Majority of Ohio voters would now rather have Bush back in office instead of Obama

[Jhhnn]

Glass-Steagall was rescinded under the Clinton admin as part of a budget deal with the repub congress. So many exceptions had already been granted as to render it moot, anyway. They'd been pushing deregulation for decades resulting in the S&L scandal and the junk bond collapse in the 80's, the LTCM collapse in 1998, Enron, Global Crossing and a few other misadventures. All examples of financial deregulation at its finest.

It's important to understand history so we won't repeat it, don't you think?

So, uhh, what sort of new thinking do Repubs offer us this election cycle, anyway? Have they made any sort of changes to their basic philosophy, something that might indicate they don't just plan on more of the same thing that got us here?

Are they even the slightest bit chagrined by their own performance when in power the last time? Any admissions of error beyond Greenspan's remark that there had been a "flaw" in his thinking?

Not that I've noticed, and apparently none that their loyalists can cite. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you'd care to lay out what repubs see as needing to be done and how they intend to accomplish it.

They've been raving about budget deficits since Obama took office- tell us about how extending the Bush taxcuts will ameliorate that, just for starters.

 

[Double Trouble]

Glass-Steagall was rescinded under the Clinton admin as part of a budget deal with the repub congress. So many exceptions had already been granted as to render it moot, anyway.
They'd been pushing deregulation for decades resulting in the S&L scandal and the junk bond collapse in the 80's, the LTCM collapse in 1998, Enron, Global Crossing and a few other misadventures. All examples of financial deregulation at its finest.

It's important to understand history so we won't repeat it, don't you think?

Fact: Glass Steagall was repealed under Clinton, not Bush. Its repeal is credited at least in part to be a catalyst for the mess we saw later. None of it has anything to do with Bush, still waiting for all those things Bush did to create the housing bubble and housing market meltdown. So far, nothing.

So, uhh, what sort of new thinking do Repubs offer us this election cycle, anyway? Have they made any sort of changes to their basic philosophy, something that might indicate they don't just plan on more of the same thing that got us here?

More partisan drivel with no foundation. The usual "it's all the republican's fault" is exactly why the polls are starting to tank for the democrats. Democrats: stop wasting our time with but but boooooosh and blaming republicans for everything. Do something useful and the polls might change direction.

Not that I've noticed, and apparently none that their loyalists can cite. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you'd care to lay out what repubs see as needing to be done and how they intend to accomplish it.

Right now, the repubs don't need to lay out a plan: they are just allowing the democrats to flounder and keep blaming booooooooosh, and the public will naturally vent their anger on the democrats. The dems are doing the repubs campaigning for them with each "but boooosh" excuse. Politics as usual.

They've been raving about budget deficits since Obama took office- tell us about how extending the Bush taxcuts will ameliorate that, just for starters.

Not extending the tax cuts (ie, raising taxes) in a terrible economy is a recipe for disaster. If the dems want to do it, let them do it and suffer the political consequences. That's just back to what I said before: repubs don't need a plan right now, all they have to do is point to democrats and say "we're not like them". Exactly the same strategy followed by the dems in 2008: "we're not like those repubs". It worked perfectly then, and unless the dems get smarter, it's going to work again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice dodge, DT.

So repubs really are just offering more of the same, right? And it's all Clinton's fault, of course, for finally giving repubs what they wanted wrt financial deregulation.

And, uhh, Dems are supposed to "do something useful" against a record breaking repub use of filibusters in the Senate. Nail their feet to the floor, criticize 'em because they can't run, right? Or are you advocating that Dems implement what Repubs threatened in 2005, the "Nuclear Option"?

The actions of the Bush Admin wrt development of the housing bubble are well documented. They've been discussed at length many times in this forum, with links and references. You've participated. Selective memory on your part is really a bit unbecoming. W even rode it to re-election in 2004 with the "Ownership Society", remember?

Remember the old saying about how a picture tells more than 1000 words? Here's one-

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Nice, Huh? It's one for the history books, bet on that...

 

[Double Trouble]

Nice dodge, DT.

So repubs really are just offering more of the same, right? And it's all Clinton's fault, of course, for finally giving repubs what they wanted wrt financial deregulation.

I'm surprised the secret service would let those nasty republicans put a gun to his head and make him sign legislation he didn't like This thread is about Ohio voters by a significant margin preferring Bush over Obama now. I've explained why, but your partisan perspective won't allow you to see it. You can argue all you want, but the polls show what people think and it's only going to get worse for this administration unless they learn to see perspectives other than their own.

And, uhh, Dems are supposed to "do something useful" against a record breaking repub use of filibusters in the Senate. Nail their feet to the floor, criticize 'em because they can't run, right?

Ok, so it's the evil republicans fault, even though the dems had a supermajority in both houses and held the white house? On the one hand, they managed to pass the biggest debacle legislation (healtcare) in decades, and on the other you argue that they can't do anything because of republicans. Instead of wasting all their efforts on pushing something that the people did not want, they should have tackled the economy. Now the public is turning on them in a big way and it's somehow surprising?

Or are you advocating that Dems implement what Repubs threatened in 2005, the "Nuclear Option"?

I was absolutely against it then, and I'm against it now. The rules of the senate don't need to be changed now, they've worked for hundreds of years. Those rules don't need to be changed for the dems to do things, there's plenty of legislation that can be passed, it just can't be extreme left.

The actions of the Bush Admin wrt development of the housing bubble are well documented. They've been discussed at length many times in this forum, with links and references. You've participated. Selective memory on your part is really a bit unbecoming. W even rode it to re-election in 2004 with the "Ownership Society", remember?

Uh, if by "well documented" you mean "argued by leftists who hate Bush and want to blame him", then yes. If you mean actually proven by objective economic analysis, then no.

Remember the old saying about how a picture tells more than 1000 words? Here's one-

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Nice, Huh? It's one for the history books, bet on that...

Of course there's one tiny little bit missing... the context. What specific regulations? What red tape? Getting rid of useless regulations and red tape is a great thing. Getting rid of critical ones, not so much. Notice how you're still trying to argue that it's all the fault of Booooooosh and those evil republicans? That's what the polls are showing: people are tired of that excuse, they just don't buy it anymore.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still dodging, I see. Remarkably persistent.

Republicans are offering what, exactly? More borrowed prosperity? More failed trickledown policy?

Dems held 60 seats in the senate for a scant 7 months, counted among them Lieberman and a handful of corporate Dems. When Kennedy died, they only had 59 thereafter. He'd been incapacitated and unable to work since some time around March, meaning the alleged supermajority only lasted 3 months. He was only there for the most critical votes, not to work.

Repub opposition to even the most mundane bills and appointments has been near unanimous ever since, with only the occasional breakaways allowing much to be accomplished. It's the repub strategy- obstructionism. They're creating the "uncertainty" they decry. Lott has admitted to such.

It's amusing how you offer that Dem initiatives are "extreme left" in a truly vague and non specific fashion, invoking innuendo as proof, yet demand rigorous "proof" wrt the known actions and words of the Bush Admin wrt the housing bubble.

What current polling seems to indicate is that repub strategy appears to be working, no doubt. Prevent progress, blame the other guy for not providing it. Slather it all over with "extreme leftist" accusations and innuendo. Harken back to the days when debt and economic deception created the doomed to crash illusion of prosperity. It may work. Or not. We'll see.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Pictures are worth a thousand words, and this sums up your post history pretty well. Just once, I'd like to hear you say that both parties are the problem. Because when all is said and done, that is exactly what the issue is. You can point fingers all day long, but guess what happens to those of us in the real world when we have issues with coworkers? Our boss tells us we don't have to like each other but we have to work together, or we get fired. People need to apply this same standard to politicians. No more excuses.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reduced to ridicule as argument, ICF? Apparently so.

There's a point where we all need to lead, follow or get out of the way. Denied the first, repubs won't engage in either of the latter, and now use that as the basis to attack what leadership there is. And it actually appears to be working for them. If they make sufficient gains in this election cycle, that'll just get worse, because they're ideologically hidebound, committed to policy that demonstrably doesn't work. They currently enjoy a 41-59 majority in the Senate, at least they try to set policy as if they're the majority when they're not. If the American people are foolish enough to allow that, there's really little that can be done until the situation deteriorates further, eliminating the possibility of the denial so prevalent today.

It really is one of those "tell me you love me and then you can fvck me" deals, and repubs are currently professing their undying affections...

 

[BoomerD]

Was this "poll" done by Diebold?

 

[her209]

Fact: Glass Steagall was repealed under Clinton, not Bush. Its repeal is credited at least in part to be a catalyst for the mess we saw later. None of it has anything to do with Bush, still waiting for all those things Bush did to create the housing bubble and housing market meltdown. So far, nothing.

Just curious... do you say the same thing about the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts? In other words, is it Bush's fault that taxes will be going back to their pre-BTC-levels or is it Obama's?

 

[BoomerD]

Just curious... do you say the same thing about the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts? In other words, is it Bush's fault that taxes will be going back to their pre-BTC-levels or is it Obama's?

I lol at how Republican apologists try to blame Clinton for the Gramm-Leach-Biley act when it was a another Republican attack on America...
(from wikipedia)

"The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[2]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on 1 July 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9][10]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30th by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[11]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[8] [12] On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13] [14] and by the House 362-57.[15] [16] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]

 

[Double Trouble]

Still dodging, I see. Remarkably persistent.

Republicans are offering what, exactly? More borrowed prosperity? More failed trickledown policy?

I've already answered that: they are not offering anything, they are just saying "vote for us, we're not the guys that are screwing things up right now". It's the same strategy that worked to perfection in 2008.

Dems held 60 seats in the senate for a scant 7 months, counted among them Lieberman and a handful of corporate Dems. When Kennedy died, they only had 59 thereafter. He'd been incapacitated and unable to work since some time around March, meaning the alleged supermajority only lasted 3 months. He was only there for the most critical votes, not to work.

Yet with all that, they managed to pass major pieces of legislation that the majority of the country opposed. In short, they were able to get things done that the country did not want, but you claim they couldn't get things done because they didn't have the votes needed. They should have focused their energy on passing things the country wanted instead of pushing the agenda. Now they will - rightfully - pay the price in November. That's how democracy works, the people judge your performance come election time.

It's the repub strategy- obstructionism. They're creating the "uncertainty" they decry. Lott has admitted to such.

If the voters want the repubs to oppose things, that's what they will do. Duuh. And the voters will judge the actions.

It's amusing how you offer that Dem initiatives are "extreme left" in a truly vague and non specific fashion, invoking innuendo as proof, yet demand rigorous "proof" wrt the known actions and words of the Bush Admin wrt the housing bubble.

It's not *me* saying the dem initiatives are "extreme", that's what the public thinks: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...iews_are_extreme_51_say_hillary_is_mainstream

You might not like it, but that's the public perception......

 

[Double Trouble]

Just curious... do you say the same thing about the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts? In other words, is it Bush's fault that taxes will be going back to their pre-BTC-levels or is it Obama's?

Of course it's Obama's fault. He's actively campaigning and pushing for congress to let the tax cuts expire. To call a spade a spade, it's a tax increase, pure and simple.

 

[Double Trouble]

It really is one of those "tell me you love me and then you can fvck me" deals, and repubs are currently professing their undying affections...

Yep, the repubs are professing their undying affections, the dems are actively screwing us. Then they'll swap places. Thank you two party system.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yawn. So Repubs plan to return to the policies that created this mess in the first place, right? Helluva reason to vote for 'em, huh?

Healthcare reform was a major plank of Obama's campaign, and even though what passed was basically the repub plan of 1993 and Romneycare, it's obviously extreme, right? Or so Repubs seem to have convinced many to be the truth.

And the whole bit about Obama campaigning for letting the taxcuts expire is a half truth form of deception, at best. He's holding to his campaign promise not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250K-

But here's what the White House wants America to know: President Obama is sticking to his campaign promise to permanently extend tax cuts on all household income below $250,000. The president underscored that commitment while speaking in the Rose Garden last week.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129605962

And that's marginal tax rates only on income over $250K, projected to raise $700B or so over 10 years pretty painlessly. People at the top will still pay a lower % than they did pre-Reagan, and I didn't notice any of them hurting back then.

So you're kinda fibbing there, aren't you? Repubs will attempt to hold middle class cuts hostage so as to keep the top rate cuts, obviously. We'll see how they spin that- they'll have to do a better job than you have for the electorate to buy it... it might just blow up in their faces. We'll see.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yawn. So Repubs plan to return to the policies that created this mess in the first place, right? Helluva reason to vote for 'em, huh?

Yawn, once again you fall back to the party talking point, the "policies that created this mess", without being able to provide anything to back it up. The polls show that the voters are tired of that excuse, which is what this thread was about (polls showing people prefer Bush over Obama).

Healthcare reform was a major plank of Obama's campaign, and even though what passed was basically the repub plan of 1993 and Romneycare, it's obviously extreme, right?

The stinker of a health care plan is IMO a pile of garbage, but my point was that if they had the energy and votes to push something the country did not want, they should have pushed things the public did want, or don't whine when the public pounds them in November for not doing the job.

Or so Repubs seem to have convinced many to be the truth.

Yeah, because if the people have an opinion that differs from yours, it must be someone's evil plotting and gyrations, it can't be that they've formed their own opinion

And the whole bit about Obama campaigning for letting the taxcuts expire is a half truth form of deception, at best. He's holding to his campaign promise not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250K-

Mere semantics will not save him. Raising taxes is raising taxes. The fact that he wants to jack up taxes for one group and not others doesn't mean he's not raising taxes. I've already heard ads running on the radio locally: "the democrats are raising taxes as usual. Jan 1, get ready to hold out your wallet so the democrats in DC can take more taxes out" etc, and trust me, with the economy the way it is, that resonates among voters.

Since Obama himself is not on the ballot this election, it's all the moderate dems (from places like Ohio) that are going to get hammered. Ted Strickland is the (dem) governor of Ohio -- he's about to get booted out of office. Many other moderates will suffer the same fate, thanks to the leftist faction of the dem party (pelosi and her ilk).

So you're kinda fibbing there, aren't you?

If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, taxes will go up. That's a 100% true statement. Will they go up for everyone? No, but that won't matter in the political sphere, people don't listen to fine distinctions and nuances.

We'll see how they spin that- they'll have to do a better job than you have for the electorate to buy it...

LOL, don't know what alternate reality you live in, the electorate is mad as a hornet right now, ready to unleash on anyone (including the republicans). The repubs are just doing a better job channeling that anger.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yawn, once again you fall back to the party talking point, the "policies that created this mess", without being able to provide anything to back it up. The polls show that the voters are tired of that excuse, which is what this thread was about (polls showing people prefer Bush over Obama).

Polls don't show that at all. You're embellishing, putting the spin on it that you want.

If Dems can play this upcoming tax fracas well, it'll hurt repubs rather badly. Voters can make rational distinctions when they're thinking, as Bill Clinton once observed- "When people are thinking, that's good for Democrats". Voters have a lot to think about this time, just like in 2008, and repubs don't have the Terrarist Threat! to wave around, nor do they want to touch the ownership society or their usual God guns and Gays routine, either. They've pretty much shot their wad wrt the "ground zero mosque" distraction, so what's left? Taxes?

They'll vote for whatever Dems put up- they have to, or they'll rightfully catch hell for letting taxes go up for everybody.

Spin that, if you can...

Repubs will likely make some gains- that's traditional for a new president's first midterm.

 

[Double Trouble]

Polls don't show that at all. You're embellishing, putting the spin on it that you want.

If Dems can play this upcoming tax fracas well, it'll hurt repubs rather badly. Voters can make rational distinctions when they're thinking, as Bill Clinton once observed- "When people are thinking, that's good for Democrats". Voters have a lot to think about this time, just like in 2008, and repubs don't have the Terrarist Threat! to wave around, nor do they want to touch the ownership society or their usual God guns and Gays routine, either. They've pretty much shot their wad wrt the "ground zero mosque" distraction, so what's left? Taxes?

They'll vote for whatever Dems put up- they have to, or they'll rightfully catch hell for letting taxes go up for everybody.

Spin that, if you can...

Repubs will likely make some gains- that's traditional for a new president's first midterm.

hahahah, wishful thinking at it's finest. Which party do you think is more likely to be seen as the tax-raisers regardless of the squabbles about what part of the tax cuts expires? If you follow polls you'll also notice that terrarism, gay marriage and all that stuff isn't even near the top of concerns right now. It's all about the economy.... The economy has always been a dem strong suit in terms of politics, their bread and butter, much like national security is for republicans. Two years ago, when asked which party could be trusted to address the economy, it was (41-25) for the dems. As of a couple of weeks ago, when asked the same question, people actually flipped to where they now believe the repubs can be more trusted to handle the economy (34-31).

It appears the dem leadership thinks very much like you do. They think they can keep blaming the evil republicans and Bush for everything. The polls show otherwise as they keep sliding week after week. Personally I hope they continue to try to push the republicans/bush excuse, it will lead to them getting crushed in November.

Not that I'm a fan of the republicans at all, but I'd like to see the house and or senate be in repub hands. Gridlock is good for all of us, and it will keep more disastrous bills like the health care bill from getting passed.

 

[nyker96]

I personally think Bush is the best president we've ever had. Resolute, determined and able. In fact I think this country need another 8 years of Bush. No one can blame Bush for our financial woes but that's the doing of wall street not him. If only he could be re-elected and put this country back on track again. I say he is the only person who knows the right button to push to make this country great again!

 

[LegendKiller]

I personally think Bush is the best president we've ever had. Resolute, determined and able. In fact I think this country need another 8 years of Bush. No one can blame Bush for our financial woes but that's the doing of wall street not him. If only he could be re-elected and put this country back on track again. I say he is the only person who knows the right button to push to make this country great again!

Hope my sarcasm meter isn't broken.

The repeal of Glass Steagall wasn't the final nail in in the financial crisis coffin. The allowance of over-leveraging under Bush, at the request and execution of Paulson as Goldman Sachs CEO then Treasurer, was. The second to final was the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act.

As Jhnnn mentioned, Glass Steagall was already neutered under Reagan and Bush sr. and only later under Clinton. He used that as a bargaining chip to toss the Repuglicans after they wanted to go spend the surplus like drunken sailors.

As far as the tax cuts. Haven't we already proven over the last 30 years that tax cuts to the rich don't really do anything? Somehow we did a pretty fucking good job as a country pre 1980s, with far higher taxes. Now everything is fucked up.

I am sure I would be pretty amused to find out the number of people who *really* make over $250k on this forum, especially the ones bitching about the higher tax rates. There are probably 1 or 2.

 

[dmcowen674]

I personally think Bush is the best president we've ever had. Resolute, determined and able.

In fact I think this country need another 8 years of Bush.

No one can blame Bush for our financial woes but that's the doing of wall street not him.

If only he could be re-elected and put this country back on track again.

I say he is the only person who knows the right button to push to make this country great again!

So you honestly this total collapse is on Obama? Unreal

What are you on, that's some powerful shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am sure I would be pretty amused to find out the number of people who *really* make over $250k on this forum, especially the ones bitching about the higher tax rates. There are probably 1 or 2.

Indeed. And it would be amusing to see how much actual "pain" they'd suffer from slightly higher taxes.

In truth, the most significant part of the expiration of the Bush taxcuts, for the truly wealthy, isn't about personal income taxes but rather about capital gains taxes. I doubt they'll suffer any real pain as a consequence, either, other than in their greedy imaginations.

 

[Robor]

LOL! The mind of a liberal - if you're conservative you must be stupid. Let me guess, they also cling to religion and guns?

Face it, Obama is a complete failure and most of the country agrees. They want the good times of Bush back. I was wondering how long it was going to take before this article got posted, it's been out since yesterday.

And you wonder why you're being called stupid?

 

[Robor]

I personally think Bush is the best president we've ever had. Resolute, determined and able. In fact I think this country need another 8 years of Bush. No one can blame Bush for our financial woes but that's the doing of wall street not him. If only he could be re-elected and put this country back on track again. I say he is the only person who knows the right button to push to make this country great again!

Wow...

 

[theeedude]

Ohio was the state that gave us 4 more years of Bush, nuff said.

 

[Double Trouble]

I am sure I would be pretty amused to find out the number of people who *really* make over $250k on this forum, especially the ones bitching about the higher tax rates. There are probably 1 or 2.

Wow, using that logic, I guess I should not bitch about any law or regulation that doesn't affect me personally? Brilliant!