Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Congrats to ObamaFollow

#27 Sep 02 2009 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Elinda wrote:
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Obama, as you're aware, stepped into a huge mess.

At what point does this become facetious? Not that I put much stock in opinion polls and the like, but when can we officially declare that the "Blame It On the Last Guy" horse is dead?
Not yet. Smiley: grin

Life isn't simple.

Politics aren't simple.

Economics aren't simple.

There are some laws and Executive funded actions that take 1 month to kick in, some take a year, some take 5 years, some take 10 years, some take 25. Ditto on how long their effects last for after they first take effect. Some decisions and actions and legal changes are still washing out the system 75, a hundred years after their inception.

Take the legalisation of abortion. Whether or not you accept that that has been a factor in the massive drop in crime rate 25 years afterward, there's no question that our present society and economy and culture is a different place than it otherwise would be if that law hadn't changed all those decades ago. In the first world we are now missing a small but significant amount of the native population that otherwise would be there. Our population is better educated and has more assets, and other children are born to more mature parents, because some children just weren't born earlier, to younger parents. And some women are feeling a lifetime of regret or guilt for the child that never was, that they miss now, that they wish they could take back that previous decision.

There is also a small but significant portion of severely disabled people who weren't born from the combination of modern prenatal diagnostics and abortion. Maybe that is society's gain, maybe that's society's loss.

Take the legal change that women would be allowed to keep their paying jobs upon marrying. From 1900 to 1950, adjusted for inflation, house prices stayed almost totally flat and unchanged. If I recall correctly, houses cost the price of 5 years of the average male wage. From 1950 house prices started to rise just a little. After 1970 house prices started to rise, and rise more steeply as they went along, particularly picking up in the 80s, and just kept on an upward logarithmic rise.

What jumps out at me is that house prices started going up in trend with more and more women entering the workforce. So I have made a completely unresearched and unfounded hypothetical that the bulk of houses are bought by couples simply bidding against each other at auction with as much money as they could afford to pay on monthly mortgages. That they would buy the best house that they could afford. As women gained more rights in the paying workforce more couples became double-income households. Women's wages rose, boosting those double incomes further. So that the money that couples were prepared to pay for a house rose too, pushing house prices up and up over inflation.

Of course, there are other factors that have created housing bubbles along the way, especially in relation to the desirability of other investment options. But over the long term, statistical graphs of house prices and women's incomes are very suggestive.

I present to you these examples of policy change having long term, indirect, or unforeseen repercussions and consequences. So if you want to play the praise or blame game in politics, you CAN"T be simplistic about timeslines, and cause and effect. You have to track what actions had what effects, over time, over the whole system, the whole nation, and many washing out over the whole world in the long term. I'd bet pretty much all examples have bad effects as well as good ones, even if the good heavily outweigh the bad.

And in economics, I see a lot of good and bad chickens that come home to roost in 10 and 15 years. Not contained within a silly little 3 or 4 year political cycle. I should have mentioned another one. Education. What you decide now you will be noticing most 25 years later. And it will be affecting you till that generation is dead.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 1:31am by Aripyanfar
#28 Sep 02 2009 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
****
5,550 posts
Quote:
A lot of his policies are pretty controversial and ruffling a lot of feathers because of broken campaign promises.


Broken promises ? In politics ? Color me the color that best represents not shocked at all. Like beige, but more beiger.

Beige color tags do not exist. Damn.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 1:38am by Tarub
#29 Sep 03 2009 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Let's ignore the Rasmussen numbers for the moment. Are you seriously looking at the second graphic on that page and saying that the numbers aren't trending downward for Obama?


Meaningless. If it was September 2010, I'd be more concerned. I'll give you even money that his approval numbers are higher on that date.

That said, the GOP has done a good, effective, job here with Healthcare from a tactical point of view, and the Left has done a good job, as always, missing the political point and squabbling internally. Something's going to pass this year, though. Maybe a meaningless something, but there won't be a Healthcare debate in 2010.

Here's the problem for the GOP: The crux of the message for them, setting the Alinsky histrionics aside, is that the status quo is just dandy, and the threat is that it will be changed. Which is a good argument now when people are frightened about things getting worse. It's a terrible argument if the economic recovery picks up speed and starts creating jobs, which it's likely to do even if it's largely the result of stimulus money finality reaching paychecks.

Then they're left with "well, now that things are getting better we need change!"

I'd put the over under for the House at GOP +25 and the Senate at GOP +2 in 2010. This, of course, doesn't factor in the likelihood that s GOP congressperson or two engages in some exciting Airport Restroom Fellatio or Crack Fueled Boy Fucking.

There is quite literally zero chance they take back the House, and maybe .0005% chance they miraculously eek out something near parity in the Senate. Which means they have to be less obstructionist, Democratic leadership clams down, Emanuel gets fired and something meaningful gets accomplished between 2010 and 2012 while the economy almost inevitably is in full expansion for the 2012 election.

I'm not thrilled if I'm a GOP stakeholder, honestly, but I do feel better than I did a year ago.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 Sep 04 2009 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Obama, as you're aware, stepped into a huge mess.

At what point does this become facetious? Not that I put much stock in opinion polls and the like, but when can we officially declare that the "Blame It On the Last Guy" horse is dead?
Not yet. Smiley: grin

Lots of words.

So, basically, you're keeping it open on the grounds that "the future is infinitely uncertain", or some other such nonsense.

'kay.

In that case, this economic mess is all FDR's fault! If not for his massive entitlement increase decades ago, there would've never been a housing boom!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#31 Sep 04 2009 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Someone can state that he stepped into a big mess without implying that the mess was Bush's fault. The mess could have been caused by unforseen, unpredictable forces, as messes mostly are. Independent of judgement of Bush, the mess still exists.

The poster could have been completely blaming Bush for all I know, but that's the devil's advocate answer.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 235 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (235)