Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 11, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 156

Disaster for the Democrats

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012
~meanus already tried to get this point across here [link], but I'd like to try it again with some different wording in the hopes of promoting discussion.

The Democrats won big last week. That's undeniable. Obama won reelection and congressional control didn't change one bit, preserving the 2011-2012 governmental situation for at least another 2 years. The Republicans who remain in power may now be more willing to surrender to Obama's visions for the future in order to save their own jobs.

But now the Democrats have to govern. They have to try and implement all of the pie-in-the-sky goals that they passed in the last term, but delayed until after the election. They have to hope their legislative monsters don't function as poorly as they were written. The Democrats will now be the ones in charge when the Obama Recession hits, leaving them without any scapegoat. The more they trumpet their victory in this election, the more it will be seen as their fault when things don't go the way they promised.

If you have faith that Obama's policies will work, and won't crash the economy, and will get the jobs market growing again, then you have nothing to worry about. But if it doesn't go the way you hoped, you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

America had a clear choice in this election, and the majority of voters made a fully informed choice to accept the Democrats' governing philosophy. Now, we can be certain that whatever happens in this country over the next 4 years, feast or famine, comes directly or indirectly as a result of that decision. In other words, get it right, and you'll have your emerging Democratic majority. Get it wrong, and your philosophy will be tarnished forever.

Are you ready for this? And for the people celebrating this election, do you feel lucky, punk?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconagburanar:
Agburanar Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
So edgy! Anyway, as long as Republicans continue their petty obstructionism, the Democrats have someone to blame for every policy that fails. And from the looks of this last election, Americans seem to buy it.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Obama is entirely incapable of working across the aisle and making compromises. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain by now.
Reply
:iconsnuffles11:
snuffles11 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Says TBSchemer.

...with a straight face? Wow.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Hey, I'm not running for office, nor serving as an elected representative of the people. If I had that sort of power, I most certainly would be making efforts to reach across the aisle to accomplish whatever mutual goals are possible.

However, Obama doesn't want mutual goals. He holds every mutual goal hostage as bargaining chips to try to force through his own goals that the other side cannot reasonably accept. He's not looking for compromise. He's just trying to conquer everyone around him and force them to acknowledge his greatness, like a wannabe-emperor.
Reply
:iconsnuffles11:
snuffles11 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Because Republicans really emulate Henry Clay. :iconeyerollplz:
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Look at the new thread I just posted, and ask yourself whether Obama would actually accept that plan. I'd bet he wouldn't, because it would mean real compromise: [link]
Reply
:iconbolainmarsh6:
Bolainmarsh6 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
just a warmup for the messiah..maybe he will be taken up to his
throne?? ...if so thank you Jesus!

demoncrat writes:

This is a sign from God that evil people are arriving to Denver. People
that give the homeless haircuts only while they are here to make them
look better to the dubious media arriving...

Glad to hear that no one was injured...

Bob

DAVIB writes:

Sorry folks, that was not a tornado, that was Hillary and Nancy flying
in on their brooms.......
Reply
:iconapricots-from-nara:
Apricots-from-Nara Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Student General Artist
Why do you hate him so much? Is its because he has a name that sounds Muslim? Or because he's Black?

You racist prick.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
So, the fact that I find is anti-liberty agenda repulsive somehow makes me racist? It's just because I'm white, isn't it? Go eat a bullet you racist fucktard.
Reply
:iconagburanar:
Agburanar Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
>Claiming moral superiority while telling people to kill themselves
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
I have no tolerance for people who try to divert the debate over liberty into a war between the races. These are the people who will turn discussion of liberty into an imprisonable offense if they are not stopped.

Remember that it was through racializing every issue that the Nazis were able to gain a national democratic mandate for their totalitarianism.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
No, but the fact that Barack Obama, Reggie Walton and the likes are pretty much the only politician you ever bitch and whine about certainly suggests something.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Who is Reggie Walton?
Reply
:iconronderulijkummarplz:
RonderulijKummarplz Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
It's not racist if I'm white too.
Reply
:icondefinedeviancydown:
DefineDeviancyDown Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
America did indeed have a clear choice, but would the result have been the same if Republicans didn't sit out the election? The Republican Party didn’t turn out its base, 3 million of their voters stayed home, and that could have made all the difference.

Conservatives were not happy with Romney. Voting for him would have signaled the movers and shakers in the Republican Party that they were fielding good candidates. Such is not the case. This recent debacle is hardly over and they're proposing Jeb Bush in 2016. This will be another dismal failure.

The problem for the Repubs is Karl Rove and those who think like him, including among others, John Boehner. Both have got to go.

Personally, I hope Obama and his followers get everything they ask for. Only then will they realize what true misery really is.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
And what if the true visionaries (Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul) actually get up the courage to run in 2016?
Reply
:icondefinedeviancydown:
DefineDeviancyDown Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I pray that they do, and that it won't be too late to save the country.

Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, David Vitter, Bob McDonnell, Mia Love, among others, are the rising stars.

Notice that the likes of "Crispy Cream" Chris Christie, Jeb Bush etc have been excluded.
Reply
:iconxanedil:
Xanedil Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I wouldn't say "when". I still have some hope that Obama won't screw us over.

America did not have a clear choice. You either had a candidate whose policies, according to your beliefs, would slowly help or greatly hinder us, or another candidate whom no one had any idea what he was going to do other than a few vague bullet points because he couldn't decide what he wanted to do.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Romney had a distinctly pro-growth agenda. Obama has a purely pro-executive power agenda. How can you possibly argue that there was no choice?

You made your choice. You chose government supremacy instead of economic growth and prosperity of the people.
Reply
:iconalphamale1980:
alphamale1980 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
Romney had a distinctly pro-growth agenda.

Sorry, but this is just not factually accurate. A serious analysis of Romney's fiscal agenda can only come to the conclusion that Romney's agenda was pro-wealth. Not Pro-growth. The central tenant to Romney's tax plan was to widen the tax base. Let's be very clear about what that means. Widening the tax base means further movement of the tax burden onto the poor and the middle class.

The poor and the middle class make up the vast majority of American consumers. Making the tax burden higher on the majority of consumers can only have 1 effect on economic growth... and that is to decrease it. This is absolutely direct cause and effect.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
A serious analysis? You're full of shit. The analysis apparently wasn't even serious enough for you to remember who wrote it.

Romney's central tax plan would have eliminated tax deductions for the rich while lowering tax rates on everyone. This directly reduces the government's control over our resources, free up the economy. Anyone with even a basic education in economics knows that Obama's approach of creating deductions and tax credits while hiking tax rates only creates perverse incentives that lead to dead-weight economic losses. Romney's plan would have undone that damage.

For you to claim that this was a shot at the poor reveals in full colors that you haven't listened to a word Romney said, only to the propaganda that Obama created about him.
Reply
:iconalphamale1980:
alphamale1980 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
:icontbschemer:
A serious analysis? You're full of shit. The analysis apparently wasn't even serious enough for you to remember who wrote it.


Pay attention, I'm not quoting anyone but making a statement. Try reading the post next time.

Romney's central tax plan would have eliminated tax deductions for the rich while lowering tax rates on everyone.

Incorrect. It would have eliminated tax deductions on everyone, and cut everyone's tax rate. The thing is the tax deductions account for a much higher percentage of the actual income of middle and lower class Americans, and a much smaller percentage of the actual income of the wealthy. It would have the effect of moving an even larger portion of the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes.

This directly reduces the government's control over our resources, free up the economy. Anyone with even a basic education in economics knows that Obama's approach of creating deductions and tax credits while hiking tax rates only creates perverse incentives that lead to dead-weight economic losses. Romney's plan would have undone that damage.

Sorry, Obama has not once raised a tax rate on anyone. Nor has he even stated a wish to do so. The tax brackets have stayed at the same rates for nearly a decade, with only the qualification moving up to compensate for inflation. Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I know he's the big bad boogeyman, but can we at least stay on the things he has actually done or said rather than making up complete bs?

By the way, constantly claiming that the markets will self regulate, and unfettered unaccountable markets will solve the nation's problems just makes you look simpe in an economy that is still dragging itself out of the worst financial disaster since the great depression... especially when it was due in large part to the banking and investment sectors going unregulated.
For you to claim that this was a shot at the poor reveals in full colors that you haven't listened to a word Romney said, only to the propaganda that Obama created about him.

I don't generally listen to speeches and proclamations of any politician. I stick with the actual proposals. Secondly it wasn't primarily a shot at the poor, they were collateral damage more or less. It was certainly a shot at the middle class.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
Sorry, Obama has not once raised a tax rate on anyone. Nor has he even stated a wish to do so.

Bullshit: [link]
The entire reason this whole fiscal cliff thing is happening in the first place is because every time Congress tries to negotiate the debt ceiling with Obama, he calls for hikes in the tax rates. He refuses to accept any deal without a hike in the tax rates. You're just flat-out wrong.

Is this why you voted for Obama? You're just so ignorant of the issues that you don't even know what his policies are?
Reply
:iconalphamale1980:
alphamale1980 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
The entire reason this whole fiscal cliff thing is happening in the first place is because every time Congress tries to negotiate the debt ceiling with Obama, he calls for hikes in the tax rates.

Actually he calls for the tax rates to be enforced rather than continuing to allow the tax breaks. The rates that are currently being paid were intended to run out in 2010. Allowing a short term tax cut to die off is not raising taxes, it's getting rid of a cut.

And the reason that compromise can not be had is that the republicans refuse to compromise. Obama has always said that his proposal is getting rid of breaks for people making $250,000 or more, but he is willing to negotiate on exemptions for small businesses, raising the $250k minimum etc, etc,

Republicans however always refuse the get rid of the breaks for anyone including millionaires and billionaires. Republicans have repeatedly put the economy in danger with their refusal to negotiate with the President. From the fiscal cliff, to the debt ceiling debacle that wound up with the U.S. government getting it's lending rating brought down.

Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
That's completely false.

The current income tax rate brackets, which have been the law of the land since 2003 are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%.
Obama refuses to compromise unless he gets to hike those rates to at least 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 36%, and 39.6%.

You're simply completely wrong.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
unlikely. The democrats have re-established themselves as a force with its own ideas for the first time a very long time.

Obama's policies won't do shit, but the economy is rebounding because it already bottomed out, and it will naturally start to rise. Obama will get credit for this.

Other politically unrelated things, such as the US is on a steady decline in energy usage, combined with a steady increase. Large Trucks now get 22 MPG, and sedans get 40 MPG, while being more powerful and more reliable than ever.

we are producing more and more oil, and consuming less and less.
[link]

Obama will most likely get credit for that.

Obama will likely get credit for solar development, which is starting to become viable. While efficiency goes up, transparent armor(like alluminum), as already made them far more tough than the wood siding, and tar shingles of most houses. They had 50 year service lives.
[link]

Combine this with new LED based lighting which cuts the power needs for TVs, computer displays, and lighting over 90%. This will be maturing in the next 3-4 years, and by 2020. This will drive down electricity demands(in the future, 60w will light your entire suburban house).

Now we get to batteries
[link]
[link]
[link]

All of this will make alternative electricity viable in time for Obama to take credit for it. Especially since he's been yapping about it as a platform.

When the US lowers its fossil fuel needs, it will start exporting them. We'll have the economic leverage over other countries, they have over us now.

Which gets us, to "who's buying middle east oil now?
[link]
"IEA says Asia will consume 90% Middle East oil by 2035"

China in the future will probably fight the same sorts of wars we did to get the same oil. If Obama actually gets the US out of the middle east, except for some vague speeches over democracy and human rights, and vauge verbal or token support for whatever pro-democratic revolution happens.

Which means that the terrorists will likely find a new "great satan" sometimes within the next 5-10 years. Again, this is based on the fact we don't need shit from the ME anymore, and we can just leave someone else holding the bag.

Obama will likely take credit for this.

Unless something drastic happens and Obama fumbles, he, and the democrats are likely to hold on same voting base they enjoyed this election.

Were you one of those people predicting a Romney win?

"meanus already tried to get this point across"
he generally has a little trouble with that, thanks for taking the time to help him out.
Reply
:icontoshadaydreamer:
ToshaDaydreamer Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Still vomiting doom and gloom threads? I'd thought you moved to the moon by now. Or Somalia, I hear they practise your perfect government.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
"Or Somalia, I hear they practise your perfect government."

Somalia is in no way, shape or form a libertarian or anarchistic society.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"Somalia is in no way, shape or form a libertarian or anarchistic society."

this.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
TBSchemer is in no way shape or form a libertarian or an anarchist.
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
It doesn't matter, libertarianism is what the person I responded to was taking a jab at.
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
~meanus is a very obvious troll. The fact that you're taking one of his threads seriously shows just what a deluded nutcase you are. :O
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
meanus is a very obvious troll, but that doesn't mean every issue he touches isn't a serious one.

TB Schemer wants a serious debate over something meanus said.

Fair game, my response has already been posted.
Reply
:iconsheepy94:
Sheepy94 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"meanus is a very obvious troll, but that doesn't mean every issue he touches isn't a serious one."

Are you fucking serious
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
yes, quite. TBSchemer started a serious thread, and if you read the rest of it, you'd see my also very serious reply, explaining the very serious faults in his logic.

You are confusing my agreement of "good topic for debate", with "topic I agree with".

TBSchemer is generally far more coherent with his arguments than meanus as well.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012
>Implying meanus and TBSchemer aren't the same person.
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I don't think they are... ~meanus is obviously a troll, but I don't think he's a sockpuppet of a Politics regular. ~liberty-4-all and ~awake1 on the other hand....
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012
Yeah, it's hard to emulate meanus.

But I like to imagine a sitcom with TBSchemer, Jeysie, meanus and infinitetolerance all living in the same house.

Damn, I'm really bored.
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
How about making it real; put them in the Big Brother house! :la:
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
it'd be a better reality show. At very least give them the next house over from the Jersey Shore for maximum lulz.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Too bad Jersey Shore got cancelled... wow, I never thought I'd ever say that.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012
Do not want to watch.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
...man, I know I'm not popular around here, but out-and-out torture is a bit much...
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012
All I can imagine is Schemer wearing their tanned hides and bathing in their blood, crazy mountainman style, after some sitcommy misunderstanding.
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Sure, I feel lucky. After nine months with no job (voluntarily), I got a job this year that boosted my hourly wage a little over 50% what I was earning at my last job; I bought a sweet new car and am closing on a house. Ohio's economy is pacing in front of the national economy, though. Thanks be to Obama and that auto bailout, I guess. :shrug:
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
[link]

Ohio certainly is pacing out in front.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012
"The Democrats will now be the ones in charge when the Obama Recession hits"

IF the recession hits. Your track record on predictions hasn't been good recently and considering you based how good polls were based on their track record, I shall do the same to you. You frequently flat out lie and don't admit it when the proof of your lying is stuck right infront of you. You carry out spouting the same crap like a mindless robot.

The Democrats have to govern and the Republicans have to grow up. Whilst they continue to act like children they will hinder the Democrats ability to get things done. The Dems have on many occassions put out offers of compromise only to meet a completely uncompromising Republican opposition (even if the proposals originated with Republicans.) The electorate clearly didn't feel the Dems deserved complete control but the fact the Republicans made no gains at all after 2 years of doing everything in their power to make government impossible shows quite a lot.

So we have your prediction of an Obama recession by April latest. Are you willing to make a bet on that?
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012
Can't be much worse than Bush. And I just discovered that they sell Cherry Dr. Pepper now, so I feel pretty lucky.
Reply
:iconklaxonlithology:
KlaxonLithology Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Well, alrighty then.
I'm not sure if you're making a prediction of failure, trying to make those who voted for Obama feel bad about their decision, or giving idle threats. Maybe all three. I mostly see crazy.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012
I'm predicting failure and challenging you to explain how confident you are that Obama will succeed. I'm also trying to get you to acknowledge that the "not enough time" argument doesn't hold any water at all after 8 years, so failure for the economy means the indisputable failure of Obama's philosophy.
Reply
Add a Comment: