Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thing actually made me like Romney more and Obama less...and I'm a Democrat But really, all the "negative" things against Romney seem to be budget cuts, which I'm all for. I don't like being in trillions of dollars of debt to China.

(Mostly) Republican policies (also moderate Dem) of reduced taxes and massive spending on war, combined with insufficient oversight and regulation of banks and mortgage companies, drove the economy into a ditch. Obama's policies have gradually been pulling us out of the ditch. It takes a while.

Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't. Not in the US. In the UK, where they have adopted austerity measures, they are now suffering a double-dip recession. This seems fairly indicative to me. We've got two different approaches side by side and two different results.

Amaya wrote:Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

WWII was a massive government spending program, employing millions.

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't.

To be fair:

Not unlike David Berkowitz, Frazzled gets most of his information from canines. Not that I'd argue with a wiener dog, either.

biccat wrote:
The economy started to rebound shortly after the initial drop of the stock market. It wasn't until the "Keynesian" stimulus that the Great Depression actually hit.

Yeah, because if Herbert Hoover is famous for anything its the amount of faith his Administration placed in Keynesian economics.

Mannahnin wrote:(Mostly) Republican policies (also moderate Dem) of reduced taxes and massive spending on war, combined with insufficient oversight and regulation of banks and mortgage companies, drove the economy into a ditch. Obama's policies have gradually been pulling us out of the ditch. It takes a while.

Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't. Not in the US. In the UK, where they have adopted austerity measures, they are now suffering a double-dip recession. This seems fairly indicative to me. We've got two different approaches side by side and two different results.

Amaya wrote:Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

WWII was a massive government spending program, employing millions.

Um, yeah? Are you suggesting someone said otherwise? It has no connection with FDRs policies though...

You nailed it on the head with issue concerning "insufficient oversight and regulations of banks and mortgage companies". They fracked up bad.

So you're saying that FDR, who was president during WWII, had nothing to do with WWII?

So you're saying that the claim FDR ended the Depression is connected to WW2 and not his policies?

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

I wish She Who Must Be Obeyed would do what I told her, but then again by family tradition the males are always afraid the wives will run them over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Amaya wrote:Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works? If you can provide facts I will consider that it could be worthwhile. Otherwise, you're contributing anything by saying, "You're stupid."

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it? I don't expect you to be interested in or educated about early childhood education, but you can look into it if you care to. Dumping the burden of responsibility on us to inform you is lazy.

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

And I was obviously asking timetowaste where the Dems were slinging mud in the Julia campaign. Which they clearly weren't.

Head Start has very mixed results. Several studies show that by about 4th grade its a wash. The Wife's first job was with Head Start and is now really ambivalent about it. It could be helpful but often the parents are just crap, making it pretty irrelevant for the children who need it most. However, as policy Frazzled is all about maximum education. I properly run program is better than nothing for the kids thhat need it, no?

My issue with the ad is that its 1) creepy 2) reveals Obama's true cradle to grave ideal ala Europe. But frankly we've kicked Europe's ass economically since we started and continue to do so, even in our crapped out state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right

...

Better that than to rely on men. We don't have a good historical track record for looking after women's interests. And they certainly can't turn to Republicans.

Rely on themselves. I for one welcome our new gynogifted overlords and their enlightened management of the Empire. All Hail Da Wimminz!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't.

To be fair:

Not unlike David Berkowitz, Frazzled gets most of his information from canines. Not that I'd argue with a wiener dog, either.

Wiener dogs make the best economists. If you disagree all your ankles belong to us!
Ironically my boy is seriously thinking about economics as a career.

Frazzled wrote:
My issue with the ad is that its 1) creepy 2) reveals Obama's true cradle to grave ideal ala Europe.

Except it doesn't actually describe a cradle to grave system, or even a system that is materially distinct from what was in place before he took office, at least in terms of years of available aid.

Frazzled wrote:
But frankly we've kicked Europe's ass economically since we started and continue to do so, even in our crapped out state.

If all you look at is growth, sure. If you look at growth, quality of life, average individual debt, etc. its not so cut and dry; especially if you look it Scandinavia which is about as close to a true cradle to grave system as you'll find.

Quality of life isn't even remotely close to be fair Dogma, I mean, I agree with the fiscal conservatives in the states personally, because I think we should take one for the team in order for our country to be strong, but that's my stupidity because I'm..well.. I dunno. Loyal? I'm a staunch Royalist maybe thats got something to do with it..and I like to think that its better for me to have a less perfect life if it means the nation as a whole benefits. Kinda stupid I suppose, Im at a loss as to why I think that.

I think its because Im healthier and fitter when im poor! I think that having less is beneficial, when I'm skint I work out twice a day and stay off the booze, when I'm rich I eat pizzas and get smashed regularly.. Its why I think we should give people less. Gotta be cruel to be kind in my book. No wonder everyone on the dole is obese and drunk all day, they get too much cash and have no motivation to do anything!

But I digress, QOL in Europe is fething far and away better than in the US, thats why we live here! My missus cant believe how much more time off people get here, and the UK is way harder working than many places in Europe.

I feel sorry for my hard working American chums, but as Frazz says, its for the good of the country you guys work your asses off.. Patriotism maybe?

This thread is focusing on the peas, but if you really wanted to make the administration look bad, there's a steak to be had.

mattyrm wrote:
But I digress, QOL in Europe is fething far and away better than in the US, thats why we live here! My missus cant believe how much more time off people get here, and the UK is way harder working than many places in Europe.

Its not just time off, healthcare benefits are also a big deal in terms of providing for better living conditions. Not only because they lead to a healthier populace, but tend to inflate the effective income of those lower on the economic ladder. I mean, as a foreign citizen visiting France I had better healthcare benefits than I received from my employer in the States.

mattyrm wrote:
I feel sorry for my hard working American chums, but as Frazz says, its for the good of the country you guys work your asses off.. Patriotism maybe?

But is it for the good of the country? I mean, the purpose of any given nation is seemingly the improvement of the conditions of the people living in that nation. If the nation doesn't serve that end, by improving the quality of life, then what's the point?

Ouze wrote:This thread is focusing on the peas, but if you really wanted to make the administration look bad, there's a steak to be had.

Not bad strategy, really, because its unlikely that releasing said prisoners will have a major positive effect on the amount of violence in those areas. It might embolden the insurgency, but the former prisoners themselves are no different from the many presently active potential prisoners already on the ground.

Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the GOP.

dogma wrote:Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the GOP.

Well, I wasn't thinking about the merits - these sorts of threads seldom are about that actual facts, and more about how they can be used as a cudgel politically. I think the prisoner release can be swung more effectively ("Weak on terror!") than can these vague "socialism" type things.

Ouze wrote:
Well, I wasn't thinking about the merits - these sorts of threads seldom are about that actual facts, and more about how they can be used as a cudgel politically. I think the prisoner release can be swung more effectively ("Weak on terror!") than can these vague "socialism" type things.

For sure. Its a nice segue into the traditional, Republican "We're stronger on defense than Democrats." line. Plus it sells itself to the "Obama is a secret Muslim!" crowd.

That said, I think Romney will avoid Afghanistan, and defense in general, not only because its not the hot button issue right now, but because I doubt the GOP has any better idea what to do about the whole situation.

Pull out faster than a jock on prom night.

So thirty seconds in and then he goes for a smoke?

Melissia wrote:So thirty seconds in and then he goes for a smoke?

Or a dip. Depends on if you're in the south or not.