If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[PapaJacky]

Averaging the overall spending increases, Republican affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 50.6%. Democrat affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 297.2%. The median of overall spending increases are different, however. The median overall spending increases for Republican affiliated Presidents was 47%. The median overall spending increases for Democrat affiliated Presidents was 32.1%.

Here's a list of the Presidents in office sorted by the overall budget outlays increase in their term, sorted from highest to lowest.

(Republican)
1. George W. Bush's terms (88.8% increase)
2. Ronald Reagan's terms (68.6% increase)
3. Gerald Ford's terms (51.9% increase)
4. Herbert Hoover's terms (47% increase) - Median
5. Richard Nixon's terms (46.7% increase)
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower's terms (28.4.% increase)
7. George H.W. Bush's terms (23.2% increase)

(Democrat)
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms (1916% increase)
2. Jimmy Carter's terms (65.7% increase)
3. Lyndon B. Johnson's terms (54.9% increase)
4. Bill Clinton's terms (32.1% increase) - Median
5. John F. Kennedy's terms (21.2% increase)
6. Barack Obama's term (8.1% increase)
7. Harry S. Truman's term (-17.9% increase)

Notes:
1. Mistakes could have been made for Presidents that did not serve out their full terms. Such Presidents include FDR, JFK, and Nixon.
2. I did not crunch the numbers for average increases by year. This should be an easy task.
3. All data is adjusted for inflation.

It's all adjusted for inflation?

Si, all were adjusted for the 2013 budget.

[Genivaria]

Just tell me. I fucking hate it when people answer with a video.

Towards the end, there is a clip where a FOX News guy says tells his field reporter to ignore footage of Ron Paul, and instead broadcast footage of Sarah Palin, who isn't even running!

I don't care for alot of Paul's views but I will agree that the treatment that Fox News has been giving him is bullshit.

[Wamitoria]

Towards the end, there is a clip where a FOX News guy says tells his field reporter to ignore footage of Ron Paul, and instead broadcast footage of Sarah Palin, who isn't even running!

I don't care for alot of Paul's views but I will agree that the treatment that Fox News has been giving him is bullshit.

Of course it is. Fox is essentially a branch of the Romney campaign (well, actually, the reverse; but, you understand what I'm getting at). They gave Romney maybe one tough interview the entire primary campaign, and pretty much made a conscious effort to either not help or to hamper the other campaigns, Ron Paul included.

[Saiwania]

The Republican party is not in any danger of disbanding just because it loses several presidential elections, because otherwise it would have been done for during the great depression/new deal era. I believe it would be a safe bet to say that most people on here who are speculating about the GOP's demise are not doing so out of genuine concern, but want the party to die. If it does, I'm confident that a new party will take its place and perhaps it will be for the better.

[Ostroeuropa]

To be honest, the republican party shit the bed when they appointed palin.
Now the religious right are thoroughly in control of the party and it seems like a moderateish candidate can't run without appointing one of them, or at least thats probably what mccain thought.
It'll continue until they are out of office for another presidents full term imo. then they'll reform.

[New Chalcedon]

*snips*

It's all adjusted for inflation?

I believe he said so, did he not? Whether he did or not, the underlying point - that Barack Obama's spending increases have hardly been runaway in nature - remains accurate:

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.
...
So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

That's right, folks - Mr. "Socialist", "runaway spending", "huge Government" Obama has actually presided over a decrease in governmental spending after you take the (currently low) inflation rate into account. Which brings us full circle: given how divorced from reality the Republican Party has become - to the point that they insist that Obama's a spendthrift, despite all the evidence being to the contrary - what will happen if and when they lose the election?

[PapaJacky]

Si, the spending allocated for the budget for 2010 was about $61b smaller than the budget for 2009.

[Norsklow]

SNIP
That's right, folks - Mr. "Socialist", "runaway spending", "huge Government" Obama has actually presided over a decrease in governmental spending after you take the (currently low) inflation rate into account. Which brings us full circle: given how divorced from reality the Republican Party has become - to the point that they insist that Obama's a spendthrift, despite all the evidence being to the contrary - what will happen if and when they lose the election?

Then they will experience the same thing that happened to Labour and the Tories under similar conditions of self-delusion.
They wake up one day and find the Party controlled by someone who alienates the Base while gaining in the Center.

It's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

[Socialist EU]

You don't think it's in any way relevant that Obama is a strong candidate, Romney is a weak one, and the coattails of the Bush admin are still in view?

As you know (because I've seen you over there), I've kicked this idea around in the "horse race" thread: While Republicans tend to explain the extraordinary levels of Democratic turnout in 2008 as a one-time phenomenon (enthusiasm for the idea of electing an African-American President), I tend to see things the way Pew Research does: I think what happened in 2008 was the beginning of a kind of political "Perfect Storm", caused by:

• Increasing minority population, resulting in a rising number of voting-eligible non-white adults.
  
  
• Increasing minority involvement in politics, as measured by rising registration and voter participation rates.
  
  
• Increasing minority affiliation with the Democratic Party.

The thing about all three of these effects is that they are essentially multiplicative: This makes their impact in the system far more sudden and far more profound. To be sure, Barack Obama is a very good candidate who has had the great good fortune of running against bad candidates for most of his life (Hillary Clinton being the sole exception); yet it's telling to note that even John Kerry, who was a fairly poor candidate, probably would have won the Presidency (while losing the popular vote) if the demographic balance and minority participation rates seen in 2008 had been present in 2004 - and that Al Gore probably would have beaten George W. Bush soundly if he had been running under the conditions Obama faced in 2008 (indeed, I've even seen it claimed that Dukakis would have beaten Bush narrowly in 1988 if he'd run under 2008 conditions - although my own calculations don't agree with that assessment; yet even so, it would have been close).

And therein lies the heart of the matter. This race, more than almost any other, is being driven by demographics. None of the numbers I've seen all year really surprise me; since April, I've been saying - and the polls have been asserting - that barring an October Surprise, Obama's going to win.

Then, too, keep in mind that Hoover was a lousy candidate, while FDR was a great one; yet that didn't make 1932 less of a transitional election, did it? Ditto for Reagan and Carter in 1980, and again in 1984: Reagan's strength as a candidate didn't make his victories any less transformational, either.

And

tl&dr: I think that Rush Limbaugh, like the proverbial broken clock that's right twice a day, is right when he says that if the Romney loses, it's going to be the end of the GOP. It may take a generation, but I just can't see the party surviving the rot.

I think Limbaugh is only partlially correct, it's going to be the end of the GOP as the Americans on the right know it. I also disagree with you, I think this will lead the Republicans becoming more liberal, or at least, less right-wing and racist in order to win elections and win over the Hispanic vote.

[Socialist EU]

I don't care for alot of Paul's views but I will agree that the treatment that Fox News has been giving him is bullshit.

Of course it is. Fox is essentially a branch of the Romney campaign (well, actually, the reverse; but, you understand what I'm getting at). They gave Romney maybe one tough interview the entire primary campaign, and pretty much made a conscious effort to either not help or to hamper the other campaigns, Ron Paul included.

I think that the Ron Paul crowd merely represents a controlled opposition.

[Revolutopia]

Just tell me. I fucking hate it when people answer with a video.

Towards the end, there is a clip where a FOX News guy says tells his field reporter to ignore footage of Ron Paul, and instead broadcast footage of Sarah Palin, who isn't even running!

Maybe this happens as the only people who really care or follow Paul is a small fringe minority, while Palin has widespread appeal as she draws both a large amount of Conservatives who love her and a large amount of Liberals who love to hate her to watch her speak.

Therefore, within the objective of driving up viewership Sarah Palin attracts more people then Ron Paul. Thus, as the Free Market incentive would be to focus more on viewership it would dictate that Fox spend more time on Palin then Paul.

In conclusion, the only conspiracy against Ron Paul is the dictates and whims of his own beloved Free Market.

[Socialist EU]

Towards the end, there is a clip where a FOX News guy says tells his field reporter to ignore footage of Ron Paul, and instead broadcast footage of Sarah Palin, who isn't even running!

Maybe this happens as the only people who really care or follow Paul is a small fringe minority, while Palin has widespread appeal as she draws both a large amount of Conservatives who love her and a large amount of Liberals who love to hate her to watch her speak.

Therefore, within the objective of driving up viewership Sarah Palin attracts more people then Ron Paul. Thus, as the Free Market incentive would be to focus more on viewership it would dictate that Fox spend more time on Palin then Paul.

In conclusion, the only conspiracy against Ron Paul is the dictates and whims of his own beloved Free Market.

Excellent point.

[Gauthier]

It's all adjusted for inflation?

I believe he said so, did he not? Whether he did or not, the underlying point - that Barack Obama's spending increases have hardly been runaway in nature - remains accurate:

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.
...
So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

That's right, folks - Mr. "Socialist", "runaway spending", "huge Government" Obama has actually presided over a decrease in governmental spending after you take the (currently low) inflation rate into account. Which brings us full circle: given how divorced from reality the Republican Party has become - to the point that they insist that Obama's a spendthrift, despite all the evidence being to the contrary - what will happen if and when they lose the election?

Don't forget "Obama is shutting down oil wells!" and "Obama wants to dismantle Medicare!"

Maybe this is what the Mayan prophecy was all about. Obama gets re-elected, every Teabagger stages a Second Amendment Remedy revolt, and shit blows up all over the world physically and economically.

[Caninope]

It's all adjusted for inflation?

Si, all were adjusted for the 2013 budget.

Just making sure.

Perhaps it might be better to tie it to the GDP, but I do recognize the wonderful data you compiled for us, PapaJacky.

[PapaJacky]

Si, all were adjusted for the 2013 budget.

Just making sure.

Perhaps it might be better to tie it to the GDP, but I do recognize the wonderful data you compiled for us, PapaJacky.

There's an excel sheet compiled by the White House with the same data for that, lol. From a quick scan, the data, when factoring in for GDP, shows the same trend; spending as a % of GDP didn't rise much under Reagan but dropped under Clinton. It increased sporadically under George W. Bush and under Obama it's fallen by about 2%. That data is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... st01z3.xls

[Caninope]

Just making sure.

Perhaps it might be better to tie it to the GDP, but I do recognize the wonderful data you compiled for us, PapaJacky.

There's an excel sheet compiled by the White House with the same data for that, lol. From a quick scan, the data, when factoring in for GDP, shows the same trend; spending as a % of GDP didn't rise much under Reagan but dropped under Clinton. It increased sporadically under George W. Bush and under Obama it's fallen by about 2%. That data is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... st01z3.xls

Thank you much.

[Wikkiwallana]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

If this is failure, I have no clue what success is.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon1.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon2.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon3.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon7.jpg

[Norstal]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

If this is failure, I have no clue what success is.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon1.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon2.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon3.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon7.jpg

Success is America going into 10,000 years of darkness.

Duh.

[Norsklow]

My bookie considers the chance of Obama losing no more than 33%.

[Wikkiwallana]

Any state could simply default on their debt and restructure their economy in order to become self-sufficient. If states ever realise that a secession is worth not having to deal with the hassle that is the federal government, they will do so - by war if necessary.

You actually believe that don't you? That's so cute.

OK let's go through this. Who would this grand new nation trade with? They're only bordering two countries. The one they just fought a war with is one. Mexico is the other. Yeah. Mexico. Good luck getting MEXICO to trade with the southern states.

Well there's the ocean. Not the pacific, mind you, that's blocked off by California, Oregon, and Washington state. Which is unfortunate because that closes off the ENTIRE pacific rim, like China Japan and Taiwan, which is unfortuate because they make all your shit.

So you can go to the Atlantic. You'll maybe get a FEW states actually boarding the Atlantic ocean. Not many, because New England is pretty blue, and even Virginia and Florida are purple enough to not want to deal with this shit, but hey you'll get South Carolina.

Maybe even Georgia!

So you'll be able to bring in trade by sea. Well. Maybe not. See you only have limited coastal area. Who will be in position to blockade those coastal areas?

Oh, right, the United States Navy. Which would incidentally be a problem even if you did eke out an area on the West Coast. Pearl Harbor Naval Base and all.

Fuck.

OK, fine, let's say you get around the blockades, who do you trade with? Well, Western Europe. But remember, you "defaulted on your debt", destroying the credit rating of this grand new nation, thus making any and all foreign countries extremely reluctant to trade with you. So you're not going to get any trade out of the Old World without near crippling penalties. But ok, there's another problem.

That country you just went to war with? The legitimate united states? Yeah, they're a member of some clubs. Not just the UN, but NATO as well. Yeah, NATO. Remember NATO? That group with the mutual alliance pacts? While they may weazle out of an "internal" US conflict, all the US has to do is recognize your independance, declare war on you, block your ports and wait for you to attack, triggering NATOS defense treaties. At best, the entire industrialized portions of Western Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) will lock out out. At worst they'll join in with their ally and bomb the piss out of you.

So now you have no trade alliances. Well, you can be internal. Sure. OK. Take a look at this map. All the oil, natural gas, renewable, hydro and nuclear plants? Our side of the border.

You have coal. Yeah, coal. Something that requires big heavy industrialized machines to dig out of the ground.

Where are all the factories located that MAKE all those big, heavy, industrialized machines?

FUCK.

Same with Oil. You got texas, sure, but the major sources of oil in the US comes from Alaska, and foreign imports. Also oil, again, takes a lot of shit to drill out of the ground, shit that breaks down fast. Shit you have no means of replacing.

Also, you don't have a lot of fresh water. Most of that is piped in from elsewhere.

So you have no power, no water, no electricity, no industry, and no means of GETTING those things.

You make food, and I'll give you that. Of course, without modern technology at the level supplied by the north, or foreign trade, you won't be able to make NEARLY enough of it to support your population. Which after 10-15 years will probably stabilize, after the famines kill off whomever didn't flee your stupid little country.

But that's KINDA like winning, right?

Simply Glorious.

[PapaJacky]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

If this is failure, I have no clue what success is.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon1.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon2.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon3.jpg
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... lEcon7.jpg

Lest us forget that those 0.6 million public employees fired under Obama could have dropped the unemployment rate to sub-8% levels and the 1.5 million public employees hired under Reagan and Bush could have dropped that figure to a mere 7.1%. If the American Jobs Act wasn't filliwonked, another 1.1 million private sector jobs could have been added, which would drop that figure to 6.4%.

On Yandere's note for secession, I should note that 1/4 of all the crude oil the U.S. imports is imported from Canada. We also import 12% of our oil from Mexico. California actually produces more crude than Alaska (198 million barrels annually v.s. 195 million barrels annually).

Check here:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_im ... mbbl_a.htm
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm

I also posted in another thread how if the Conservative states (i.e. states that voted for McCain in '08) were to secede, they'd go deep into poverty as the Federal government concurrently spends on average, 10% more money on those states than those states contribute to the Federal government in taxes. Texas has enough wealth in of themselves to support this entire "Jesusland" concept, but they must then be forced to raise taxes, or simply cut spending across the board. Hell, even if they call for a Ron Paul Revolution and instate a gold-backed dollar, New Mexico, a state that voted for Obama in '08, produces 79% of this nation's Gold, so there's that.

[Wikkiwallana]

If this isn't the espousing of a socialist I don't know what is.

Yup.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

[Wikkiwallana]

Mandating the purchase of health insurance from private businesses isn't socialism...state capitalism, maybe, or corporatism. That's a whole lot worse than socialism.

Bailing out GM was socialist in the sense that the government directly owned an interest in the company, I will agree, as one of the key components of socialism is the government owning the means of production. However, it was a necessary evil because the industry as it existed at the time literally could not survive the collapse of GM; the entire supply chain was so reliant upon GM and the other major manufacturers that the failure of one would collapse the others in short order. It was an unprecedented state of affairs, although I do believe there should have been more effort to restructure the industry to prevent recurrence and the need for additional bailouts.

Obama's student loan program, ironically enough, does a lot to restore market mechanisms in the field...previously, private lenders received a guarantee from the government for their loans (not unlike, say, Fannie and Freddie) which encouraged them to lend out as much as they could and charge as much as they could, with colleges and universities complicit in the scam to jack up tuition and fees because they were getting paid with guaranteed money.

Not sure what TAFT is, probably not familiar with the acronym.

Sorry, I meant TARP.

Also, Obama pushed for a public insurance option, but it never went through.

Despite more than half of America having wanted it for decades, and it being the most economical and efficient option, so it really should have.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because democracy only works when they vote for the right candidates, right? You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and what you're advocating is much worse than what President Obama wants. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Your thought process and those that advocate it are the cancer that is killing America.

Not at all. This country was founded because of the efforts of revolutionaries who resisted taxation.

No they didn't. They resisted being taxed without having getting a say in how they were governed in return. They had no problem with taxation itself.

[Wikkiwallana]

Do you...um...do you think that we somehow didn't think you meant that. We know you meant that. And we have spent pages now detailing how secession will not be successful.

Threatening to wage a war you can't win is not a successful threat.

It IS however something else entirely. Threatening to commit an act of armed agression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition terrorism.

And any republican who, in the course of his employment as a representative in the US Federal Government, and while acting as a duly elected member of the US Federal Government, commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of terrorism against the United States.

I know what I'm going to do if war brakes out and my state is on the southern side.

I will drive straight to my brother's house if the roads are open.

If the roads are not open (IE, roadblocked to prevent escape), I will hotwire an aircraft at the local airport and fly to my brother's house. There's enough mountains around and I know them well enough to stay below radar until crossing the border into the northern states.

I'll deal with the theft charge later.

Stop by and pick me up on your way out, would you please?