the most recent poll, yes. But I'm pretty sure they don't change the leaning based on just one poll.