|
FAUXTON posted:2008 was kind of a perfect storm of things that worked in Obama's favor as well as the D party at large. You had a terrifically unpopular president leaving office and his party's record of deregulation and fiscal incompetence was being blamed whole-handedly by all honest Americans. Then out comes Obama, pretty much the best orator since Clinton if not as good or better. You had a lot of people who were just hitting voting age in 2008, so they were born in 89-90 and saw their early childhood turn to poo poo under Bush and the R party's control from 2002 on, and Obama capitalized on that in earnest. His campaign used volunteers, tech, and data in ways that remain miraculous.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie's speeches are pretty boring for me, as I've heard them for over twenty years now, but I'll say this: the YouTube comments on the live stream make them really fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The complete financial implosion of Fall 2008 and the very real spectre of a Great Depression II had a big impact, too, and there were public discussions of letting the Big Three automakers just go bankrupt (a lot of Republicans were loudly in favor it in order to decisively break one of the last labor strongholds). IIRC Indiana still has a fair amount of auto manufacturing, doesn't it? That kind of talk must've gone over real well with that state's voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Wow, was that really the loving reason? When will they just start heavily implying they need to have a purge of union workers at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
FMguru posted:They weren't openly talking about crushing the unions, but they were talking about letting the Big 3 go bankrupt and "restructuring" the labor contracts, and no one was under any illusions about what that meant. There was a famous WSJ op-ed column that argued for doing just that (the author, a certain Willard "Mitt" Romney, had a lot of fun trying to explain it away four years later). Wall Street Journal also famously referred to people making so little money they didn't owe any federal taxes as "Lucky Duckies," basically gently caress the editorial staff at WSJ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Wall Street Journal also famously referred to people making so little money they didn't owe any federal taxes as "Lucky Duckies," basically gently caress the editorial staff at WSJ. That's where the name comes from? lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:That's where the name comes from? lol Yup, WSJ can actually put out some decent reportage on occasion, but my favorite nickname for whoever is in charge their opinion articles is "first against the wall when the revolution comes."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
m-my...my whole foods budget...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: The looks on their faces. "I just don't know how we're going to make ends meet this year." The plight of the highly-paid executive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: I hate that image so much. As a single person I can't really imagine what the gently caress I'd do if I made 230k a year other than retire in my 40s. I sure as hell wouldn't be hurt by paying an extra 2-3k a year in taxes unless it meant settling for the 80 inch OLED 4k TV instead of the 85 inch one. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Daniel Bryan posted:It still perplexes me that Obama won IN in 2008 but it wasn't even really in play come 2012 and it's not in play now. also almost won Missouri and Montana '08 was a weird year
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
The art direction for the black couple was probably just "cosbys".
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: re-do tax code, replace Capital Gains Tax with guillotine
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: To be fair it's really hard to survive on budget of only nearly a quarter million dollars a year with no dependents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
I always thought that was an image showing that taxes weren't that bad...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I always thought that was an image showing that taxes weren't that bad... But the frowns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
I think I've watched this the whole way through every goddamned time I've seen it. I always laugh at "Actually named henry" It came from LF, right? Who made it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Lycus posted:But the frowns. I'd hoped it was ironic 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Noooo Scotty, pull up! "Join me in wishing our 43rd President, George W. Bush a very happy birthday. - SKW"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Do you think it would be possible to convince George Clinton to run? I'm all for anything that means my funk might come uncut some day, I wanna get funked up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I'd hoped it was ironic Published originally in the WSJ there is exactly 0% of any ironic or comical sentiment. They take the plight of the rich very seriously in Manhattan
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
I'm surprised this thread is still talking about Clinton so much. Bernie seems like he is getting traction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:To be fair it's really hard to survive on budget of only nearly a quarter million dollars a year with no dependents. That extra 3k in taxes is like 10-15 fewer sushi dinners a year. You wouldn't take away 10-15 pizza nights from a middle class family four would you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:He was a senile old yes-man for the racist, jingoist id of the conservative movement. Reagan was stage-managed from the top of his empty head to the toes of the shoes he forgot each morning. They love him because he campaigned on telling America that none of the poo poo Carter said about America needing to adapt to a post-industrial world was true and that he'd make sure we'd bomb and space our way to owning the planet. This matches what I've read as well - Reagan (made people feel like he) made America great again, after Carter outright admitting that America had a few problems that they needed to work on and they were struggling and all that. Reagan was all pride and glory without devolving into bluster and without ever dropping the dogwhistle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
^ He more or less gave birth to the 'welfate queen' ideacomputer parts posted:More importantly, he did this without waging a war, which sets him apart from FDR and Lincoln (the other two "massively influential" Presidents). He did it by waging wars that made Americans feel good - we had 'wars' in Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, and Lebanon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
FMguru posted:WSJ also gave us this cartoon about Obama's ruinous tax increases: While that cartoon is idiocy of the highest order I've never liked how it gets people to focus on those who are often literally your neighbors and at least actually exist in a reality that most of us can conceive of. Someone making 200k isn't really the problem with our society, it's the people who are worth billions who are actively and intentionally loving up our politics, economy, and environment. But the people pulling in the lower end of six digits a year and engage in conspicuous consumption get a lot more face time in our media and are a lot easier to notice walking around in a city. These people are small business owners, high-level management, engineers, or medical professionals, who, yes, typically vote Republican. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has been doing that, but it's always bothered me that people so easily forget that there are people in this world that occupy a position so far in the stratosphere that their privilege and influence are practically invisible to us peasants down here (including to those "HENRY" people). Amusingly enough depending on which state they live in, those people in that cartoon (except the married couple) likely don't even qualify as the top 1%: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Brannock posted:While that cartoon is idiocy of the highest order I've never liked how it gets people to focus on those who are often literally your neighbors and at least actually exist in a reality that most of us can conceive of. Someone making 200k isn't really the problem with our society, it's the people who are worth billions who are actively and intentionally loving up our politics, economy, and environment. But the people pulling in the lower end of six digits a year and engage in conspicuous consumption get a lot more face time in our media and are a lot easier to notice walking around in a city. These people are small business owners, high-level management, engineers, or medical professionals, who, yes, typically vote Republican. Those hypothetical people probably aren't literally your neighbors unless you live in a very specific sort of community. Regardless of what they qualify as, I look at every one that isn't the retirees and I see a group of people who at their absolute lowest - if they lived on my budget - could afford to buy my house, cash, once a year, every year, and not go into debt. I can't relate to them, and beyond their ability to influence consumer trends with their purchasing power I don't see how it's even useful to try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
I know I have seen this before and yet I am STILL laughing like a retard at every frame. "Income: Kibble."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Explosive, if true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Explosive, if true. Mike, buddy: there was a REASON Johnson only had the Daisy ad run once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
So, who's running for VP and who's running for the 9pm slot on weekdays?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
I live in a major metropolitan area and have friends who run the gamut from experienced SDE and doctor to hotel clerk. I'm not saying there are not systemic issues around income inequality but these people are definitely neighbors to a lot of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Didn't someone edit that WSJ image to turn all the frowns into smiley faces?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:Those hypothetical people probably aren't literally your neighbors unless you live in a very specific sort of community. Regardless of what they qualify as, I look at every one that isn't the retirees and I see a group of people who at their absolute lowest - if they lived on my budget - could afford to buy my house, cash, once a year, every year, and not go into debt. I can't relate to them, and beyond their ability to influence consumer trends with their purchasing power I don't see how it's even useful to try. This is actually the point I was trying to make -- you can still wrap your head around their finances. They could buy the house you live in once a year and be okay (if they adjusted their entire lifestyle and cash flow), but they probably couldn't buy three of your houses once a year. Their finances still exist within a comprehensible reality. They don't really have disproportionate influence, and often they actually do "deserve" to make that sort of money -- especially if they're a medical professional or engineer or a similar occupation. Can you comprehend what it's like for someone to be able to buy out an entire town and not really blink at the impact it'd have on their finances? Someone who's not making 10x what the average citizen makes, but someone who's making dozens of thousands times more than the average citizen pulls in a year? You will never ever interact with those people except across a velvet rope or as a servant, and with the stroke of a finger they can destroy states like the Koch brothers did to Wisconsin. Calling for guillotine, even ironically, for the people who are, relative to the ultrarich I'm describing here, only slightly better off than the rest of us is just more peasant infighting that distracts from the group of people that are actually the real problem with Western society. That doesn't make that WSJ cartoon not hilarious though, because at the point you're pulling in 6 figures, an extra few thousand dollars in taxes is more than easily dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
It reeks of a cartoonist that came from Stamford, went to Columbia, lives in Manhattan, and who never associated outside their peer group. Same sort of sheltered life as the "how'd Nixon win? No one I know voted for him" woman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Brannock posted:This is actually the point I was trying to make -- you can still wrap your head around their finances. They could buy the house you live in once a year and be okay (if they adjusted their entire lifestyle and cash flow), but they probably couldn't buy three of your houses once a year. Their finances still exist within a comprehensible reality. They don't really have disproportionate influence, and often they actually do "deserve" to make that sort of money -- especially if they're a medical professional or engineer or a similar occupation. I know the people you're talking about and they're a huge problem in America. "Deserve what I earned" is great if you ignore the plight of others. My dad was a 6 digit in an area of town one street over from other 6 digits. My dad never avoided or voted against people making anything less. The people in those McMansion allotments, though. I moved back to the area in a section that is decidedly 5 figure and you can see how the McMansion crowd has hosed everything up for us. Don't forget that the median income falls around $50k. $250k is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Don't forget that the median income falls around $50k. $250k is absurd. Household median is $45,016. Median for a single person is $32,140. Edit: looks like those numbers come from the 2003 census. May be different now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
funtax posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 16:13
|
|