Politics

[ND NYC]

I love how I keep getting told on here how I don't know $hit because of my age. Then tonight I have dinner with 4 couples (just retirement age, all incredibly successful, family friends), talked about the economy, and the world, blah blah blah, and got told numerous times how bright I was, how level headed I was, how knowledgeable of economics I was, how successful they all believe I will be, and WHAT A FANTASTIC INSTITUTION I ATTEND.

Rally=Joffrey?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Thank you for illustrating how blind you are to the issues facing the person who signs the front of your paycheck. Please re-read my last few posts and try to understand what I am saying from and EMPLOYER perspective. I understand your EMPLOYEE perspective that you don't really care who pays for it as long as you get it.

Do understand that your employer pays 7.65% FICA taxes in addition to the FICA taxes that show up on your paystub? Obama decreased YOUR FICA taxes to 5.65% from 7.65% but the employer taxes stayed the same. That move does ZERO to reduce the cost of employing people, and goes a long way to pushing Social Security and Medicare into the red.

As for the bolded - I am holding minimum wage constant in this scenario. Like I tell my third grader, please understand the problem before you start blurting out answers. Sorry if that is a little condescending but you deserve it on this one.

Anyone starting to notice a recurring theme/ trend in this thread? lol

 

[GoIrish41]

Thank you for illustrating how blind you are to the issues facing the person who signs the front of your paycheck. Please re-read my last few posts and try to understand what I am saying from and EMPLOYER perspective. I understand your EMPLOYEE perspective that you don't really care who pays for it as long as you get it.

Do understand that your employer pays 7.65% FICA taxes in addition to the FICA taxes that show up on your paystub? Obama decreased YOUR FICA taxes to 5.65% from 7.65% but the employer taxes stayed the same. That move does ZERO to reduce the cost of employing people, and goes a long way to pushing Social Security and Medicare into the red.

As for the bolded - I am holding minimum wage constant in this scenario. Like I tell my third grader, please understand the problem before you start blurting out answers. Sorry if that is a little condescending but you deserve it on this one.

In fairness, I believe you are putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. I haven't said a word about FICA taxes, and I did not say that I don't care who pays for it as long as I get it. For the record, I have health insurance and am not advocating for anything to improve my lot in life. If you are so mad that I haven't provided a comprehensive and detailed accounting of how a single-payer system may work and be funded, you must be going out of your mind with the Romney/Ryan ticket. They have given no details about anything they are proposing. Yet, you are defending them and slamming me. I don't know if you know this, but I'm not running for President. Perhaps you should channel your anger on the GOP candidate.

 

[Buster Bluth]

In fairness, I believe you are putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. I haven't said a word about FICA taxes, and I did not say that I don't care who pays for it as long as I get it. For the record, I have health insurance and am not advocating for anything to improve my lot in life. If you are so mad that I haven't provided a comprehensive and detailed accounting of how a single-payer system may work and be funded, you must be going out of your mind with the Romney/Ryan ticket. They have given no details about anything they are proposing. Yet, you are defending them and slamming me. I don't know if you know this, but I'm not running for President. Perhaphs you should channel your anger on the GOP candidate.

With the many years under your belt, could you please give me some examples of some Presidential candidates who gave detailed accounts of their platform programs that actually happened? My wee wittle bwain can't wemember; I wasn't there.

This tree doesn't have too many rings on it, but what from I can tell Presidential candidates are prepped to give the broadest and most effective platitudes that are designed to attract the most voters to their "cause." They are pitching to the lowest common denominator, both of them. That's why it's probably a lot smarter to look at their accomplishments and track record.

"He hasn't said what loopholes he's going to cut!" "He hasn't said how he'll balance the budget!" yadda yadda yadda. So what, he actually has a history of doing that sorta thing before. He's gotten that job done.

But oh wait---you think Romney is a greedy ol' bastard who made his millions pillaging the middle class. lolol

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

With the many years under your belt, could you please give me some examples of some Presidential candidates who gave detailed accounts of their platform programs that actually happened? My wee wittle bwain can't wemember; I wasn't there.

This tree doesn't have too many rings on it, but what from I can tell Presidential candidates are prepped to give the broadest and most effective platitudes that are designed to attract the most voters to their "cause." They are pitching to the lowest common denominator, both of them. That's why it's probably a lot smarter to look at their accomplishments and track record.

"He hasn't said what loopholes he's going to cut!" "He hasn't said how he'll balance the budget!" yadda yadda yadda. So what, he actually has a history of doing that sorta thing before. He's gotten that job done.

But oh wait---you think Romney is a greedy ol' bastard who made his millions pillaging the middle class. lolol

Kudos. And let us not forget, all this criticism of Romney and his "lack of specifics" comes from left wingers and the media hacks who slobbered over Obama in 2007 and 2008 based on "hope and change."

 

[Rhode Irish]

Please note that I am not arguing the merits of any specific policy position, just critiquing the logic being used here. Buster, your post has two major problems:

First, GI41 did not make the case that Romney should provide more detail. Maybe he thinks that, but it isn't what he said. Or maybe he believes the argument that there is no way to say for an absolute certainty how Romney would accomplish his stated agenda (which I actually buy, by the way). Either way, it seems like he simply wants RDU to be consistent regarding his expectations for details. In your haste to defend your hero you countered an argument that wasn't even made.

Second, you're either confused about or not crediting the argument that the democrats are making. The argument isn't simply that Romney hasn't given details and that is bad on its face. The argument is that in order to achieve his agenda he is necessarily going to have to do some things that democrats think are terrible. Now, I readily admit that part of the democrat's problem is that they are making the argument by implication and are counting on the electorate to connect the dots - an act of which many may not be capable. But considering how utterly brilliant you are, I know that you get the argument they are making and I trust that you have your reasons for disagreement. But instead you lower yourself to misstating (or understating) the argument rather than making a reasoned case against it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Please note that I am not arguing the merits of any specific policy position, just critiquing the logic being used here. Buster, your post has two major problems:

First, GI41 did not make the case that Romney should provide more detail. Maybe he thinks that, but it isn't what he said. Or maybe he believes the argument that there is no way to say for an absolute certainty how Romney would accomplish his stated agenda (which I actually buy, by the way). Either way, it seems like he simply wants RDU to be consistent regarding his expectations for details. In your haste to defend your hero you countered an argument that wasn't even made.

Second, you're either confused about or not crediting the argument that the democrats are making. The argument isn't simply that Romney hasn't given details and that is bad on its face. The argument is that in order to achieve his agenda he is necessarily going to have to do some things that democrats think are terrible. Now, I readily admit that part of the democrat's problem is that they are making the argument by implication and are counting on the electorate to connect the dots - an act of which many may not be capable. But considering how utterly brilliant you are, I know that you get the argument they are making and I trust that you have your reasons for disagreement. But instead you lower yourself to misstating (or understating) the argument rather than making a reasoned case against it.

OT, but you owe me $100k vbucks for Miami beating GT. Now, the question is, how much do I have to give to everyone in this forum to make sure I am paying my fair share?

 

[ab2cmiller]

Please note that I am not arguing the merits of any specific policy position here, just critiquing the logic being used here. Buster, your post has two major problems:

First, GI41 was did not make the case that Romney should provide more detail. Maybe he thinks that, but it isn't what he said. Or maybe he believes the argument that there is no way to say for an absolute certainty how Romney would accomplish his stated agenda (which I actually buy, by the way). Either way, it seems like he simply wants RDU to be consistent regarding his expectations for details. In your haste to defend your hero you countered an argument that wasn't even made.

Second, you're either confused about or not crediting the argument that the democrats are making. The argument isn't simply that Romney hasn't given details and that is bad on its face. The argument is that in order to achieve his agenda he is necessarily going to have to do some things that democrats think are terrible. Now, I readily admit that part of the democrat's problem is that they are making the argument by implication and are counting on the electorate to connect the dots - an act of which many may not be capable. But considering how utterly brilliant you are, I know that you get the argument they are making and I trust that you have your reasons for disagreement. But instead you lower yourself to misstating (or understating) the argument rather than making a reasoned case against it.

Rhode, you made some excellent points.

Sadly it's come down to this. There is a significant amount of people who will be voting that don't trust either one of the candidates. Both have lied and both will continue lying. You can say that's just politics, but it certainly doesn't give anyone a good feeling going into the voting station and casting my vote for who I think is lying less. The lies have given each side an "excuse" that I've seen used to many times in this forum, "Well the other side is doing the same thing" blah blah blah.

We as the voters are told so many untruths, we are left to try to figure out what is truth and what is fiction, but there are so many lies that people just throw their hands up and don't even try because it's to overwhelming.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Kudos. And let us not forget, all this criticism of Romney and his "lack of specifics" comes from left wingers and the media hacks who slobbered over Obama in 2007 and 2008 based on "hope and change."

In Obama's defense he did give a good deal of specifics in 08' -- closing Guantanamo, ending the war in Afghanistan, reducing health care premiums, restoring our good name abroad, "ushering in" an era of "complete transparency" that has "never been seen before in the Presidency", "reforming Washington", "working across the isle", "ending partisanship", etc.

The problem isn't that he wasn't specific, it's that none of it happened.

 

[Buster Bluth]

First, GI41 did not make the case that Romney should provide more detail.

That's irrelevant I can change the topic.

But considering how utterly brilliant you are, I know that you get the argument they are making and I trust that you have your reasons for disagreement.

Well I honestly could mostly give a crap about any plan per se that either of them throw out there. I really think it's useless to look to deep into what any of them say. I look at Obama and see, in my opinion perhaps, a guy who just looks over his head; full of ideas perhaps but a little too idealist on some fronts, amateurish on some others, naive on a few more. I turn around and look at Romney, and I see a consummate professional and a guy who had a demonstrable list of accomplishments. So if Romney says he wants to put all exemptions on the table and see if we can lower the actual tax rate, I am inclined to think he can actually do it from merely looking at his previous experiences. If Romney says he wants to do X, Y, Z...I'm more likely to believe him than Obama. Unless he goes all Gingrich and says we need moonbases. wtf Newt...

I have read how Democrats think he'll explode the national debt, or how it's impossible, etc etc and I think it's largely irrelevant because there are ten thousand ways to skin a cat, and work with Congress (i.e. compromises) must be done, and any plan in October of 2012 will be different in February of 2012. See my point? I think it's a fair one.

In other news, Big Bird was put on the endangered species list today...

 

[Buster Bluth]

In Obama's defense he did give a good deal of specifics in 08' -- closing Guantanamo, ending the war in Afghanistan, reducing health care premiums, restoring our good name abroad, "ushering in" an era of "complete transparency" that has "never been seen before in the Presidency", "reforming Washington", "working across the isle", "ending partisanship", etc.

The problem isn't that he wasn't specific, it's that none of it happened.

/election

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did. It has become apparent to me that he is not what a lot of people who wanted something different voted for.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Oh yeah, and the whole "dollar for dollar" plan that "won't add one dime" to the deficit.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yeah, that's all fine. I disagree vehemently with your assessments of both Obama and Romney, but that's kind of here nor there with regard to the point I was making. My point is that you deliberately misstated the democrat's argument against Romney because its easier to score cheap points that way, and I think we can do better than that.

 

[Buster Bluth]

My point is that you deliberately misstated the democrat's argument against Romney because its easier to score cheap points that way, and I think we can do better than that.

I did? I think they've been doing that themselves, actually.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Geez Buster. As smart as you may be, having a conversation with you is like arguing with an eight year old.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Oh yeah, and the whole "dollar for dollar" plan that "won't add one dime" to the deficit.

Exactly. Instead, let's reduce tax revenues by $500 billion a year and pretend that we can reduce deductions enough to make it debt neutral. That should do the trick.

 

[ND NYC]

just wondering...who is the "Other" that 9% of IE folks are voting for for President?

 

[connor_in]

Rhode, you made some excellent points.

Sadly it's come down to this. There is a significant amount of people who will be voting that don't trust either one of the candidates. Both have lied and both will continue lying. You can say that's just politics, but it certainly doesn't give anyone a good feeling going into the voting station and casting my vote for who I think is lying less. The lies have given each side an "excuse" that I've seen used to many times in this forum, "Well the other side is doing the same thing" blah blah blah.

We as the voters are told so many untruths, we are left to try to figure out what is truth and what is fiction, but there are so many lies that people just throw their hands up and don't even try because it's to overwhelming.

Here's the thing...Even when candidates give specifics, at least when it comes to the details of specific plans, they will almost undoubtedly become a liar. Unless, they rule by fiat or executive order, they have to work with and thru Congress (especially budgetary items). You think they give a big whoop about every little detail the president laid out as a plan? Especially if the win is not an actual "mandate" (not one of the claimed ones in these relatively close elections recently).

Personally that was one of my biggest letdowns with Obama. I admit I did not vote for him and feared what his policies would lead to. However, I still wanted the country to recover and alleviate the pain and suffering the crash brought to those family, friends, and fellow Americans. How he handled the ACA really maddened me. He didn't even seem overly influential or engaged, and let Pelosi and Reid seem to patch together various things they had always wanted to get thru in regards to healthcare. Since it was not really a well thought out plan based on a single outline or flow chart, the amalgamation became a crazy patchwork quilt or mis-shapen Frankenstein monster...unwieldy. Reagan engaged and worked with the people in Congress. The site of him and Tip O'Neill working together was a sight for the ages (along the lines of "Only Nixon could go to China"). Clinton did this in his triangulation plan that going along to get along would get him re-elected and even by compromising with Newt, he could influence and adjust other policies down the line.

My personal hope is that Mitt wins and implements policies by actually trying to meet with and work with the opposing party. As an American I am sick and tired of the ever worsening political divide that is caused by BOTH sides. It is fine to disagree (we are human...that will be with us as long as we exist) but the demonization done by both sides pollutes the system, riles the electorate, and accomplishes nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for some kind of movie faux-1950's...just looking for some people to actually agree to work across the aisle (not posturing for politcal points, but actually doing it). And please don't anyone start whining about how their side REALLY tried but were socked in the nose by the meanies on the other side. Most anything in the last decade plus has been mere political posturing for the cameras.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Exactly. Instead, let's reduce tax revenues by $500 billion a year and pretend that we can reduce deductions enough to make it debt neutral. That should do the trick.

What do you mean by "exactly"? Obama promised not to add to the deficit, and instead has added more than any president in history...Are you feeling okay? Are you saying I'm "exactly" right on this?

I actually liked this promise from Obama. He just missed it by a country mile.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Here's the thing...Even when candidates give specifics, at least when it comes to the details of specific plans, they will almost undoubtedly become a liar. Unless, they rule by fiat or executive order, they have to work with and thru Congress (especially budgetary items). You think they give a big whoop about every little detail the president laid out as a plan? Especially if the win is not an actual "mandate" (not one of the claimed ones in these relatively close elections recently).

Personally that was one of my biggest letdowns with Obama. I admit I did not vote for him and feared what his policies would lead to. However, I still wanted the country to recover and alleviate the pain and suffering the crash brought to those family, friends, and fellow Americans. How he handled the ACA really maddened me. He didn't even seem overly influential or engaged, and let Pelosi and Reid seem to patch together various things they had always wanted to get thru in regards to healthcare. Since it was not really a well thought out plan based on a single outline or flow chart, the amalgamation became a crazy patchwork quilt or mis-shapen Frankenstein monster...unwieldy. Reagan engaged and worked with the people in Congress. The site of him and Tip O'Neill working together was a sight for the ages (along the lines of "Only Nixon could go to China"). Clinton did this in his triangulation plan that going along to get along would get him re-elected and even by compromising with Newt, he could influence and adjust other policies down the line.

From my perspective, Obama triangulated a lot. The health care bill and the individual mandate was the free market based republican alternative in the 90s. Cap and trade. The Dream Act was supported and introduced by Hatch, Lugar, and Durbin. These things became toxic only when Obama supported them.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Geez Buster. As smart as you may be, having a conversation with you is like arguing with an eight year old.

Enlighten me. Seriously hah

Does Romney not say, in simplest terms, they he favors closing a ton of corporate and income tax loopholes and lowering the overall rate in a manner that is both revenue neutral and that keeps the share of taxes paid relatively the same--if not slightly slanted to favoring the middle class (e.g. his social security position on 60 Minutes). No?

...and Democrats say to this, what?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What do you mean by "exactly"? Obama promised not to add to the deficit, and instead has added more than any president in history...Are you feeling okay? Are you saying I'm "exactly" right on this?

I actually liked this promise from Obama. He just missed it by a country mile.

Sorry. Let me revise...

Exactly. Just trying to be snarky.

My point is that Romney's plan (what I laid out) gets us further from the goal of debt reduction.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Sorry. Let me revise...

Exactly. Just trying to be snarky.

My point is that Romney's plan (what I laid out) gets us further from the goal of debt reduction.

If Romney breaks Obama's record for All-Time-Deficit-Spending I'll give you every vbuck I ever get.

Obama is the Pete Rose of national debt.

 

[Buster Bluth]

just wondering...who is the "Other" that 9% of IE folks are voting for for President?

Probably Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

I personally am voting Mitt Romney and then writing in Ron Paul for all of the other smaller races. hahah I have about a dozen or so friends who have committed to doing so as well.

 

[Bluto]

If Romney breaks Obama's record for All-Time-Deficit-Spending I'll give you every vbuck I ever get.

Obama is the Pete Rose of national debt.

Jeez luise, can we put a cork in the Obama is the all time deficit spender bs. This has been shown to be a shaky argument at best and comes down to a good deal of splitting hairs over the 2009 budget. This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about some people on the right. They latch on to some conspiracy theory or shaky at best statement (John Kerry was a phony war hero, Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not a citizen, the unemployment rate has been manipulated) repeat it ad nauseum and then viola people think its true.

Another thing that is becoming a broken record is the "Obama didn't reach across the aisle" crap. Most of his policies can trace their origins to GOP ideas of the 90's and you would think "moderate" Republicans would have been delighted with that. Apparently not.

 

[connor_in]

Probably Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

I personally am voting Mitt Romney and then writing in Ron Paul for all of the other smaller races. hahah I have about a dozen or so friends who have committed to doing so as well.

You kids today and your wacky electoral hijinx!

 

[phgreek]

Jeez luise, can we put a cork in the Obama is the all time deficit spender bs. This has been shown to be a shaky argument at best and comes down to a good deal of splitting hairs over the 2009 budget. This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about some people on the right. They latch on to some conspiracy theory or shaky at best statement (Jim Kerry was a phony war hero, Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not a citizen, the unemployment rate has been manipulated) repeat it ad nauseum and then viola people think its true.

Well if Jim Carry is talking that smack he is a phony...however, I believe John

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You kids today and your wacky electoral hijinx!

I remember in 2000 there was a scheme for swing-staters who supported Nader to "trade" their vote, and vote for Gore, in exchange for a California vote in support of Nader.

What nobody realized was that this is a huge felony.

 

[Bluto]

Well if Jim Carry is talking that smack he is a phony...however, I believe John

Bazinga! You got me dude! Lol

 

[connor_in]

Jeez luise, can we put a cork in the Obama is the all time deficit spender bs. This has been shown to be a shaky argument at best and comes down to a good deal of splitting hairs over the 2009 budget. This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about some people on the right. They latch on to some conspiracy theory or shaky at best statement (Jim Kerry was a phony war hero, Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not a citizen, the unemployment rate has been manipulated) repeat it ad nauseum and then viola people think its true.

Just FYI
I think you mean John Kerry
Clinton put forward the Iraq WMD story during his admin and was backed up by the Brits
and for you lefty tinfoil hatters
9/11 truthers
W had plans to invade Iraq before he was elected
W was going to invoke martial law and cancel the elections to hold onto office/power
...and so on...and so forth...and such like...

repeat it ad nauseum and then viola people think its true