Politics

[BobD]

Spent the last two hours catching up with todays happenings at the RNC.

The Democrats should be sponsoring this convention as they're definetly benefiting the most from it.

I believe I heard Christie accuse the Democrats of turning this election into a popularity contest........hmmmm.

 

[yankeehater]

LOL

Stopped on MSNBC for 2 mins. They didn't have very high opinions on Ms. Romney's or Christie's speeches.

Went to Fox for a couple of minutes, exact opposite.

The media is hysterical. I flipped to all three (CNN being the third) and if I did not know better they seemed to be at different conventions. MSNBC did not even televise the former Democratic Gov when he spoke. They were either at commercial or doing something else. There is definitely no media bias.

 

[connor_in]

RI...how much do you want to bet that if someone made any kind of comment in a similar vein about Michelle's speech next week the first word used to describe that person would be racist? As an MSNBC analyst put forthabout Obama...why are you engaging in the other-ization of Ann Romney? (Please note I personally don't think you have anything against white women and if this didn't have to deal with politics.you would probably be nicer to her yes?)

BTW...
Ann Romney was a proud stay at home Mom...what exactly is wrong with that again? My Mom was a stay at home Mom for as long as she could be before getting a job dueto economic factors...my wife wishes she couldne a stay at home Mom...there are some people who can affordto do it...one ofmy friends did it and inorder to do sogave up a lot of the things so many take for granted but it was important to her to be there for her kids.

 

[tadman95]

Yea I'm a little confused as to Buster's leaning. LOL


Also, I could care less about the candidate's wives.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'll see if I can hit this in reverse order -

Tadman - Ditto here, although I prefer they have at least as much pride in their country as they do in their spouse. I'm convinced Laura Bush was a contributing factor to pushing education policy further when they should have been contracting on the federal level.

Connor- Dead on with the double standard, although I question if the independent/moderate votes up for grabs are moved in Mitt's column in response to the vitriolic Rhode Irish type of attacks on Ann Romney. Kind of shows the true colors of just how much respect they have for women.

BobD and Rhode - Your opinions are quickly losing any credibility because of your extreme bias. You both seem completely incapable of seeing any value whatsoever in the opposition.

Buster - I agree, if Obama played the game anything like he sold it in 2008 he would have a much better chance of re-election. I can't remember a single instance where he has thrown anything to the republicans. He is as partisan as anyone out there, yet sold himself as a uniter four years ago? How can anyone claim Obama has even tried to work with Republicans, even after 2010 should have been his cue to cut to the middle instead of staying far left? "Elections have consequences" was his response to the initial pleading to at least give them a seat at the table.

 

[RDU Irish]

U.S. Firms Move Abroad to Cut Taxes - WSJ.com

So if both sides agree that corporate tax reform should include eliminating deductions and lowering the rate to something globally competitive, why hasn't Obama pushed it through? Can either side here argue that lowering corporate taxes and easing repatriation would not be more stimulative than messing with individual rates (let alone the $1 trillion stimulus bill)?

Good points previously about austerity leading to recession. I posted real numbers backing up the concept of a 3.5% GDP hit next year which would require real growth of 3.5% just to break even. I haven't seen anyone who says we can power through it and avoid recession with out Washington taking A LOT of the bite out of the fiscal cliff.

On one hand, wars, TARP and Stimulus created an artificially high "base" for the budget spending. On the other hand, Bush tax breaks (cuts would be permanent) create an artificially low budget revenue for the past few years. Funny how the impact hits immediately after a presidential election?

Had the Bush tax breaks been permanent cuts, I could argue FOR their stimulative effects creating net higher revenue through faster growth over the long haul. Since they were not permanent and did little to simplify our tax code, I say they suck.

Had Bush targeted a globally competitive corporate tax structure instead of buying votes through further muddying of the individual tax code, we would be in much better standing today with lower net costs. The estimated $250B tax increase on individuals in 2013 from the expiration of the Bush tax break is strangely similar to the TOTAL to be collected from corporate taxes.

So, Rhode & BobD and other staunch Obama supporters, very simply - Would we have MORE or LESS employment in this country with a 0% corporate tax rate (no loopholes needed)? It would cost the same as extending the Bush tax cuts, which is more stimulative to this economy and gives us a better chance to grow GDP? I concede 0% is extreme but consider 10% -15% to bring us near the bottom of global rates. Since a consumption tax will never happen in my lifetime, I can only lobby for lower rates with fewer exceptions.

But hey, let's talk about Ann Romney.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Christie's speech was probably the first time I've ever heard any politician say anything like what he said:

Basically, "we need to cut spending, and this will probably suck for you."

It's both a very necessary message, and very un-strategic, politically. It's literally nothing but bad news. But unfortunately that's the state of our national fisc.

If you happen to work for a defense contractor, or a federal contractor/subcontractor, or a federally-funded research institution this could be a very bitter pill.

And some seniors don't really care about their "grandchildren", assuming they have any.

So riling these groups in the name of telling-it-like-it-is is pretty risky. I guess that's Gov. Christie for you.

 

[BobD]

I'll see if I can hit this in reverse order -

Tadman - Ditto here, although I prefer they have at least as much pride in their country as they do in their spouse. I'm convinced Laura Bush was a contributing factor to pushing education policy further when they should have been contracting on the federal level.

Connor- Dead on with the double standard, although I question if the independent/moderate votes up for grabs are moved in Mitt's column in response to the vitriolic Rhode Irish type of attacks on Ann Romney. Kind of shows the true colors of just how much respect they have for women.

BobD and Rhode - Your opinions are quickly losing any credibility because of your extreme bias. You both seem completely incapable of seeing any value whatsoever in the opposition.

Buster - I agree, if Obama played the game anything like he sold it in 2008 he would have a much better chance of re-election. I can't remember a single instance where he has thrown anything to the republicans. He is as partisan as anyone out there, yet sold himself as a uniter four years ago? How can anyone claim Obama has even tried to work with Republicans, even after 2010 should have been his cue to cut to the middle instead of staying far left? "Elections have consequences" was his response to the initial pleading to at least give them a seat at the table.

RDU Irish - Wouldn't it be great if YOU really could decide who has credibility. I can't open your eyes for you. If you and some others don't already see that Romney coud give a rats *** about fixing anything in our country and only wants to be president for the status, then there is nothing I can say hear to help you.

The Republicans (my old party BTW) have already CLEARLY moved on and started working on plan C for 2016.

 

[pkt77242]

I'll see if I can hit this in reverse order -

Tadman - Ditto here, although I prefer they have at least as much pride in their country as they do in their spouse. I'm convinced Laura Bush was a contributing factor to pushing education policy further when they should have been contracting on the federal level.

Connor- Dead on with the double standard, although I question if the independent/moderate votes up for grabs are moved in Mitt's column in response to the vitriolic Rhode Irish type of attacks on Ann Romney. Kind of shows the true colors of just how much respect they have for women.

BobD and Rhode - Your opinions are quickly losing any credibility because of your extreme bias. You both seem completely incapable of seeing any value whatsoever in the opposition.

Buster - I agree, if Obama played the game anything like he sold it in 2008 he would have a much better chance of re-election. I can't remember a single instance where he has thrown anything to the republicans. He is as partisan as anyone out there, yet sold himself as a uniter four years ago? How can anyone claim Obama has even tried to work with Republicans, even after 2010 should have been his cue to cut to the middle instead of staying far left? "Elections have consequences" was his response to the initial pleading to at least give them a seat at the table.

Again, he tried to negotiate with Republicans on the Healthcare bill and he was even willing to put some of the democratic staples on the table (tort reform) but the Republicans wouldn't bargian. Also after 2010 you can can't to the middle if the other side won't meet you. Obama and Boehner had agreed to the grand bargain on deficit reduction but it fell apart when the Republicans revolted over tax hikes. It takes two parties to tango and the current Republicans have only one goal and that is to get Obama out of the presidency and to return to power. That is what they have done for the last 2 years.

 

[Bluto]

Anyone into wonky facts (looking at you, Paul Ryan fanboys), do yourselves a favor and read Ezra Klein every day and follow him on twitter. Best mind in the public discourse currently. Glad to have him on my side.

Thomas Frank is pretty good too.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Christie's speech was probably the first time I've ever heard any politician say anything like what he said:

Basically, "we need to cut spending, and this will probably suck for you."

It's both a very necessary message, and very un-strategic, politically. It's literally nothing but bad news. But unfortunately that's the state of our national fisc.

If you happen to work for a defense contractor, or a federal contractor/subcontractor, or a federally-funded research institution this could be a very bitter pill.

And some seniors don't really care about their "grandchildren", assuming they have any.

So riling these groups in the name of telling-it-like-it-is is pretty risky. I guess that's Gov. Christie for you.

This is definitely not true. Posturing as a straight-shooting truth teller is all the rage right now. It is the new populism.

Note: on a personal level I like Gov. Christie. Politically, I definitely respect him. I wouldn't vote for him, but I definitely understand the appeal.

 

[Rhode Irish]

RI...how much do you want to bet that if someone made any kind of comment in a similar vein about Michelle's speech next week the first word used to describe that person would be racist? As an MSNBC analyst put forthabout Obama...why are you engaging in the other-ization of Ann Romney? (Please note I personally don't think you have anything against white women and if this didn't have to deal with politics.you would probably be nicer to her yes?)

BTW...
Ann Romney was a proud stay at home Mom...what exactly is wrong with that again? My Mom was a stay at home Mom for as long as she could be before getting a job dueto economic factors...my wife wishes she couldne a stay at home Mom...there are some people who can affordto do it...one ofmy friends did it and inorder to do sogave up a lot of the things so many take for granted but it was important to her to be there for her kids.

Again, just to reiterate, I have nothing against upper-class white women. My mom is one of them. I am not playing identity politics here. I find Ann Romney to be obnoxious. Not white women, not rich ladies, not blondes. Specifically Ann Romney. I guess if someone were to have similar feelings for the first lady I would have to accept it (since it ultimately doesn't matter because they aren't running for office). But objectively, I do not think Michelle Obama is susceptible to the same type of criticism as Ann Romney. Her popularity off the charts. I hate to be cliche, but Ann Romney comes across as out of touch, like she hasn't ever met a normal person. And everything she says on the stump is calculated to combat specific negative perceptions of her, which is a particular pet peeve of mine. If you want to try to do that, don't make it so obvious.

 

[RDU Irish]

RDU Irish - Wouldn't it be great if YOU really could decide who has credibility. I can't open your eyes for you. If you and some others don't already see that Romney coud give a rats *** about fixing anything in our country and only wants to be president for the status, then there is nothing I can say hear to help you.

The Republicans (my old party BTW) have already CLEARLY moved on and started working on plan C for 2016.

And the same is not true of Obama and the Democrats? I guess independents acknowledge the faults of both sides, hold their nose and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils. If you cannot see a single positive in the Republican platform, then you are far from moderate and have little impact or insight on what will turn this election one way or another. And if you see this as a slam dunk for Obama then I suggest you stay home and don't vote since you will be wasting your time on a predetermined event.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...Your opinions are quickly losing any credibility because of your extreme bias. You both seem completely incapable of seeing any value whatsoever in the opposition...

Once "The Other Team" has discovered you're not on their team, 99% of the discussion involves them just disagreeing with everything you write. Both "sides" are guilty of this. I've found it's better to just tune it out than be trolled. Takes discipline, for sure, but the alternative is endless loops of gifs, youtube videos, "lol", "hahahahaha" and "smh".

 

[RDU Irish]

Rhode - you're sounding like the guy always talks about his black friend in defense of obvious racism. I think you hate your mom deep down inside and are taking it out on Ann.

 

[Bluto]

1) The private sectors does much more than put touch screens on phones for consumers. Nice back-handed compliment.

2) I walked into one of the engineering buildings for my math class today and some a board talking about some research project, and it listed the consortium of donors for it....some 40+ corporations from 5-6 countries.

I got this in email not two weeks ago: OSU Energy & Environment News

My roommate worked with Honda in class designing more efficient cars with them at their Marysville.

There is privately-funded/aided research in our schools. Let's not assume that everything going on in our schools is funded by the federal government.

3) I LOVE the Feds pumping money into research for ground-breaking things like green energy and whatnot. I'm all for it. In fact I'd like to see more of that and less of the Feds shutting down coal to steer people towards it. I don't see a whole lot from the GOP being against it, honestly. Help me out; maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? I don't think Romney is opposed to science funding..?



Wrong. Well, I don't think many people think that the EPA shouldn't exist. That is essentially inter-state commerce and thus is justified.

But Carbon Trading would mean the destruction of American manufacturing and explode unemployment. I'm willing to say honestly that anyone who believes in carbon trading is an idiot. I hate to be so rude (while sober), but Carbon Trading would just destroy this economy. WE NEED SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS, not restrictions. It's useless to cap our gases in such a draconian manner when China doesn't play by the same rules.

As for global warming, meh. I know a lot of Republicans who don't believe in it. I know a lot of Republican who acknowledge a global warming, but do not agree that is is a fact that it is man's fault.

Mitt Romney: “I believe that climate change is occurring.… I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

Sounds pretty fair to me. I've had two earth science professors say the same in lectures (you know, the ones doing the Fed-funded research).

Seriously...carbon trading = the worst idea ever. It's stuff like that that allows me to say with complete honesty that Barack Obama's liberal/enviro policies are in direct opposition of his union buddies and working class Americans. Imagine the hardship Americans will endure struggle to pay their heating bill. Good f*ckin' grief.

Lastly, CO2 emissions are now at a twenty-year low...and NOT because of the Feds!!! It's because of a natural gas boom in this country...the same boom the EPA and environmentalists say is causing earthquakes, poisoning water, etc etc when it's simply untrue. The MARKET is to credit for the progress, which is so ironic it's not even funny.

Buster, I'm not under the impression that the private sector does not actively engage in paying for research at universities. Believe it or not I spent a reeeeaaallly long time at such places (on my own dime for all you fiscal conservatives lol). Everything in public schools however, is subsidized by public monies. The private sector can pay for specific research but the salaries and the like of the university staff are still on the public dime. Frankly I have no problem with public/private partnerships as long as they are completely transparent.

As for the GOP attacks on basic research, off the top of my head the stem cell debate comes to mind. That's a pretty clear example.

I'm glad you think the EPA should exist. Mitt Romeny does not agree with you.

As for Carbon Trading bankrupting the energy sector and making granny freeze to death, give me a break. If that were the case all the middle of the road Republican's citied in the a article below would not have supported it, let alone the Germans. Also, it is a proven model that worked with acid rain (with little if any economic impacts) so there is no reason to assume it won't work with CO 2 emissions.

Almost Every 2012 Republican Has a Cap-and-Trade Problem - Chris Good - The Atlantic

Australia and EU announce world's biggest carbon trading system - latimes.com

In terms of your professors opinions on climate change, good for them. Reference me to their scholarly articles on the subject. Here is one dude who won a noble prize that thinks we should take this more seriously.

Nobel prize-winning scientist cites evidence of link between extreme weather, global warming

Finally, I have no problem with "fracking" if it is done in an environmentally responsible manner. I heard a report on NPR the other day that citied "bad cementing" (sound familiar) leading to leaks and polluting water supplies. Apparently this industry needs to further develop safe best management practices. Anyhow, good thing the Obama administration has been so tough on coal in order to help precipitate the natural gas boom. See how easy that was. Lol.

 

[connor_in]

Again, just to reiterate, I have nothing against upper-class white women. My mom is one of them. I am not playing identity politics here. I find Ann Romney to be obnoxious. Not white women, not rich ladies, not blondes. Specifically Ann Romney. I guess if someone were to have similar feelings for the first lady I would have to accept it (since it ultimately doesn't matter because they aren't running for office). But objectively, I do not think Michelle Obama is susceptible to the same type of criticism as Ann Romney. Her popularity off the charts. I hate to be cliche, but Ann Romney comes across as out of touch, like she hasn't ever met a normal person. And everything she says on the stump is calculated to combat specific negative perceptions of her, which is a particular pet peeve of mine. If you want to try to do that, don't make it so obvious.

Just making sure, but you did see in my previous post

Originally Posted by connor_in
RI...how much do you want to bet that if someone made any kind of comment in a similar vein about Michelle's speech next week the first word used to describe that person would be racist? As an MSNBC analyst put forthabout Obama...why are you engaging in the other-ization of Ann Romney? (Please note I personally don't think you have anything against white women and if this didn't have to deal with politics.you would probably be nicer to her yes?)BTW...
Ann Romney was a proud stay at home Mom...what exactly is wrong with that again? My Mom was a stay at home Mom for as long as she could be before getting a job dueto economic factors...my wife wishes she couldne a stay at home Mom...there are some people who can affordto do it...one ofmy friends did it and inorder to do sogave up a lot of the things so many take for granted but it was important to her to be there for her kids.

BTW I tried writing more to this post a few times but ultimately decided not to as 1) they are the wives and not the candidates; 2) when I start to criticize something, I try to see what the response would be in my mind and just see things spiraling downward and don't wanna go there...suffice it to say that there are criticisms of Michelle out there as well

 

[Rhode Irish]

Rhode - you're sounding like the guy always talks about his black friend in defense of obvious racism. I think you hate your mom deep down inside and are taking it out on Ann.

Haha. Just got back from having lunch with her, ironically.

Look, I love elections because I love politics and I love these kinds of debates. But part of me is looking forward to this being over so we can all go back to agreeing on most things, or at least only disagreeing about football. I don't take any of these things personally (except for magogian), and I hope we're all on the same page in that regard.

 

[connor_in]

Haha. Just got back from having lunch with her, ironically.

Look, I love elections because I love politics and I love these kinds of debates. But part of me is looking forward to this being over so we can all go back to agreeing on most things, or at least only disagreeing about football. I don't take any of these things personally (except for magogian), and I hope we're all on the same page in that regard.

So do I tell people I discussed with my ____________ friend today.

fill in blank with:
Democratic Party
Liberal
Across-the-aisle
??????????

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just got home from traveling for work. I was able to catch up on some reading while on the plane and thought this would b e a good place to put this.

Chris Edwards is Cato’s director of tax policy. In the May/June 2012 Cato Policy Report, Chris documented how Canada, in 2012, is expecting to collect 1.9% of GDP in federal corporate income taxes at a 15% corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6% of GDP at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Discuss.

 

[Bluto]

Just got home from traveling for work. I was able to catch up on some reading while on the plane and thought this would b e a good place to put this.

Chris Edwards is Cato’s director of tax policy. In the May/June 2012 Cato Policy Report, Chris documented how Canada, in 2012, is expecting to collect 1.9% of GDP in federal corporate income taxes at a 15% corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6% of GDP at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Discuss.

Uhhh...Canadians are smarter than us?

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Just got home from traveling for work. I was able to catch up on some reading while on the plane and thought this would b e a good place to put this.

Chris Edwards is Cato’s director of tax policy. In the May/June 2012 Cato Policy Report, Chris documented how Canada, in 2012, is expecting to collect 1.9% of GDP in federal corporate income taxes at a 15% corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6% of GDP at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Discuss.

The vast majority of Canadians pay their taxes. The United States cannot say the same.

 

[magogian]

I don't take any of these things personally (except for magogian.

 

[DSully1995]

The vast majority of Canadians pay their taxes. The United States cannot say the same.

Huh? americains dont pay taxes? (it did say corporate tax too....)

 

[magogian]

I guess independents acknowledge the faults of both sides, hold their nose and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.

Maybe. But what is interesting is that independents have generally greater levels of political ignorance that partisans of both sides. See here: The Volokh Conspiracy - The Political Ignorance of Swing Voters:

I guess you could say: when one smells bullshit, why go inspect it close up? You know its bullshit!

But, I doubt that is the explanation.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The vast majority of Canadians pay their taxes. The United States cannot say the same.

If fewer people didn't pay taxes....wouldn't the share paid by the corporations be even greater?

 

[magogian]

Just got home from traveling for work. I was able to catch up on some reading while on the plane and thought this would b e a good place to put this.

Chris Edwards is Cato’s director of tax policy. In the May/June 2012 Cato Policy Report, Chris documented how Canada, in 2012, is expecting to collect 1.9% of GDP in federal corporate income taxes at a 15% corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6% of GDP at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Discuss.

Easy. The Canadian corporate tax rate is lower but the base is broader (fewer exclusions, deductions, etc.). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that such a system is far superior to ours.

 

[magogian]

Again, he tried to negotiate with Republicans on the Healthcare bill and he was even willing to put some of the democratic staples on the table (tort reform) but the Republicans wouldn't bargian. Also after 2010 you can can't to the middle if the other side won't meet you. Obama and Boehner had agreed to the grand bargain on deficit reduction but it fell apart when the Republicans revolted over tax hikes. It takes two parties to tango and the current Republicans have only one goal and that is to get Obama out of the presidency and to return to power. That is what they have done for the last 2 years.

Obama couldn't pull a SINGLE Republican vote, not even notorious moderates like the Maine senators. Obama held strong majorities and repeatedly indicated that Republicans had no seat at the table because, as he put it, "elections have consequences."

Even then Obamacare had significant opposition from WITHIN the Democratic party and numerous members of Congress had to be bought off with exceptions, funding for pet projects in their districts/States etc.

So, when you can't get a single Republican to come along and you face significant opposition within your own party that somehow = you reaching across the aisle and trying to meaningfully compromise with the political opposition? I don't think so.

 

[Grimm]

Easy. The Canadian tax rate is lower but the base is broader (fewer exclusions, deductions, etc.). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that such a system is far superior to ours.

I haven't studied this (just an alert so I don't get a 10 paragraph response from BGIF about what an idiot I am), but intuitively lower tax rates for individuals and corporations with no deductions seems to me definitely the way to go. The whole system right now just smacks me as unfair. A large swath of americans don't pay any taxes. Then another large group get to use deductions - whether because they own their own businesses, are so rich they can hire an accountant to create tax loopholes, in the right industry (like Mitt). This leaves a huge burden on those that make a decent wage but work for someone else. And corporate deductions are endless.

1.6% of GDP seems quite small though. Is this accurate? Just looking at this link (List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), according to the Heritage Foundation, America collects taxes at all levels about 27% of total GDP. Could federal corp taxes only contribute a small fraction of the total? If true, makes you wonder who is paying the taxes.

 

[BobD]

Obama couldn't pull a SINGLE Republican vote, not even notorious moderates like the Maine senators. Obama held strong majorities and repeatedly indicated that Republicans had no seat at the table because, as he put it, "elections have consequences."

Even then Obamacare had significant opposition from WITHIN the Democratic party and numerous members of Congress had to be bought off with exceptions, funding for pet projects in their districts/States etc.

So, when you can't get a single Republican to come along and you face significant opposition within your own party that somehow = you reaching across the aisle and trying to meaningfully compromise with the political opposition? I don't think so.

There were deals done between republlicans also to make sure nobody crossed lines.