OBAMA 2012

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.

**Peregrine**

Jihadin wrote:
WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.

Well, guess we'd better invade Iran and fix this problem.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).

Once more with feeling: they gambled and lost.

Yup.

So... that's good...right?

No, it's unfortunate, yet devoid of sympathy.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).

Once more with feeling: they gambled and lost.

Yup.

So... that's good...right?

No, it's unfortunate, yet devoid of sympathy.

Ah... I see.

Hope it doesn't keep going...

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.

Yup. I'd be worried if I didn't have ironclad reason not to be worried.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why Romney lost is because women voted 53-47 for the Democrats because Republicans keep making that kind of remark which lets them know exactly where their real interests stand.

Nah. Reagan lost the vote among women by 10 points in 1980. It's far from disastrous for a Republican candidate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?

It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...

That has nothing to do with the election... right?

For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.

As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter

Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:

Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.

I'd bet Republicans could have gotten the votes had Romney won the election. The ACA is still pretty unpopular, and a national election that seems to suggest a repudiation of Obama's policies would have made moderate Democrats in potentially vulnerable states sweat.

**d-usa**

ACA was the main worry for 17% of the voters, and those voted very strongly for Obama.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
sebster wrote:

Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.

I'd bet Republicans could have gotten the votes had Romney won the election. The ACA is still pretty unpopular, and a national election that seems to suggest a repudiation of Obama's policies would have made moderate Democrats in potentially vulnerable states sweat.

But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.

A company management that bet its life on such a close run thing had not made proper allowance for it going the wrong way. Clear mismanagement.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.

It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.

I'll certainly agree it's dumb not to plan for all possibilities, though. I'm not arguing that - just that Romney would have had a fair shot at getting rid of ACA had he won.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.

Good. Half the federal government needs to be fired. Then followed by a further 25% cut.
Same to same for the state government. Go to the DMV and you'll come out a believer in the Frazzled plan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.

Well, guess we'd better invade Iran and fix this problem.

No. Canada. In Canada first you get the maple syrup, then you get the power, then you get the Wimminz!

**d-usa**

Can I stay?

**Kilkrazy**

You should reorganise the DMV along the same lines as the UK one.

We do it all online and it is super quick and easy. You don't even have to keep track of your MOT and Insurance certificates. They are automatically logged in the system. You just enter your road tax code from the letter each year and your payment details.

A few years ago you had to go to the post office and fill in a stupid form and show your certificates and so on. I imagine the US version is still like that, only worse.

**d-usa**

Drivers License stuff is still in-person at the DMV here, as is any paperwork for new registrations. But renevals have an online option in Oklahoma.

**AustonT**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You should reorganise the DMV along the same lines as the UK one.

We do it all online and it is super quick and easy. You don't even have to keep track of your MOT and Insurance certificates. They are automatically logged in the system. You just enter your road tax code from the letter each year and your payment details.

more or less our system is like this. Cept I have to print out my insurance and put a sticker on my plate. The only time I go to the DMV was to get special plates. I even order replacement licenses and register to vote online at the DMV website.

**Frazzled**

I see the standard strategy of: "If there's heavy lifting to be done with Congress, fly somewhere else" strategy continues.

Instead of dealing with the fiscal cliff, its off to Asia.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/don_go_there_XaKCQnlCrKCXi3F8KmeoWO

Obama heads to Asia amid looming fear of 'Fiscal Cliff'
By S.A. MILLER Post Correspondent
Last Updated: 5:46 AM, November 9, 2012
Posted: 1:52 AM, November 9, 2012
WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday announced he’s jetting off on a victory lap around Southeast Asia, despite a new government report warning the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff will plunge the US into a recession and drive the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent.

Obama and Congress have just 52 days to reach a deal to avoid sailing off that precipice, when a devastating double whammy of tax hikes and budget cuts will rock the economy and hit just about every American.

The negotiations will be difficult. Obama signaled he’s sticking to his demand for raising taxes on the wealthy. That’s long been a nonstarter with Republicans.

His chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said re-election gives Obama the upper hand.

“If the attitude is that nothing happened on Tuesday, that would be unfortunate,” Axelrod told MSNBC.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday took all tax-rate increases off the table, though he said Republicans would accept other revenue measures, such as closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.

“Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that,” he told USA Today.

But those tense negotiations won’t interfere with Obama’s boarding Air Force One for a three-day tour of Bangkok, Rangoon and Phnom Penh.

Along the way, he’ll meet with Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to mark 180 years of diplomatic relations, chat with Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi and attend the East Asia Summit in Cambodia. He takes off Nov. 17.

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report highlighting the economic shock that awaits America. The automatic spending cuts and tax increase will shrink the already anemic economy by 0.5 percent and cause the jobless rate to spike to 9.1 percent, the report predicted.

The average American family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in taxes after all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1, and about 1,200 government programs will experience spending cuts.

These austere measures, however, will succeed in slashing the deficit by $503 billion in 2013, and the economy should start to pull out of recession by 2014.

“Economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen,” said the CBO report.

Democrats and Republicans both want to find a way to soften the hard times currently scheduled to start New Year’s Day.

If they succeed, CBO predicted it will boost the economy next year.

America’s gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent if the Bush-era tax rates are extended and by nearly 3 percent if Obama’s payroll tax cut and extra long-term unemployment benefits are extended, the report predicted.

**Kilkrazy**

Perhaps Obama is playing brinksmanship.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps Obama is playing brinksmanship.

Awesome. I say let if fall and blame Obama for not being there.
If you're going to play brinkmanship it helps to at least pout up some sort of idea first.

**Easy E**

Obama is in a no lose situation with the fiscal cliff.

Either way, he wins politically.

1. The fiscal cliff happens and the take provisions take effect and defense spending is cut. His base is appeased. Yeah, there is an economic slowdown, but that just vindicates the idea that Stimulus is needed, and he can create a new Stimulus package.

2. The Fiscal Cliff doesn't happen, and he takes credit for avoiding to send the economy back into recession despite Republican opposition to the Grand Bargain. heck, chances are he can now get some R's to consider the Grand Bargain to save their precious Defense spending.

Either way, he wins.

**kronk**

d-usa wrote:
Drivers License stuff is still in-person at the DMV here, as is any paperwork for new registrations. But renevals have an online option in Oklahoma.

Yep. I've been renewing online. Saves all kinds of time!

**Kilkrazy**

That's what I was thinking.

If it all falls apart, he is still president and will retire in 4 years. He can't go any higher and has no future career to protect.

The members of Congress OTOH have to worry about the next election. We know a lot of the electorate pretty much blame Congress for the lack of action to sort out mess and don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

The ones who will blame Obama would blame Obama if he had the ability to turn the deficit into pure gold by touching it.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Obama is in a no lose situation with the fiscal cliff.

Either way, he wins politically.

1. The fiscal cliff happens and the take provisions take effect and defense spending is cut. His base is appeased. Yeah, there is an economic slowdown, but that just vindicates the idea that Stimulus is needed, and he can create a new Stimulus package.

2. The Fiscal Cliff doesn't happen, and he takes credit for avoiding to send the economy back into recession despite Republican opposition to the Grand Bargain. heck, chances are he can now get some R's to consider the Grand Bargain to save their precious Defense spending.

Either way, he wins.

If the US drops into a recession, the 2016 can blame everything on "the Obama Recession."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Drivers License stuff is still in-person at the DMV here, as is any paperwork for new registrations. But renevals have an online option in Oklahoma.

Yep. I've been renewing online. Saves all kinds of time!

Unless your registration never makes it through the mail that it.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?

It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...

That has nothing to do with the election... right?

For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.

As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.

Then, how would you reconcile all these announcement at this time?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter

Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.

**Ouze**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.

It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.

Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.

**Silverthorne**

We could definitely cut defense spending. The amount of waste I see every day at work is staggering. Then there are all the projects that soldiers and sailors actually hate but are being pushed forward anyway. LCS? Disaster. LPD-17? Disaster. Aquaflague? Unmitigated Disaster. F-35? Disaster. DDG-1000? Disaster. The only program the Navy has going well right now is the Virginia Class subs.

If you look at when the big breakthroughs came for military thinking in the US, it wasn't when spending was big, it was when the military was small, and resourceful. Currently there are more admirals than ships in the Navy. And among officers, only 41% are combatants, the others are all staff corps of some type. Pretty ridiculous. Like when I got told I couldn't get a drivers license renewed at the DMV because I had not registered for selective service.... And I was in my flight suit.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.

Didn't read any websites, just looked at polling data. 2008 was huge Democratic turnout. Everything between 2008 and 2012 was huge Republican turnout. Everything prior to 2008 suggested that 2008 was an anomaly, as did everything since - up until 2012.

**Easy E**

Seaward wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.

Didn't read any websites, just looked at polling data. 2008 was huge Democratic turnout. Everything between 2008 and 2012 was huge Republican turnout. Everything prior to 2008 suggested that 2008 was an anomaly, as did everything since - up until 2012.

I kind of agree with this, that turnout in 2008 and 2012 was pretty high compared to historical averages. That just shows what a great ground game Obama and his tema put together to mobilize the vote, and how badly the GOP poisitons radicalized people who normally do not even vote.

However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.

**Seaward**

Easy E wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I kind of agree with this, that turnout in 2008 and 2012 was pretty high compared to historical averages. That just shows what a great ground game Obama and his tema put together to mobilize the vote, and how badly the GOP poisitons radicalized people who normally do not even vote.

Interesting choice of words.

However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.

True in retrospect. Saying that it required partisan motivation to believe that 2012 election turnout would not exceed historical trends is incorrect, though.

**whitedragon**

whembly wrote:
sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?

It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...

That has nothing to do with the election... right?

For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.

As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.

Then, how would you reconcile all these announcement at this time?

Prior planning in regards to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

**gorgon**

On a lighter note, has this been posted before? It's kinda fun.

http://www.slate.com/articles/video/political_kombat/2012/11/political_kombat_president_obama_and_mitt_romney_in_a_videogame_fight.html

**Relapse**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That's what I was thinking.

If it all falls apart, he is still president and will retire in 4 years. He can't go any higher and has no future career to protect.

The members of Congress OTOH have to worry about the next election. We know a lot of the electorate pretty much blame Congress for the lack of action to sort out mess and don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

The ones who will blame Obama would blame Obama if he had the ability to turn the deficit into pure gold by touching it.

But if he truly cares about this country and it falls apart, he loses no matter how well he is taken care of and the history written about him will perhaps not be good. Nixon did great things, yet what people think most of when he gets talked about are cover ups and Watergate.
No sane president I would think would want to see their country ruined or lose their possible position in history as a great leader.