Politics

[RDU Irish]

If you were hired to be the head of a company on the brink of collapse, and four years later the company wasn't booming but was on a solid foundation, you'd probably get a ridiculous bonus. The problem here is that 'things could have been much much worse' isn't inspiring even if it is 100% true.

sorry you have more paperwork to do b/c of the health care act. i hope your anger about this inconvenience is countered by the fact that you still have banks that can give you loans if you need them, your kids can still go to decent schools if you can't afford a private school tuition, and it's not too dangerous to walk outside your door at night b/c half of your police department wasn't laid off.

If I doubled the debt of said company on the brink of collapse it would be hard to say I put it in better financial footing. If I used the exact same timeline to withdraw from a bad operation as the plan put forth by the previous CEO, I would have a hard time claiming intelectual superiority. If my "shovel ready" projects to spur growth were not as "shovel ready" as I lead the board of directors to believe I might not be on their good side. Thankfully, investors are incredibly passive and disinterested so they would not be likely to notice or take action when I worked with the board of directors to give eachother big raises and golden parachutes at the expense of the investors. Since most shares are held by mutual funds who are 99% passive in corporate governance I would be safe to continue sucking it up.

Not sure how you know with 100% certainty things would have been worse unless you are God. Surely not even you think that highly of yourself? I will admit with high certainty that things certaintly could have been worse if you will admit that they could have been better. Both are usually the case with anything in life, no? Disinterested DIP financing for GM would have been better, even if it cost PBGC a bit and meant the unions had to take a pay cut. Saying GM would have disintegrated into thin air is a fallacy that shows pure ignorance of bankruptcy proceedings or intellectual dishonesty. EITHER PARTY would do something, one chose to pay off the unions and screw basic property rights relating to corporate structure.

Business cycles happen. Bankruptcies happen. A rebound was going to happen as soon as the liquidity crisis abated. The fact this recovery is abysmal by most standards, I blame on problems both sides contributed to over the last number of decades. Obama did not "fix" anything, at best he has kicked the can down the road JUST LIKE BUSH. We face a fiscal cliff thanks to him and a chicken crap congress (and Bush who should have never pushed a tax cut that sunsets like this). Romney and Ryan offer a different perspective, they are not Bush or Obama and bring more relevant experience to the table for the financial problems facing us than any ticket in recent memory.

Do you honestly think schools will close, police and firemen will not exist anymore or hospitals will stop treating patients if Romney is elected?

 

[Quinntastic]

*slowly backs out of thread*

 

[pkt77242]

So the article says "The plan would provide tax cuts this year to companies that hire new workers, give raises or buy new equipment this year. The proposal caps tax credits at $500,000 for firms who exceed their 2011 payrolls by up to $5 million this year. Companies also would be able to deduct the entire cost of major new property and equipment purchases this year; currently companies may only deduct half the amount in a single year.

Republicans opposed to the measure don’t like its narrow focus on relief for smaller businesses, but Democrats argue that the targeted cuts are needed to spur broader job creation."

Yeah, I want to deduct everything this year when my tax rate is less than it will be next year. If I know taxes are going up, I am more likely to defer investment in my business as the tax increase comes closer to fact. I am stupid if I make an expenditure in December at a 35% tax rate if January will be taxed at 43% (assuming it can be deferred).

I am sorry my "ignorance" is so off-putting. You can continue living in an economic fantasy land where we would all be living Grapes of Wrath right now without Obama saving us from calamity. I would say ours was a liquidity crisis but the intricacies of that statement would only make sense to someone as ignorant as me.

If I may ask an ignorant question - What's your student loan interest rate by the way?

What makes you assume that their tax rate is going up?

 

[autry_denson]

really have to work but it's just difficult to let too much slip without response...so just a few responses:

If I doubled the debt of said company on the brink of collapse it would be hard to say I put it in better financial footing. If I used the exact same timeline to withdraw from a bad operation as the plan put forth by the previous CEO, I would have a hard time claiming intelectual superiority. If my "shovel ready" projects to spur growth were not as "shovel ready" as I lead the board of directors to believe I might not be on their good side.

your first comment is a joke. the policies that have led to our debt are the two Bush tax cuts and the two Bush wars. the recovery act added more, but its impact was nowhere near that of the tax cuts and the wars so unless you want to blame them on Obama then this comment can be disregarded.

regarding Iraq, I'll admit I don't have nearly enough expertise on foreign policy to determine whether Obama's approach has been more or less effective than what McCain would have done. I'll claim ignorance here b/c I'm not in a strong position to comment, beyond the basic observation that his admin inherited these wars.

on the 'shovel ready' stuff, the recovery act is widely recognized as the most transparent large spending project in our nation's history, with the least amount of fraud. could it be true that some projects took longer to get running than they had hoped? of course.

Not sure how you know with 100% certainty things would have been worse unless you are God. Surely not even you think that highly of yourself?

I don't. What I know is that states and localities were facing catastrophic budget crises. Maybe things would have been fine if federal funds were not used to ensure that school funding was maintained and that police departments did not shrink. We have some evidence about what might have happened - we can turn back to the early 1980s when the federal government started to retreat from spending federal aid for 'urban' programs like, for instance, housing or flexible funds for localities like the comm dev block grant. What happened then was cities fell apart - public schools began to deteriorate, police depts were overwhelmed, crime exploded. My speculation is that this is where we might have been headed without the recovery act.

Do you honestly think schools will close, police and firemen will not exist anymore or hospitals will stop treating patients if Romney is elected?

I think we are headed toward a politics of austerity, which will accelerate and take a specific form if Romney/Ryan are elected. Romney/Ryan are proposing more tax cuts and the only spending cuts that they are explicit about are cuts in social spending. This is the least important contributing factor to our nation's debt. Schools are not going to close if funding levels drop, but class sizes will probably rise and quality will probably drop. Police and fireman will still exist but they will be depleted - there are a number of places across the country where police depts have already been cut drastically and are limiting the types of crime to which they will respond. Whether this matters to you depends on whether you think the impact will be severe and whether you care about the importance of public institutions and public spaces. I think that investments in public institutions and public spaces are important.

 

[RDU Irish]

If by "joke" you mean "incredibly insightful analogy" then we can agree on something.

Last I checked, Bush is not on the ticket. I will agree that military spending equal to that of the next 8 countries combined is silly to say we can't cut ANY of it. My point is Obama did not accelerate the withdrawal, which is a broken promise any way you cut it and one of the few areas I agreed with some of the rhetoric he was spewing. Obama has been mostly a continuation of Bush policies on the war(s). I do think he was able to invade Pakistan's sovereignty for drone strikes were a Republican may not have the political capital to pull it off, which would have made the Seal Team 6 call a bit more difficult for someone else. Oh snap, did I just give Obama props?

I appreciate your points on state spending, however states managed to balance their budgets in good order (with a few exceptions). Funny how mostly liberal states are the ones with the biggest deficits. By funny I mean incredibly predictable. See the Scott Walker thread if you want a discussion on state spending decisions. Now imagine freezing ALL federal pensions and converting to a 401k style system. I think I just made BobD and Rhode"s head explode just buy suggesting such a thing! However, I would love to see a poll on the popularity of such a thing. I would guess 70% support by the public.

 

[GoIrish41]

Now imagine freezing ALL federal pensions and converting to a 401k style system. I think I just made BobD and Rhode"s head explode just buy suggesting such a thing! However, I would love to see a poll on the popularity of such a thing. I would guess 70% support by the public.

In the DoD, this program is called the Thrift Savings Plan. During the recession, many of my co-workers lost upwards of half or more of their retirement savings. I would suggest polling this group of people -- you know, the ones who actually have real world experience in the application of such a 401k-style system. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that you would get anywhere near 70% support from them. They know that greedy banks can make the bottom fall out of the market at the drop of a hat, and they have paid a hefty price to learn that lesson.

RDU, we all love ya man, but please let me make a suggestion. And, I'm not trying to be a smarta**. I'm seriously trying to give you some sound advice. ... You really should stop talking about politics -- not just on this thread but everywhere. In order to debate, you must first be willing to understand the other side's position so that you can effectively counter that position. You seem entirely unwilling to do that. Indeed, you are fairly cartoonish in your lack of understanding of the issues. You should not talk about politics because you are just not good at it.

 

[jason_h537]

I can not comment on RDU Irish's post regarding his personal experiences with Obama's policies because each individual will have a different expereince. Income, profits, number of employees, even location, can have an affect. There is a reason that Obamacare was designed the way it was, here is a very simple breakdown of the thought process behind it Obama's Hole Card: Preexisting Conditions | Mother Jones

As for blaming Bush, $14 trillion is directly a result of his policies. But even that number is dishonest because some of Clinton's policies led to debt growth under Bush. Presidents always get more credit and shoulder more blame than they deserve. I know guys who still argue the economic boom under Clinton was due to Reagan, and that is a 12 year difference.

Regarding state spending. Scott Walker balanced his budget thanks to stimulus money. California has a huge budget problem but the state pays more in taxes than it takes from the government. Wisconsin takes more federal money than it pays in taxes. If this were a business, Wisconsin would be in the red, because the parent company is losing money on that state.

Do you honestly think schools will close, police and firemen will not exist anymore or hospitals will stop treating patients if Romney is elected?

We do not know, all we have is Ryan's budget and Romney's outline because they refuse to release or talk details. All economists can do is make projections based on the numbers they do have, and the consensus is the numbers do not add up. Based on the information given, all social programs will face cuts as high as 40%, that includes schools, cops, and firefighters.

 

[Rhode Irish]

With regard to the poll attached to this thread: I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this board is dominated by white men (I'm sure there are some non-white, non-male members on this board who voted here). If Romney only gets 52% of the white male vote, this election will not be nearly as close as most people (myself included) expect.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I would like Romney to explain what "loopholes" he would eliminate in order to pay for his huge tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I would like Romney to explain what "loopholes" he would eliminate in order to pay for his huge tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

Only things rich people use, like the mortgage deduction, charitable giving deduction, student loan interest deduction, etc. Obviously.

 

[jason_h537]

With regard to the poll attached to this thread: I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this board is dominated by white men (I'm sure there are some non-white, non-male members on this board who voted here). If Romney only gets 52% of the white male vote, this election will not be nearly as close as most people (myself included) expect.

I would say this board is consisted of mostly christian conservatives which naturally vote GOP. Last time i checked (this is pre-conventions) for Romney to win he would require 61% of white voters if white voters equal 74% of of votes cast. If that makes sense. Obama would need 80% of minorities if minorities equal 26% of all voters. Obama far surpasses the 80% in polls but the question is will 26% (or higher) of voters be minorities this election like in 2008.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Only things rich people use, like the mortgage deduction, charitable giving deduction, student loan interest deduction, etc. Obviously.

Is it that those deductions would be eliminated why Romney and Ryan refuse to even name one way they will pay for their tax cut? Those aren't "loopholes." They are relied upon by millions of middle class families. He Romney wants to win, he better start explaining his plans.

 

[BobD]

Is it that those deductions would be eliminated why Romney and Ryan refuse to even name one way they will pay for their tax cut? Those aren't "loopholes." They are relied upon by millions of middle class families. He Romney wants to win, he better start explaining his plans.

I think Romney's plan depends on what day it is, or what suit he's wearing. I haven't quite figured that out yet and Ryan seems to have bumped his head or something because he voted FOR some Obama things he says he's AGAINST now. They both seem to change their mind A LOT. Makes me wonder......they've started to pull out of some states, maybe they changed their mind about running?

 

[connor_in]

J/k

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Originally Posted by Rhode Irish
With regard to the poll attached to this thread: I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this board is dominated by white men (I'm sure there are some non-white, non-male members on this board who voted here). If Romney only gets 52% of the white male vote, this election will not be nearly as close as most people (myself included) expect.

I would say this board is consisted of mostly christian conservatives which naturally vote GOP. Last time i checked (this is pre-conventions) for Romney to win he would require 61% of white voters if white voters equal 74% of of votes cast. If that makes sense. Obama would need 80% of minorities if minorities equal 26% of all voters. Obama far surpasses the 80% in polls but the question is will 26% (or higher) of voters be minorities this election like in 2008.

I think you guys are on to something, I sent out a questionaire to some people I know. Particularly people I know that told me they didn't vote for Obama in '08 and weren't hard core Republicans. I believe the racial element may diminish this time around. In fact, I think that it may have a disguised trend effect.

 

[jason_h537]

I think Romney's plan depends on what day it is, or what suit he's wearing. I haven't quite figured that out yet and Ryan seems to have bumped his head or something because he voted FOR some Obama things he says he's AGAINST now. They both seem to change their mind A LOT. Makes me wonder......they've started to pull out of some states, maybe they changed their mind about running?

The parties have numbers that we are completely in the dark to. PA is going Obama, Michigan has been looking Obama so I assume that the Romney campaign are aware of something we are not. I have trouble believing they pulled out of Ohio because there is no way they can win without it. Currently Obama is almost assured 247 votes with 7 states in play. If Obama wins Florida again, its over, if he wins Ohio, Romney would need to win all 6 remaining states to pull off the victory. What I have been reading is that they are working on a new campaign strategy because the one they were using has completely backfired.

Side note, I find it incredible that Romney will not only lose the state he was Governor for, but also his home state. Can anyone name the last president to lose either, let alone both? Has that ever happened?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Horace B. Foggybottom

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Not trying to start anything, and with all respect; do you see where your conflation is?

No.

 

[connor_in]

I think you guys are on to something, I sent out a questionaire to some people I know. Particularly people I know that told me they didn't vote for Obama in '08 and weren't hard core Republicans. I believe the racial element may diminish this time around. In fact, I think that it may have a disguised trend effect.

Think the Bradley effect may apply?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Is it that those deductions would be eliminated why Romney and Ryan refuse to even name one way they will pay for their tax cut? Those aren't "loopholes." They are relied upon by millions of middle class families. He Romney wants to win, he better start explaining his plans.

Well, that is why they say "loop holes" instead of being specific about what they want to do. If the middle class voters that he needs to win understood what he was actually going to do, they would get crushed.

 

[BobD]

Side note, I find it incredible that Romney will not only lose the state he was Governor for, but also his home state. Can anyone name the last president to lose either, let alone both? Has that ever happened?

Romney was a disaster as Governor. He only won the job because he was in the right place at the right time. He didn't meet the residency requirements, but used a loop hole to get around that. His approval rating was about 35% his last year. He didn't run for re-election because... 1. He was only attempting to use the position as stepping stone to the white house and 2. He would have been trounced in an election.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Think the Bradley effect may apply?

Doubt it. People thought the Bradley affect would apply in '08. Theory has gone out the window.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Think the Bradley effect may apply?

No.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

No.

Your father and I am not the same person.

At least I don't think so; how the hell old did you say you were?

 

[In Lou I Trust]

.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Romney was a disaster as Governor. He only won the job because he was in the right place at the right time. He didn't meet the residency requirements, but used a loop hole to get around that. His approval rating was about 35% his last year. He didn't run for re-election because... 1. He was only attempting to use the position as stepping stone to the white house and 2. He would have been trounced in an election.

Disaster?

Solves a mutli-billion dollar budget gap (many said it was the worst in MA history), brings in private consultants to close loopholes corporations were using to escape taxes and exploit the state, helped the legislature create the popular Romney-care, served while unemployment went down to ~4.3%.

Sounds like, popular or not, he did some awesome things in in Massachusetts. From what I've read from the WSJ, his unpopularity was due t his politics, not his policies. He tried to get Republicans in my local elections which was disastrous politically, and he served in the midst of the collapse of the Bush-era GOP. If you thought he was going to be popular in the most liberal state in the country, you're clueless.

I think there's a lot to be said on being a first-time public executive and making obvious mistakes there. He obviously learned that you have to take your private-sector hat off when you're dealing with voters. It shows.

A nice read: Eric Convey: Massachusetts Lessons About a President Romney - WSJ.com

OMGZZZ ROMNEY IS EVIL AND ALL GOP ARE XENOPHOBIC MENIACSSS OMGZZZ

 

[Buster Bluth]

Side note, I find it incredible that Romney will not only lose the state he was Governor for, but also his home state. Can anyone name the last president to lose either, let alone both? Has that ever happened?

Nixon's home state was New York (born in California), and won in 1968.

Candidates have lost their home state (and their election) pretty often. Most notable is probably Theodore Roosevelt and New York in 1912.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Did he lose both?

 

[Buster Bluth]

No he won California.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think the original question was has anyone lost both when they were different. Bushes didn't because they both won Texas, although they lost Conneticuit, and Massachusetts. And I am pretty sure that having a different home and birth state is pretty much a 20th century phenomenon.

Hey, what about Abe Lincoln?